The Washington Post changed the headline from one that mentioned record snowfall as they updated the story from yesterday to today, but, where previously the information that backed up the headline was on page 2, now, it’s the lead paragraph
A major storm that broke all records for a December snowfall buried the Washington area Saturday, forcing authorities to suspend public transportation, declare a state of emergency and plead with residents to stay home.
I’m sure it was just weather caused by the building El Nino, offsetting the effects of human caused global warming, right? Or, perhaps, it is because man is messing up the climate through release of greenhouse gasses?
Airports and malls were closed down, the Smithsonian shut all her doors at the various museums, the Metro wasn’t stopping at above ground stations, football games have been rescheduled for later start times on Sunday, the Circulator buses stopped running, and even the Postal Service stopped delivery.
At the snowstorm’s peak in the afternoon, flakes fell at the rate of two inches an hour. Some areas, particularly in Southern Maryland, experienced wind gusts up to 40 mph. The total measured snowfall at Reagan Airport at 8:58 p.m. was 16.3 inches, but it was as high as 23 inches elsewhere in the region. That would be more snow in a 24-hour period than the region typically gets in an entire winter. According to Weather Service statistics, the storm ranked among the biggest snowfalls in local history.
The original story discussed this being the biggest December storm since 1923. Over to NBC Washington
The snow total at Reagan National came in at 16.4″ making it the 6th largest snow storm on record – and the records go back to 1884. That much snow also means that we have set the record for snowiest December on record – the old record was 16.2″ in December of 1962.  The other “official” sites also set records – 20.5″ at BWI and 16.0″ at Dulles.
In my old growing up grounds of New Jersey, they got anywhere from 5-24 inches. Lynchburg, Va, set their snow record. Philly.com called it the most potent storm in 100 years. Maryland struggled with record snowfall. Even West Virginia was seeing record snow for this time of year. And we do not even have all the details for areas north west of NY City as of yet.
Hey, did I mention that it is not even officially winter, yet? And that Nancy Pelosi and company had to leave Copenhagen early because of the storm? Same with President Neophyte.
Tim Blair catches the NY Times changing their story on the storm to make it sound less wintery. In another Grey Lady story, we learn
“This is one of the bigger ones,†said Kevin Witt, a meteorologist for the National Weather Service in the Baltimore-Washington forecast office in Sterling, Va.
Mr. Witt said that when the gusty snow ended late Saturday night into Sunday morning it could rank among the top 10 winter snowstorms.
And it isn’t even Winter yet!
Snow has been measured in Central Park since 1869, and only two storms have produced more than two feet of snow, the most recent in February 2006. This storm was not likely to exceed a foot and a half in Central Park, but some parts of central Long Island could see up to two feet, said Jeffrey Tongue, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service based in Upton, N.Y.
Did I mention Winter doesn’t start till Monday?
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU
algor must have flown in.
Oh noes! It’s snowing! I guess that proves it! The planet’s actually not warming. Thanks for solving this debate once and for all with you reason and logic, Teach! 😛
I love this “reasoning”. AGW can’t be real becasue today was cold, or we had a lot of snow, or whatever. It’s just as stupid, of course, as when people say Katrina happened due to AGW.
It’s not often that you can point to an argument that is so insipid as to disqualify anything else that person has to say on the subject, but this is certainly the case here. You CANNOT be familiar with any of the pertinent methodology or data and make this argument. The two are mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, Mr.Teach, liking or not liking Al Gore, or a few emails not understood by non-scientists are not going to answer the question. What will is clever technique with careful interpretation which is clearly beyond you and, unfortunately, most people on both sides of the argument.
One has to wonder: when someone comes to a conclusion in almost complete ignorance of the matter at hand, what evidence could hold sway? None, becasue the opinion was not based on evidence to begin with.
and there we are….
Oh lovely, a new troll. I guess since Reassic failed miserably in his mission, the lefties are sending in a new guy.
I note BSer has not bothered to comment on the 500 peer reviewed papers either.
Notice BSr could not offer one single piece of evidence to actually Refute the post, TMFo. Ad-hominen attacks are pretty much the only argument warmers have available to them.
*grin* Actually, it’s TFMo…or just Mo works too.
Otter,
What argument was made in this post that is worthy of refutation? The last time I pointed out the difference between weather and climate in this blog, I was told that the post in question was humorous, not serious. Are you now saying that this evidence of weather actually disproves global warming somehow?
TFMo,
Yes, I’ve seen your list, and it is just about as credible as the supposed list of 30,000 “scientists” who disagree with AGW.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/
This list is filled with papers that were either not peer-reviewed, known to be false, irrelevant, out-dated, or not actually skeptical in nature.
And on cue, Reassic responds in one of the four possible ways I e-mailed Teach about.
Three days ago, I sent Teach an e-mail, saying that Reassic would choose one of these responses:
1: He’ll ignore it completely and give no response at all for another
72 hours (starting midnight tonight, Friday, Dec 18th until midnight
Monday, Dec 22.
2: He’ll dodge the question and veer away from the subject
3: He’ll refuse to read them because the authors are discredited,
unqualified, or just wrong, then post a bunch of biased links
4: He’ll claim he read them, but then insist the authors are
discredited, unqualified, or just wrong, then post a bunch of biased
links
I picked number 4 as the most likely, but Teach wouldn’t take the bet, saying he agreed that this is exactly what Reassic would do. And of course, Reassic never fails to show his ignorance and hypocrisy. My end of the bet was to draw a picture for his Patriotic Pin-ups.
Well, in the spirit of the season, I’m gonna draw that pic for you anyway, Teach. Merry Christmas! I can’t promise when it will be done (real art takes much, much longer than my Lil O-Bama strips), but I’ll get it as soon as I can.
And thanks, Reassic, for proving your own stereotype.
…and true to form, you have ignored my link, stating only that it is “biased”, and have provided no rebuttal to my claims.
Let’s just assume for a minute that your 500 studies are indeed valid. Now what? What do they prove? You don’t know. You’re just playing the same tired old denial game of trying to put together a list full of crap.