This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Dramatic Drone's-Eye View Of The Record Upstate New York Snowfall
With half the nation covered in snow, according to ABC, nowhere appears to have had it worse (or more suddenly) than upstate New York. As images pour in from lake-effect snow, to The Buffalo Bills stadium, and from scenes caught in a snow storm to pandas playing, we thought the following stunning drone's-eye-view over Erie County was both incredible in its beauty and cruel in its GDP-destroying reality.
A Drone's eye view of the beauty (and GDP cruelty) of a snow-buried upstate New York
This is what it's like to be stuck in a snowstorm in Buffalo...
More ABC US news | ABC World News
* * *
A little more than half the nation (50.4%) is covered in snow as of November 17. Incredible! pic.twitter.com/w5ubuF90eQ
— WCAV-TV Weather (@CBS19Weather) November 18, 2014
* * *
With The National Guard being deployed to help, the situation is dramatic...
Buffalo's first snowstorm of the season could give the area a year's worth of snow — around 8 feet — in just three days.
More than 5 feet of snow was already on the ground Wednesday, and another round of lake-effect snow is forecast to bring an additional 3 feet of snow to the Buffalo area on Thursday and Friday. The average snowfall for an entire year: 93.6 inches, or close to 8 feet.
"This is a historic event. When all is said and done, this snowstorm will break all sorts of records, and that's saying something in Buffalo," Gov. Andrew Cuomo said during a visit to the city.
* * *
Some amazing images from Buffalo and surrounding areas...
»
- 45502 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I recall in 1978 a similar storm hit London Ontario (just north of Lake Erie, but south of Lake Huron, so it gets some of the 'lake effect' snow as well). We got four feet overnight. I was commenting "Wow! I've never seen this" to an old time resident (I'd been there about six months), and he just shrugged and said "It happens every few years".
There is nothing, son, under the wildebeest.
Climate change is just a myth :/
The bad news is that it's probably true. The good news is that it's been going on for about 4.6 billion years, so it isn't manmade.
Snow?!?! You can't handle the snow!
Things in Putin regime goon occupied teritories doesn't look good at all. People are mad at those goons because doesn't have no money, no access to medicine, food, etc.
So woman gathers in group and goes to self declared mayor. Funny thing is - they don't kow how he looks :) They ask to man - who are you? I am mayor :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9VcppSEajU
Yes... cold winter indeed...
"Things in Putin regime goon occupied teritories doesn't look good at all. People are mad at those goons because doesn't have no money, no access to medicine, food, etc."
I'm sure all those nice Latvians will send food and money out of what they earn being a paid troll.
This guy is so dumb he probably does it for free.
It's all about Free Dumb in Latvia
But.....but, what about Global Warming? I mean Climate Change?
I suspect most readers here are intellectually capable of distinguishing weather from climate, and precipitation from temperature.
Global warming was originally a scientific term to indicate that the average temperature of the entire planet is increasing; i.e. it refers to climate, not weather.
Especially considering the widespread scientific illiteracy — especially in the USA — it's unfortunate that term became popularized, as so many, unlike a reasonably scientifically literate 12-year old, are unable to grasp how global warming (the scientific term), because it increases evaporation from the oceans and thus significantly changes wind patterns creates, not just local temperature increases, but all sorts of weather extremes, most notably increased precipitation.
Key word is 'capable'.
chaingmai,
you may suspect all you like, but what you seem to've failed to expect is that some readers on this site are capable of distinguishing voo-doo from science.
'climate-science' is yet another vain attempt to reduce a phenomena to its constituent elements and pronounce mastery over them. how many pseudo-sciences must we endure before you voo-doo high priests are exposed as charlatans? your tone is just oozing with condescension and preening smugness; and yet, you have no idea how foolish you seem to a critical thinker. we've allowed our nation to be sculpted according to the 'science' of sociology and psychology, and we've made a catastrophic mess of society and the human psyche. i am so sick of megalomaniacs declaring themselves experts in fields wherein we have very limited understanding. just because we have term for something (i.e. climate), doesn't mean we can quantify and calculate concerning it -- much less form reliable predictions. shit, dumbass, the farmer's almanac is FAR more accurate than all of climate science put together. but its predictive reliability is meaningless to climate 'scientists'; in that all high-priests must pretend to hold the sacred knowledge -- lest their little cult falls apart, and the people seek to stone them in the streets.
