Wednesday 62 degrees here in the big apple
Thursday possibly 5 inches of snow
Go figure...lol
Thursday possibly 5 inches of snow
Go figure...lol
Some people get crazy when you talk global warming...lol
I will say this.....No way should it be 62 degrees in New York on February 8
And nobody can change my mind on that....lol
Oh yes.....Global Confusion...LMAO
You can make money of that phrase.....Sounds about right...lol
Never was....Never had 62 degree days in February.
Like i said above....I don`t get into the global warming discussion.
February is a winter month.....Not spring.
Have a good 1.
just for your information my friend, NYC temperature stats for the month of Feb
[FONT="]Historic Average
Home » Local » Historic Averages
[FONT="]New York, New York[/FONT]
[FONT="]Weather Report · Interactive Map · Extended Forecast · Hourly Forecast · Past Observations · Historic Averages[/FONT]
[FONT="]Monthly Averages & Records - °F | °C[/FONT]
| Date | Average Low | Average High | Record Low | Record High | Average Precipitation | Average Snow |
| January | 23° | 36° | -4° (1994) | 70° (1950) | 3.69" | NA |
| February | 24° | 40° | -3° (1979) | 72° (1997) | 2.94" | NA |
| March | 32° | 48° | 5° (1981) | 80° (1985) | 4.08" | NA |
| April | 42° | 58° | 18° (1982) | 87° (1977) | 4.06" | NA |
| May | 53° | 68° | 34° (1966) | 97° (1969) | 4.48" | NA |
| June | 63° | 77° | 44° (1980) | 100° (1952) | 3.45" | NA |
| July | 68° | 83° | 49° (1979) | 102° (1966) | 4.17" | NA |
| August | 66° | 81° | 47° (1982) | 100° (1955) | 4.05" | NA |
| September | 58° | 74° | 38° (1980) | 99° (1953) | 4.05" | NA |
| October | 47° | 63° | 27° (1988) | 85° (1954) | 3.5" | NA |
| November | 38° | 52° | 14° (1955) | 81° (1974) | 4" | NA |
| December | 28° | 42° | 0° (1989) | 70° (1982) | 3.86" | NA |
| Date | Average Low | Average High | Record Low | Record High | Average Precipitation | Average Snow |
| Feb 1 | 22° | 37° | 4° (1980) | 62° (1989) | 0.11" | NA |
| Feb 2 | 22° | 37° | -2° (1961) | 58° (1973) | 0.11" | NA |
| Feb 3 | 22° | 37° | 1° (1955) | 56° (1983) | 0.11" | NA |
| Feb 4 | 22° | 37° | 4° (1981) | 50° (1984) | 0.11" | NA |
| Feb 5 | 22° | 38° | 2° (1981) | 52° (1964) | 0.1" | NA |
| Feb 6 | 23° | 38° | 3° (1996) | 53° (1960) | 0.1" | NA |
| Feb 7 | 23° | 38° | 5° (1995) | 50° (1953) | 0.1" | NA |
| Feb 8 | 23° | 38° | 2° (1963) | 61° (1965) | 0.1" | NA |
| Feb 9 | 23° | 38° | 4° (1979) | 58° (1949) | 0.1" | NA |
| Feb 10 | 23° | 38° | 0° (1979) | 55° (1955) | 0.1" | NA |
| Feb 11 | 23° | 39° | -3° (1979) | 63° (1960) | 0.1" | NA |
| Feb 12 | 23° | 39° | 0° (1979) | 54° (1966) | 0.1" | NA |
| Feb 13 | 23° | 39° | 0° (1979) | 60° (1951) | 0.1" | NA |
| Feb 14 | 24° | 39° | 0° (1979) | 55° (1949) | 0.1" | NA |
| Feb 15 | 24° | 39° | 0° (1987) | 71° (1949) | 0.1" | NA |
| Feb 16 | 24° | 40° | 2° (1987) | 66° (1954) | 0.1" | NA |
| Feb 17 | 24° | 40° | -3° (1979) | 62° (1976) | 0.1" | NA |
| Feb 18 | 24° | 40° | -1° (1979) | 55° (1954) | 0.1" | NA |
| Feb 19 | 25° | 40° | 10° (1959) | 58° (1961) | 0.1" | NA |
| Feb 20 | 25° | 41° | 5° (1950) | 65° (1997) | 0.11" | NA |
| Feb 21 | 25° | 41° | 5° (1950) | 60° (1953) | 0.11" | NA |
| Feb 22 | 25° | 41° | 8° (1963) | 64° (1997) | 0.11" | NA |
| Feb 23 | 26° | 41° | 10° (1963) | 71° (1997) | 0.11" | NA |
| Feb 24 | 26° | 42° | 16° (1968) | 72° (1985) | 0.11" | NA |
| Feb 25 | 26° | 42° | 13° (1989) | 65° (1976) | 0.11" | NA |
| Feb 26 | 26° | 42° | 10° (1970) | 63° (1996) | 0.11" | NA |
| Feb 27 | 27° | 42° | 9° (1950) | 65° (1976) | 0.11" | NA |
| Feb 28 | 27° | 43° | 11° (1994) | 72° (1997) | 0.12" | NA |
| Feb 29 | 27° | 43° | 7° (1980) | 65° (1976) | 0.12" | NA |
62 degrees may be rare, but it's been over 60 degrees this time of year before
1989
1960
1965
and record lows were set in
1955
1961
1995
1996
average temps are just that, average
the highs and lows vary 30 degrees in both directions, spread out over extended periods of time
1989
1960
1965
and record lows were set in
1955
1961
1995
1996
average temps are just that, average
the highs and lows vary 30 degrees in both directions, spread out over extended periods of time
If I judged by my 43 years I would have to agree with climate change, it's been mild here in a northern WI/MN for the most part of 15 years. what I consider Mild is cold for most though. let's see what another 43 years brings but is it just a pattern? were there other periods of time that witnessed these changes?
