SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A "potentially historic" winter storm will slam the north-central USA over the next few days with up to 2 feet of snow possible in some areas.
Snow will accumulate from eastern Washington and Montana to Colorado, the Dakotas, Minnesota and northern Wisconsin, the Weather Channel said. Record low temperatures are also possible Thursday and Friday across the western USA.
The system will produce severe storms and heavy rain Thursday in the southern Plains and critical-to-extreme fire weather threats from the central and southern Rockies to California, the National Weather Service said.
The size and intensity of this snowstorm are unheard of for October, according to AccuWeather.
[...] A slew of winter storm warnings, watches and freeze warnings were in effect across parts of seven states as the storm ramped up Wednesday, AccuWeather said.
[...] The storm will have two parts, the first of which is targeting the northern and central Rockies and High Plains on Wednesday into Thursday. The second part will bring snow to the eastern and central portions of the Dakotas and western Minnesota by week's end.
"Near-blizzard to full-fledged blizzard conditions are possible across portions of central North Dakota Friday afternoon into Saturday morning," the weather service in Bismarck said. "Expect high impacts and dangerous to impossible travel conditions."
The weather service called it a "potentially historic October winter storm."
Meanwhile, locations in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, India, and Australia (among others) reported temperatures well over 100°F (38 C)!
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Saturday October 12 2019, @03:41AM (4 children)
Now that I have browbeaten you with the strength of my internet expert creds, could we please discuss this subject rationally?
A key problem here is that much of the alleged warming is severely backloaded. For example, if you consider present day greenhouse gases increases versus measured global warming through today, you get warming on the order of 1.5 C per doubling of CO2. That's short term warming and is in line with the radiative model that started this way back when. The dire predictions of the IPCC and others is based on long term feedbacks, many which haven't kicked in yet - and may never kick in. The time lag on this delayed additional warming is anywhere from a few decades to a few millennia (perhaps with parts at both extremes of the lag scale). That means that there isn't a climate model in existence which yet has a testable hypothesis concerning long term global warming (aside from some ridiculous extremes where we melt face or go full ice age in a few decades) simply because we haven't observed for long enough to get an idea of what that is going to be.
Meanwhile there is this peculiar phenomena where research magically comes out to support the latest talking points (classic example is Mann and Jones "Hockey Stick" paper of 1999 which purported to show that the Medieval Warm Period was a local not global phenomenon, and which came out right when the IPCC needed to claim that the present day global warming was unprecedented). And stuff that isn't convenient to the narrative gets ignored (like tree ring records after 1960 - no one has bothered to determine why those aren't working as expected in the near present).
That's what got me to the present state of skepticism: research on demand and suppression of any problems or concerns that didn't fit the narrative, combined with conveniently untestable claims if we don't act right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 12 2019, @04:49PM
And yet yer still a dumbass.
Proof that colleges are not the liberal propaganda farms dumbasses think they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 12 2019, @05:40PM (2 children)
So did you work at NCAR of Fleet Numerical? Besides a degree in Physical Oceanography, I worked with the people doing the modeling, monitored the model runs and did some gound truthing the data for the models.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 12 2019, @09:30PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 14 2019, @04:21PM
The previous AC tried to shut down debate by claiming that I needed this sort of education in order to have anything to say about the subject. Then when it turned out that I did have the necessary level of education, they issued some face-saving insults and ran away. If one needs to be in the field to understand climate change and the need for solutions to it, then the field is not mature enough to make decisions for billions of people. It's that simple. You need to present evidence that a normal person can understand - I'm not taking your word for it.
Show me the evidence or get lost. Here, too much is reliant on models that haven't been tested against the only data one can't fabricate or bias, the future. For an example from a few months to a year ago, someone was predicting the end of chocolate based on such untested computer models and the vapid assumption that production wouldn't move.