you've made a religion out of quackery and pseudo-science, chaingmai...and i know it's tough to admit that your pagan idols are just that; because the tendency with atavistic paganism is to reinforce the mystique of the false deity by forever imputing to it more and more power...that is to say, now that your little pagan idol has failed to effect the promised prophesy of warming, you now say he has the power to cool -- and was doing that all along. and when it again warms, you will then bow to your graven image in awe and wonder proclaiming it omnipotent.
well, chiangmai, i am not willing to permit anymore sacrifices to your swine-god of climate-science. this nation and the western world will no longer lay its treasure at the feet of your heathen demons.
sure, i know there are certain nations in the east and in the southern hemisphere that is desperate for the west to pay homage to this nonsense, but i'm of a mind to put these voo-doo priests of climate science in stocks and let "reasonably scientifically" (sic) literate 12-year old children throw whatever they like at them...maybe some flaming copies of some al gore screed.
go preach your idiocy to the swarms of peasants in shanghi...not really sure how you'll sell CO2 voo-doo to a billion-plus recently introduced to protein and raised on the materialist dialectic, but it's worth a shot. maybe you should write a little book and bind it in red -- i hear the chinese go bananas for little red books.
go take a great leap forward off a glacier.
i'm starting to think your country would make a great colony for japan. it worked in the past.
cheers to the future,
janus
"…well, chiangmai, i am not willing to permit anymore sacrifices to your swine-god of climate-science…"
I'm confident that the reading comprehension abilities of most here are sufficient that few mis-read my comment as being either for or against "climate-science."
Rather, my point was simply that the empty-headed mocking of "global warming" by scientific illiterates every time there is a record-breaking snowfall somewhere (in this case, ironically, in Buffalo, NY) has become quite tiresome.
Your point is blunted a bit by the fact that there hasn't been warming in 15 years where the models said there would be, and there is more ice and snow, and for that matter ozone then the models predicted.
In real science, Chiang - science not so affected by the political ideology of grant funders and University Provosts, when your models are entirely wrong, you go back and revise your theory.
The shift from 'global warming' to 'climate change' warrants a couple giggles, if you're being honest.
This isn't to say I don't thnk it possible that the massive addition of C02 to the atmosphere could shift climate and weather patterns.
But it's also not as much C02 as claimed, and me, I'm more worried about pollution and radioactivity.
I also think that there is far, far more entropy in the systems which generate second to second and decade to decade weather/climate.
In fact, a review of what the models from 10 or 15 years ago predicted should tell you that either the underlying premise is wrong, or there was never enough information in the models to warrant being such arrogant cunts about their predictions.
Signed,
A legit scientician.
"The shift from 'global warming' to 'climate change' warrants a couple giggles, if you're being honest..."
It warrants a couple giggles only from those who don't have the slightest inkling that "global warming" was originally a scientific term that did not mean what the scientifically illiterate think it means, and who therefore mock a term they don't understand nearly every time it snows or is cold somewhere.
The puerile rubbish liberally splattered throughout Janus' comment above obviously merited no response, but regarding my previous comments, those who unwittingly engage in straw man fallacies might benefit from:
(1) about 60 seconds here
followed by
(2) about 30 seconds here
now you've really fucked-up...
please explain what i'm missing. global: means worldwide. warming: means an increase in temperature. put the two together and we scientific illiterates conclude that the term means worldwide rise in temperatures. it should furthermore interest you that there were MANY specific predictions that flowed from the principal of 'global warming'. i do not recall these scientists predicting a massive expansion of the arctic ice sheets; i do not remember any projections of record-breaking winters in terms of intensity and duration; and for the life of me i can't remember them anticipating snow in florida...they said a good portion of it would by now be returned to the sea.
and so, since you've insulted janus, i insist that you define for us precisely what is meant by 'global warming'. for you see, 'climate change' is as nebulous a term as there ever was...it defies scientific specificity. now this may shock you, chaingmai, but the very nature of climate is change. it would be like janus coining a term like 'flowing river' and declaring it a scientific discipline.
throw in the towel, climate clowns...your half-baked dogma is a festering mess of propaganda meant to hobble western dynamism. now go back to your bolshevik handlers and ask for further instructions.
i'm not sure you understand what a strawman is...unless you are yourself a strawman.
janus
Janus wrote:
"now you've really fucked-up...throw in the towel, climate clowns...now go back to your bolshevik handlers…"
I seem to have become involved in conducting a free reading comprehension tutorial — which wouldn't be so bad, except for the fact that, as illustrated above, some of the careless readers are, intellectually, just children.
But for those who are simply sincere adult careless readers, I'll make one final effort:
I suggest reading my original comment again, perhaps more slowly.