as I've said before I know climate scientists who didn't get rich who adamantly believe in it and say it's proven. I'm a nurse so what the hell do I know about it?
Top MIT scientist: Newest UN climate report is ‘hilariously’ flawed
Not all scientists are panicking about global warming — one of them finds the alarmism “hilarious.”
A top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN’s climate bureaucracy that blamed mankind as the main cause of global warming and whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.
“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed it was 95 percent sure that global warming was mainly driven by human burning of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases. The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.
“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”
“However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,” Lindzen continued.
“Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.”
Scientists have been struggling to explain the 15-year hiatus in global warming, and governments have been urging them to whitewash the fact that temperatures have not been rising because such data would impact the upcoming climate negotiations in 2015.
The Associated Press obtained documents that show the Obama administration and some European governments pressured UN climate scientists to downplay or even omit data that shows the world hasn’t warmed in over a decade.
“Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries,” the AP report said. “The U.S. also urged the authors to include the ‘leading hypothesis’ that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.”
Global warming skeptics have exploited such data to show that the science behind manmade global warming is faulty and politically driven.
“n attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about,” Lindzen said. “It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.”
However, believers in catastrophic global warming have said the UN report should serve as a wake-up call to those who would deny the issue’s urgency.
“Those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire,” said Secretary of State John Kerry. “Once again, the science grows clearer, the case grows more compelling and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or common sense should be willing to even contemplate.”
The UN is set to release its full assessment of the world’s climate on Monday.
Follow Michael on Twitter
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/t...e-report-is-hilariously-flawed/#ixzz4Y6hlHxZ4
Not all scientists are panicking about global warming — one of them finds the alarmism “hilarious.”
A top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN’s climate bureaucracy that blamed mankind as the main cause of global warming and whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.
“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed it was 95 percent sure that global warming was mainly driven by human burning of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases. The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.
“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”
“However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,” Lindzen continued.
“Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.”
Scientists have been struggling to explain the 15-year hiatus in global warming, and governments have been urging them to whitewash the fact that temperatures have not been rising because such data would impact the upcoming climate negotiations in 2015.
The Associated Press obtained documents that show the Obama administration and some European governments pressured UN climate scientists to downplay or even omit data that shows the world hasn’t warmed in over a decade.
“Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries,” the AP report said. “The U.S. also urged the authors to include the ‘leading hypothesis’ that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.”
Global warming skeptics have exploited such data to show that the science behind manmade global warming is faulty and politically driven.
“n attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about,” Lindzen said. “It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.”
However, believers in catastrophic global warming have said the UN report should serve as a wake-up call to those who would deny the issue’s urgency.
“Those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire,” said Secretary of State John Kerry. “Once again, the science grows clearer, the case grows more compelling and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or common sense should be willing to even contemplate.”
The UN is set to release its full assessment of the world’s climate on Monday.
Follow Michael on Twitter
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/t...e-report-is-hilariously-flawed/#ixzz4Y6hlHxZ4
a real science doesn't summarily dismiss evidence that doesn't support their hypothesis, it uses all evidence in reaching conclusions. As opposed to reaching conclusions and then backing into the evidence that works for you
a real science doesn't just ignore all the things it's been wrong about, like all those dire predictions they've made over the years
man made climate change is more political than it is science
a real science doesn't just ignore all the things it's been wrong about, like all those dire predictions they've made over the years
man made climate change is more political than it is science
