What Global Warming?

Individual local reports are completely meaningless.

says you

Is it that cold in California?

Not necesarily. When it serves as a counter-factual, an individual report can disprove a theory, or contravene a statement.

In the first link (Feb 2014), the article implies that due to global warming the northern US will no longer see any signficant snowfall. But, the second link (Jan 2016) reports on the massive snowfall that just hit the US Northeast from DC to Boston.

the-end-of-snow.html?_r=0

heavy-snow-and-wind

Individual reports, if not replicated or confirmed, neither prove nor disprove anything.

(In math, yes; but in empirical sciences, no.)

While it's true that in science fundamental tests are repeated many times, over many years and under many conditions, it is also true that a single test can overturn years of belief and expose flaws in theoretical suppositions.

While it may be 'just a story' that Galileo dropped balls of different weights, sizes, and compostions off the Leaning Tower of Pisa, nevertheless the experiment did occur somewhere at some time, and completely overturned the Aristolean notion of falling objects.

The Michelson-Morley Experiment disproved the notion of the aether.

Penzias and Wilson's experiments at Bell Labs was a nail in the coffin for the Steady State' theory.

Please, even you can't possibly be serious!

THE POLAR EXPRESS Could Bring Record Cold!!! - WDRB .

Think less about the word 'warming' and more about the concept of weather extremes it produces.

I've lived in New England all my life, and I'm an old fart timer, so I can say this aint cold. Now I remember when a week or more would go by with the thermometer never getting much above 0, nights so cold that your pee would freeze before hitting the snow!

I judge the winter by when the ice goes out on Mendum's Lake (in New Hampshire). It used to be on about April 15. Lately it has been in late march. We'll see what happens this year.

The first problem with global warming is where the temperature data is collected. Comparing the readings taken at an airport, or city are necessarily going to be higher than those taken at the same spot 100-150 years ago, simply due to the change in reflectivity and retained heat.

Having been around for better than 2 score years, I've witnessed and lived through ups and downs of the thermometer.

As far as the extreme events to which one poster had referred, those are nothing new either. I believe that one of the worst hurricanes occurred in Galveston TX around 1900;Google "Hog Island"- a whole island on southern Long Island was wiped off the map again, around the late 19th early 20th century.

The thing that really gets me, is that nature has adapted to seasonal changes, which might range from 0 - 100 degrees over the course of six months, and we can't adapt to 2 degrees over a century?

Has anybody figured out that if temps start dropping regularly we are headed for another glaciation?

I like your post, I'd add that most recordings up until most recently were simple readings from a mercury thermometer 6 feet off the ground and in the shade. but now temps can be taken with high end measuring to the 100th of a degree..the media eats this up and up. and we get headlines of HOTTEST ON RECORD! if looked at from the same mercury...its the same temp....a tie, but that doesn't get funding for global warming research like a record might.

Not even close.

Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature ...

Sorry, but you change the conditions, your results are expected to change.

Sorry, but you offer no conditions at all. You say, "Comparing the readings taken at an airport, or city" and give absolutely no basis for your "conditions".

I don't change the conditions, I offer an explanation of how the temperatures/conditions are determined.

Yes, but:

1. The weather preceding this cold snap was exceptionally warm. For the first time in 35 winters here in the snow belt region, and at altitude as well, I saw mud in my lawn and a total absence of snow in my yard in early February. Never before in 35 years - never. I took pictures on a digital camera to save the date. it was that exceptional.

2. The month of January was the warmest ever.

3. This areas annual average of 80" of snow is in deep jeopardy of not happening.

4. Check out how far behind average snowfall Syracuse is. It is in terms of feet, not inches. (I assume they did some catching up during this snap)

5. The deer are not trying to eat my bushes this year - they can still get to food in the woods since the snow is so shallow. Never saw that before either. There are NO deer tracks in my yard right now, which never happens in mid winter.

So we had one good cold snap - but guess what - we're getting rain this week in mid February. Definitely not normal to the warm side - not the cold side.

according to what I read last night the Calif snowpack in places is well over 100% of average and the draught looks almost over.........to me it all adds up to mother nature just balancing the books, nothing new

Very bad comparison. You do realize you're comparing apples to oranges don't you. Totally different reasons for the snow. The section of the Rockies you are referring to get snow from weather fronts. Move the front north and they miss it. Haven't heard anyone report they were short of snow due to temperatures the past 5 years - just dry.

I mentioned snow in this local because the area I live in, NW Pa, and Upstate NY get snow only of there is cold to flow over the lakes. You have heard of lake effects? Know how much direct precipitation we got from that monster that put several feet on the East coast? Zilch, zero, nada. Got a few inches after it was well past Nova Scotia from a flow of cold across the lakes. I actually saw some sunshine in the middle of that storm as "back home" was getting 16". The cold snap we just got gave me 8" of snow on my deck and some belts up by Buffalo got 2' of snow, while "back home" shivered under bright sunshine.

So when I say we haven't had much snow this winter, it is totally due to a lack of cold weather - not the luck of the draw on a weather front. The Rockies would have done just fine the past 5 years had the weather moved in father south than it did in those years. That doesn't prove it is cold out there - just very wet, while our lack of snow proves it is warmer than usual.

no I'm a complete idiot

Ever study the geological history of California?

And what does history have to do with weather today? The point ALL seem to be missing is that Fredski suggested that the cause of snow levels in the Rockies were similar to the cause of snow levels in a lake effects area, and that is as I stated - apples and oranges. One is going to be cold enough simply due to altitude and is dependent on weather systems while the other gets little snow from weather systems directly, but rather from temperatures below freezing, lake waters not frozen over, and an air flow across the lakes, which is seldom a problem as west to east is normal.Therefore, it is obvious, despite recent temperatures, that in general, this has been a warmer winter in the east, not abnormally cold as the OP suggested. Lakes should not be open for snow in February.

Naturally inconsistent and personally witnessed.
Where is the trend in these numbers?

ooooh.. I see the problem.. This data doesn't cover the last three years..
The only forecast I associate with heavy ice coverage is that the swimming will be limited that summer.
This summer should be great swimming!
More data...