My point was simply that the empty-headed one-liners (in this case, from Monty Burns: But.....but, what about Global Warming? I mean Climate Change?) attempting to mock "climate change" or "global warming" or whatever term one wants to use, seemingly nearly every time it snows or gets cold somewhere, in my opinion, are becoming tiresome (i.e. they are neither entertaining nor informative).
Note that nowhere have I indicated any views on climate change/global warming.
What I've found most amusing about the responses that are apparently prompted by baseless conjecture regarding my views — even those not splattered with childish ad hominems — is that, were I to express an opinion on this, that opinion would likely be the opposite of what those directing long-winded responses my way apparently assume it would be.
you declared that you know what 'global warming' really meant; i asked you to define it, and you refuse.
i don't need you to explicitly declare your postion on global warming. whenever you insult vishnu and someone bristles, you don't need a climate scientist to tell you you're dealing with a hindu. ipso facto, insult the tenets of climatology and just wait for the AGWorshipers to come out of the woodwork...and, poof, here you are.
now, i will again ask that you share this definition of 'global warming'...you know, the one to which you referred in your original post and still cannot/will-not express in clear & concise scientific language.
you wanna ad hominem attack? janus sez you're chicken-shit...or should i say 'yellow', chaingmai?
Why don't you do some reading and quit being an illiterate ass like your other denying friends out her. Racist prick that you are.
believe it our not, massbytes, i've done a bit of reading...most if it is rank propaganda written by anti-western racists and communists like you. you, dear boy, are a useful idiot for powers you do not understand. you think you're 'saving the earth' yet you're ignorantly participating in the decay of western civilization. so go chant your slogans like 'kill the boer' or what have you. it's nitwits like you who labor to promote an agenda whose central purpose is the destruction of the greatest force for good the world has ever known, western Christendom.
you have no argument, you make no point, you call names and you're fueled by hatred; and janus is the racist prick? i'm not the racist; i want all the swarthy swarms of bedoins and troglodytes to leave us the fuck alone and return to their edens of sewage, squalor and superstition, and from a GREAT distance teach us how much better they are than we -- and i'd love it if you followed them there. you can with them subsist on a diet of crickets and chic-peas and reduce your carbon footprint to a dot...you'll be a paragon of anti-racist and environmental virtue.
riddle me this, assbyte: if we're so goddam evil, why does everyone covet what we've built?
and since your 'science' is so obscenely specious, i'd advise you start blaming 'climate change' on the easter bunny or santa claus...both are far more plausible than CO2; but don't get your panties in a wad if i start to deny them, too.
love,
the white devil
"...Racist prick that you are."
Fortunately though, sufficiently emotionally immature and intellectually lacking to be at least occasionally amusing in his or her feeble attempts at prickness:
Perhaps unbeknownst to janus…
janus sez you're chicken-shit...or should i say 'yellow', chaingmai?
...Chiang Mai is a place — a town in Thailand. I, on the other hand, a US citizen born in Michigan, happen to be 100% Caucasian (< definition, in the event needed by janus: a white person; a person of European origin).
i kinda suspected you were a wicked white person...and a colonialist to boot! shame on you, chianmai!
i hope nobody takes this shit too seriously or personally around here (but i know they do)...i mean, hell, this is Fight Club. and where i grew up it was the custom to go fist-a-cuffs and then stand up, shake hands and play again like nothing ever happened.
i'll never deny that a lot of well-intentioned and very good people subscribe to the AGW stuff...but i'm convinced it's a plot to cripple the west -- you know, states like michigan, a one-time industrial power-house that's been reduced to a rusting hulk because of an onslaught of agendas just like AGW. sounds good to itching ears that seek to attach themselves to noble causes, but in the end is more dangerous to young minds than syphillis and fluoride combined.
but, you seem to be a gentleman, and so i extend the playground handshake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kerUbfOQTW0
janus
It's difficult to determine for certain, but in the event that janus' comment above includes more baseless conjecture and/or demonstrates more reading comprehension problems:
• I haven't lived in Michigan for 37 years, nor have I indicated here any interest in Michigan.
• I don't "subscribe to the AGW stuff," nor have I indicated or implied that here.
i was trying to be nice; you refuse the velvet glove, and so you get the chain-mail fist.
alright you dundering dickhead, i will determine everything for you and for certain. i don't give a fuck what about your bonafides or your affections viz. michigan; you brought it up and mentioned it as your place of birth, i utilized it as an example to make a point. whether or not you do subscribe to one thing or another, you initiated an insult against someone with a posture of superiority and a claim of insights that placed you in the lofty realms of the 'scientifically literate'. it is furthermore interesting that you would go out of your way to mock someone for making an innocent and snarky comment about AGW not, mind you, with an emphasis on the triteness or overuse of the AGW joking, but instead addressing their lack of textured understanding of 'science', of which you by implication esteem yourself as something of an expert.
and this brings me to a larger point. you for some reason think i have some interest in your opinions or insights; you've demonstrated yourself to be somewhere in the range of oh, i'd say 110 to 115 IQ, and though you're likely highly functioning and have had some success in life, you are to my way of understanding things a slightly advanced drone. capable of recycling bits and pieces of ideas you've gathered along the way, but altogether lacking anything in the way of lucidity or giftedness. let me put it to you this way, i was using you all along to make a point...and, yes, i confess -- tis a bit unfair picking on someone smaller than you, but it was all for a good cause -- attacking AGW and faith-based science. and i wanted to sling you around a little cause it's fun...like that video where the killer whale tosses the seal about in the waves.
all of which is to say, i am and have been fucking with you. let me make two things exceedingly clear: i do not care about your opinions and i'm not really addressing you, it's more about 'them'. do you really think i would dignify a mind like yours with a legitimate debate? yeah, i know, you haven't really said anything...and that's sorta the point.
you know those ole fashion blow-up punching dummies with the sand in the bottom? remember how they'd pop right back up each time you whack em? that's basically what's going on here...you keep saying retarded shit in an attempt to rationalize the idiotic comment we started with and i keep using you to throw stones at poeple who may or may not agree with you on AGW. but, most importantly, i felt as though you could use a thorough humbling. you just leap out telling people that they don't know what they're talking about with 'climate science' and you've given absolutely no indication that you do.
i knew you wouldn't attempt a legitimate debate because you're a coward, refusing to take one position or the other after you call someone out for doing just that.
please let me know if you'd like another serving.
sincerely,
janus
and 90 seconds here. James Burke's 1989 doc with the title 'After The WARMING' where he uses the term "climate change" less than 90 seconds into the presentation. If one watches the whole thing you'll see example after example of how comments too often seen here such as "the carbon tax", "we need more research", computer models which "nobody agreed with anyway" have been around for 25 fucking years. Tiresome is putting it mildly.
Most people didn't know diddly about global warming until 2005 and those 'exposing' a change in terminology sound ridiculous as you point out ChiangMai.
So tell us Monty and JHorse, when exactly did this giggle fest start ???
Maybe Lore can pop by and tell us again about the critical thinkers and stuff
When you enter into a discussion on global warming you enter a bizarro-world-opposite-land where terms and definitions mean either the opposite of what they should logically mean, or completely alternative things entirely. Call it academic illiteracy. The act of reading is not sufficient qualification for being classed as literate: comprehending what is read is what is in the domain of actual human cognition. Such is, and will continue to be, impossible, so long as such abuse of language, reason, and the scientific method, is allowed to persist.
Joker James Burke and Michell Jarraud are academically iliterate? LULZ call MEAN BUSINESS anything you want ROFL
Who funded the production of After The Warming 25 years ago?
As JB said "then the politicians got involved" which is EXACTLY where we are in November 2014 with the final press release this month of AR5. What has changed in 25 years? LULZ
See you in Peru if not sooner bitch! : )
call me crazy chaingmai, but when you imply that some are scientifically illiterate because they don't acknowledge 'climate science', and then go on to reveal your frustrations that they've childishly confused the terms weather and climate (and since the latter is apriori of the former, and because specific weather conditions are indicative of general/cyclical climactic trends (otherwise, without weather we have no basis by which to understand climate), it isn't really that foolish to conflate the two), it leads me to believe that you were in fact indirectly asserting that the rejection of climate-science is a simple-minded failure to genuflect before our demi-gods in lab-coats.
i KNOW you're not calling into question the reading comprehension of janus...now THAT would be foolish indeed.
and you wanna talk about tiresome? how many marches have climate-science deniers held? how many regulations have we forced upon universities to enforce scientific rigor in their models (and we most definitely should...fudge data and go activist and your funding & accreditation are immediately pulled)? how much have we taxed the the lifestyles of those who disagree with us? you wanna talk about tiresome? i'm so goddam weary of the climate whiners that i could vomit.
and i'll make you a promise: once those mush-minded ninnies cease and desist with the totemic climate worship and AGW hogwash, there will be no more jokes about snowstorms.
till then, get ready for some laughter therapy...now take your medicine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCf6WtVxRLQ
janus
Bravo Janus.
Glad I left buffalo when I did.
That's all well and good but the pertinent question is " do you float?"
depends on my fiber intake.
Let me be scientific, me being a scientist and all. Okay. A few words about "climate change".
The "climate" has been changing for as long as earth has existed. One could almost say that the definition of climate is... change (in temperature, in humidity, in barometric pressure, and so forth).
If temperature never changed, if humidity never changed, if barometric pressure never changed... there would be no term "climate". The entire point of "climate" is... that these characteristics change (temperature, humidity, etc).
And so the phrase "climate change" just means "change change". Which is a pretty stupid phrase, don't you think?
The average temperature on earth was much colder in the past.
The average temperature on earth was much hotter in the past.
In recent years and decades, "climate change" has become pure politics, with any mention of science being nothing more than an attempt to justify the enslavement of mankind by human predators (oligarchs).
To be sure, a science of climate can exist, and perhaps 100 years ago did. But the current "science czar" who now claims mankind must pay him and his fellow human predators-that-be for global warming wrote a book about 40 years ago in which he claimed mankind must pay him and his fellow human predators-that-be for global cooling (the "coming ice age").
The entire scientific premise of AGW is massive fraud. The claims of AGW are easily proven massive frauds. Amazing that people can't figure out some of the most hilarious ways to show the claims of the AGW predators are totally bogus.
They don't notice, for example, that the MWP (medieval warm period) wasn't that long ago in terms of the history of earth. They forget that written works still exist from that era that describe the weather and growing conditions in many parts of the world at that time... and show quite clearly that the average temperature was quite a bit warmer than today. One doesn't even need to be a scientist to read books from that era.
The notion that islands and coastlines would be under water is yet another completely bogus lie. Apparently people don't realize that all snow on earth could melt with practically no rise in ocean levels. But hush... that is a very inconvenient truth! Don't want to let that factoid get around, do we?
The weather has been "extreme" from time to time for my whole life. Ask [great] grandparents and they'll tell you about winters worse than the current one.
For the average temperature to rise is good for mankind. More places can grow food, less energy burned to keep warm, and so forth. And as real evidence proves, the coastlines will NOT be flooded (that's just a pure made-up lie).
One of the worst aspects of the AGW fraud is... it has misdirected thousands if not millions of advocates of "proper care of the environment and end of pollution" into a fraud that just enriches corporations and empowers predators-DBA-government.
We need to end water pollution, air pollution, and probably even more important is to end food pollution in the USSA and other corporate-predator controlled region of the planet. We need to plant lots more green plants to convert CO2 to O2... NOT because the CO2 is a problem, but because higher O2 is good for humans. Which means if they absolutely must clear-cut some amazon forests, they must follow up with massive planting campaigns afterwards. And of course limit the clear-cutting and retain a great deal of native jungle and forest. And STOP dumping nuclear poison in the ocean by the giga-ton (Fukashima). The fact that GE and other corporations are not forced to go find ways to stop that disaster from getting worse, and then to reverse the damage to the extent possible, is egregious!
AGW is just one more scam that serves to misdirect well intentioned human beings towards something that benefits those predators who call themselves corporations and governments. Which has left vastly fewer well intentioned folks to focus on the problems that need to be addressed.
This was predicted , as well as many more to come .
See
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2014/11/slingshot-atmospheric-rivers.html
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2013/02/atmospheric-rivers.html
This should be seen as an opportunity to replenish aquifers by steerning the arkstorms .
all the most scientific climactic indicators are of a single accord -- squirrels at peak obesity, rheumatics inflamed for weeks now, the elderly already grumbling at an alarming pitch -- this winter's gonna be a bitch.
and i say it's time we all chow down on some crow...we owe it to vice president albert gore jr. he predicted that much of amorica would now be under water; and just because he failed to anticipate the phase this horrible H2O would assume doesn't mean we don't all owe him an apology. come january, his whole estate in tennessee may well be under water; only, that of the frozen variety. and so, mr. masseuse mauler, you get a half-credit for your visionary crusading. and that's the problem with you, mr. gore. you posed this whole global warming issue to janus as if it were a rhetorical exclamation. sorta like GLOBAL WARMING!!! and i'm supposed to be all-like, "oh-no!"; and you never politely asked janus concerning his preference. you should instead have asked, "how would you like your global warming, mr. janus?", and i'd be all-like, "Mediterraneanish with an occasional splash of bermuda."
and so it is that i feel obliged to share some advice with my brethern down in dixie; inasmuch as janus has observed this physical phenomena up close and can therefore lecture endlessly and expertly on it. it's only taken two full winters in new england and i know more about it than any ornery yankee geezer. always remember, it was janus who predicted the internet long before albert gore had a chance to invent it...and that claim is all the credential i need to speak as an authority on any matter.
The Snow:
dearly beloved rednecks,
when a blizzard strikes, it is best to park your car at the edge of your driveway. i mention this because you will have to shovel quite a bit of it, and the further the distance you leave between your car and the road, the more snow you'll have to shovel. but before you do this, you must acquire a snow-shovel. nothing else will work...trust me. (i learned all of these lessons in the hardest possible way).
here's the thing about snow, it's deceptive in every way. you get one of those cute and impossibly unique flakes caught on the tip of your nose and you think, 'how light and delicate...awwww, it's beautiful!'. and so you look at that frosty loam piled four feet high behind your auto and you imagine that you're going to be tossing about some stuff that's lighter than autumn's shed foliage. and the first time you stab the blade of that snow shovel into the stuff you're taken off guard by its heft. but you man-up and stiff-upper-lip it thinking it only feels heavy relative to your expectation that it be light as leaves.
after a few hundred scoops with the snow shovel it starts to hurt...everywhere. and then the temptation is to get clever and out-wit this wintery menace. you look at the distance you've shoveled and consider the searing pain accumulating up and down your spine...you dismiss it as too-cowardly and base to ask your wife for help...you start to put together a plan. man & machine -- put em together and see what may come.
being a redneck, it may occur to you that the dukes of hazard strategy is best suited to the challenge. a little ram-blasting with a super-charged V-8 is a default tactic in dixie. and let's say you're already late for work. well, if you get it in mind that you'll floor the accelerator and smash through the last remaining 10 feet or so, i'd advise that you pause first and think it all the way through.
what may happen is that your auto could ramp-up on the drift and pack the snow beneath your chassis into a solid block of ice, leaving your back tires elevated and spinning. oh, my brothers, now you're fucked.
now you're going to have to get a real shovel and other steel-bladed implements and crawl under your car while you pick away at the block of ice you've just compacted....that is, after you finish shoveling the 6 or so feet that your dukes-of-hazard strategy left as remainders of your failure.
you will likely experience mild-frostbite and total hearing loss for a half an hour or so; but you'll have learned a very valuable lesson about parking at the edge of your driveway when a blizzard is on its way.
also, shovel a lane for your postman...if you fail to do so, he/she may think you ill-mannered and seek some form of retribution.
as far as driving in the snow goes, the best and only sensible strategy is to drive a bigger vehicle than the person you're going to slide into. mass and momentum are your friend in blizzard-collisions...don't be afraid to use them.
also, being snow-bound can drive you crazy -- stay aware of your mood at all times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STymVjlysmg
this has been a public service announcement from janus, your friendly neighborhood fatted squrrils, the rhumatics coalition and the numberless hordes of grumbling new england curmudgeons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVWdf1Ky2bI
janus
You should visit the Yukon.
Yellowknife is lovely this time of year.
I think you meant Whitehorse.
Or alternatively you want him to visit the Northwest Territories (not the Yukon, but neighboring it)
i'd like to see both and more still. i understand that much of canada is magnificent...from nova scotia to british columbia -- it's said to be a land of breathtaking beauty.
and speaking of beauty, i've come to discover that lasses in cold climates are desperate to stay warm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqD6m55mTGU
Global warming must be stopped !
'Global Warming' has been politically corrected...
The ammended term is now 'Climate Change', just as serious a situation but means the weather could drive temperatures either way.
"Hella of job Snowie"
What's the drone flyer's interest with that guys garage?
Umm - it's his own garage. You can see him at the controls of the RC unit though the snow flakes. Nice shot.
I got it now. Thanks, I missed that :-(
You can't watch this .......
Unmanned drones are used by groups as widely dispersed as hobbyists who want to take videos of their neighborhoods to Amazon.com Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN), which wants to use the machines to make deliveries. No matter what the use, it could be severely restricted by a ruling set by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Drones may not fly unregulated. The case that will begin a clampdown in earnest concerned drone use
Thanks, I've been waiting for news on that ruling.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ntsb-ruling-calling-drones-aircrafts-could-s...
I keep looking for the constitutional authorization for the feds top regulate airspace and can't find it. Must have gotten lost in the blizzard.
Is this the end of life as we know it that al gore spoke off?
Quiet day on the hedge today. Safe to say that a large percentage of bloggers are a tad "preoccupied" with the weather. Reminiscent of "Sandy" fallout a couple years ago. Power and internet is probably out in many bastions of ZH.
Listen.
I always correlate it to fair weather bears but foul weather bears has a nice ring too.
when does hell freeze over in Bangalore?
Suck it up bitchez
signed,
Munger
If everything is proof of anthropogenic climate change, then nothing is.
You hit the nail on the head. Global Warming Conjecture is nonfalsifiable, and thus isn't science.
i up-arrowed you for thoughtfulness, but i have some questions.
do these climate scientists factor the sun's radiation as a constant, or is there an understanding within that community of its fluctuations?
how can a science that fundamentally deals with convection through a medium (the atmosphere) even pretend that the laws of thermodynamics aren't at play...of course they are...or is physics somehow suspended to maintain the appearance of consensus within said community?
some of the points presented seem to negate one another. for example, radiation cannot move 'freely' through the atmosphere if it is at the same time displacing its heat in certain gases that radiate and others that don't. additionally, is there any appreciation for the interplay of the various gases at different pressures and at different ratios?
i suppose what i'm saying is that climate science is inelegant and far too anxious to write checks that its butt can't cash.
they may as well start blaming everything on dark-matter and then attempt to work their way backwards to an understanding of it. in other words, we're nowhere near able to reverse-engineer this globe's climate based on isolated observations and a failure to appreciate the complexities of the influencing variables.
do these climate scientists factor the sun's radiation as a constant, or is there an understanding within that community of its fluctuations?
Climatologists see it as a constant, part of their problem. The other problem is instead of the model using one hemisphere heating (daytime) and one hemisphere cooling (night time) they assume the sun to be shining on the entire "flat" earth at once and then divide this by four to account for it, which is completely unrealistic.
how can a science that fundamentally deals with convection through a medium (the atmosphere) even pretend that the laws of thermodynamics aren't at play...of course they are...or is physics somehow suspended to maintain the appearance of consensus within said community?
The GHE does not deal with convection. We know the atmosphere cools the surface through convection and an actual greenhouse roof and walls prevent this from happening (thats how greenhouses work). GHE holds that the entire atmosphere is under a greenhouse "roof" and that the "greenhouse" is heated not by convection prevention but by back radiation. Fundamental flaw. Physics is suspended by some, misunderstood by most, and miscalculated. Bad assumptions.
additionally, is there any appreciation for the interplay of the various gases at different pressures and at different ratios?
Yes, by astronomers and physicists, not by climatologists. Pressure on the gases is the work that is performed to cause heating of the surface-air. Higher altitude, less pressure, less heat, gradient. There is no room for backradiation.
There is no need to geoengineer anything (don't get me started). Adapt or die. But you should probably be preparing for cold for the next 50 years, not warmth.
One of the most baffling and unacceptable aspects of the GHE hypothesis, one commonly taken for granted, is its overt violation of the most well established laws of thermodynamics. In particular, the first violated law is generally referred to as the law of conservation of energy, which states that, inside a thermodynamic system, energy cannot be created from nothing (or destroyed), without work W being performed on the system by the external surroundings (or work done by the system on the surroundings). Also often violated is the 2nd LoT, which addresses the transmission of heat and the principle of entropy, stating the impossibility of the spontaneous movement of heat from a cooler body to a warmer one and the reversibility of all natural processes, as entropy must increase in all processes.
According to supporters of the GHE, the 1st LoT does not function and atmospheric gases have the power to raise Earth's surface temperature, simply by sending some outgoing IR radiation back to the ground. A typical example is here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/, in which 120 of the 240W/m2 of outgoing IR radiation would be “backradiated” by greenhouse gases to Earth's surface, which would lead to an increase in surface thermal energy from 240 to 360 W/m2 (240 + 120) and more—the term "amplified" is sometimes used to describe this supposed effect. Sound amplifiers amplify sound but this process requires additional energy from the power supply and not simply the echoing of sound.
This fantasy that creates energy out of nothing is a classic example of the terrible mistakes that are being spread by the media to the public without any critical verification or filtering by the media and with uncritical acceptance by the majority of the public. Even if atmospheric gases were able to backradiate as much as 50% of the radiation they receive, there is a macroscopic failure here as there is not enough energy to cause the claimed warming. In fact, it is simply not true, as heat is transmitted by the surface to the atmosphere following the temperature gradient and simply cannot move against the direction of this gradient.
bravo, my friend...i am more than impressed.
you're speaking within the parameters of real science...the world could use a lot more Jokers like you.
it's crazy...it's almost as if you take science seriously and are interested in what it has to teach instead of contorting it to make it say what you want...absolute lunacy! you bettah watch out, Joker! amorica does not like complexities or science that fails to follow fashionable narratives.
i suppose the only question i have remaining is whether we should execute these fork-tonged 'scientists' en mass, or should they be assigned some period of forced manual labor? i guess i'm leaning to execution...something so very empirical about death -- and these 'scientists' should appreciate that.
It's nice to have a climate conversation with someone who actually understands there is such a thing as convection and LoT. Keep monkey-hammering these guys janus.
Forex Kong – A LOUSY SERVICE AND A THIEF
This is to warn EVERYONE as to doing any sort of business with Forex Trading with Kong, or what ever he/she/it bills itself. I signed up to the “service” in May of 2014, and once on the site, the person proclaiming themselves to be Kong was in a maelstrom of trades – all currently down. I found his combination of ranting about the markets, along with fuzzy and not explained or thought out trades was amateur at best. In fact, as a veteran trader, I took each and every trade of his on one of my demo accounts, with this “Kong” not spelling out as to whether trades he emailed on “alert” were short, mid or long term, and the ensuing results were hilarious. ALL down. I have the charts, and alerts he/she/it sent and the times he/she/it sent them, and to say this “service” is even competent is a stretch.
I’d be happy to share these charts, trades ( I took screen shots of the demo account with the idiot Kong trades getting reamed) with anyone.
The REAL “fun” started when I canceled – or attempted to cancel, my less than one month old account with Kong. First, to sign up to the…service, I had to join PayPal, which I did NOT want to do. This Kong character cajoled me into doing so “It’s the only way I work” – something to that effect.
WELL…Kong and PayPal kept right on debiting me. I caught them. Kept right debiting me AFTER I CAUGHT THEM.
I have the emails, bank statements – all of it. The good thieves at Forex Trading with Kong know this, and can not refute one iota of what I wrote. They are arrogant, claim they “never had a refund” (gee…I guess so).
STAY AWAY FROM FOREX TRADING WITH KONG. BE FOREWARNED.
THE SERVICE IS ASININE, AND THEY STEAL YOUR MONEY.
JPHFOREX at Gmail ….I can back up everything I just wrote.
All down? Then just take the opposite side! *WINNER* *WINNER* *WINNER* *WINNER* *WINNER*
incredible in its beauty and cruel in its GDP-destroying reality. How's that matte - NY doesn't do anything anyhow
Snowmaggedon 2014! Damn you global warming, we didn't listen!
Roger Sherms, like a couple of other ZH commenters on this thread, doesn't seem to know the difference between a data point and a trend.
You mean, like Al Gore after Katrina?
"How in God's name could that happen here?"
Its the day after the day before tomorrow!
people live in Buffalo? Poor SOB's
Just another Arkstorm . And a mild one at that .
See
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2014/11/slingshot-atmospheric-rivers.html for the icy bit
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2013/02/atmospheric-rivers.html
for the rainy bit
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2013/09/arkstorm-arizona-2013.html when the rainy bit actually happened .
If this happens with snow , you might have a wee problem .
Gonna need all your resources .
You are about 3 times richer than you think .
See
https://www.academia.edu/9405720/The_Economics_of_Disrespect_Update_I
or
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-economics-of-disrespect-update...
I am in the epicenter (West Seneca). Roofs are beginning to cave in. Won't be to different from the upcoming Market cave in. Monday will be more troubling....60 degrees. Forget oil pipelines....Water pipeline to SOCAL from the impending runoff would keep SOCAL in business for a few extra years.
I planned ahead........ Wine and Canadian beer. Tough Polish and German people here. Please don't donate. Keep your cash. Snowmageddon is the the continuation of the early stage US civic war. Neighbors are wearily looking at others rations and assets from front windows, if they can see out. I am keeping a gun under the winter coat when I shovel and protecting mine. I will help others who need help, but not those that want help.
Local government caught off guard, even with three days notice, inasmuch you can predict weather. I am preparing for the increase in taxes next year speech by Sheila Meeghan and the inept Town Council. Many of the current workers are logging extraordinary overtime, which in fact counts towards their retirement pensions...hence tax increase to cover those golden parachutes.
Am I cynical? Yes. The budget facts and poor political leadership bore it out. Pouring some wine. Send empathy not cash.
CR
I grew up in Buffalo. The most I ever saw was 7 feet in 3 days.