Major Snowstorm in Buffalo

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/snow-emergency-five-dead-100-trapped-monster-winter-storm-n251436

Six feet of snow fell in Buffalo yesterday! Almost 76 inches in some of the suburbs. It was a record for the most snow to fall over a 24 hour period in all of the US. Five people dead so far and many stranded. If anyone has family or friends in that area, you might want to check in with them.

Buffalo is well equipped to deal with massive amounts of snow every year, but this is even beyond their experience.

Can you imagine if that happened here? We would be paralyzed for a week at least. How would we get our milk, eggs and bread?????

Calico696 Calico696
Nov '14

True!

I was there for four years going to school, and we never missed a single day due to snow. They are usually right on top of it as soon as the first flake falls.

However, this storm is early and really intense. The Facebook page for the school is filled with angry comments, as they didn't close yesterday or today, even though the roads are closed!

Reggie Voter Reggie Voter
Nov '14

Wow. Crazy amount of snow.

just coach just coach
Nov '14

This FB page has some pretty crazy pics from the storm on it.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/shawneesnochiefs/

Calico696 Calico696
Nov '14

Reminds me when I lived in Sault St. Marie, MI; sometimes it snowed so much that we climbed out of windows to get outside. Loved it!!!


Grew up in the towns hardest hit; it's worse off the lake than on which is where they are. Like Iris, did the window thing, can't remember a day off school but plenty of times you couldn't get past the town line for a few days. Didn't have household snow blowers then so shoveling was a family affair and most certainly not a bonding experience :<(

As a kid, best was if you can imagine, the entire Walmart parking lot filled with 10 foot mountains of snow where the dump trucks made their deposits, then compressed by frontloader into mountains and valleys. We could build snow cities, walls, towers, tunnels, and parapets, and then have snowball wars of epic proportion between neighboring snow city states. Sometimes we would begin building and stockpiling arms after school until just before dark (comes about 45 minutes later up there) when the battle was engaged and the walls would come tumbling down.

No ice balls was the rule.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Nov '14

They can keep it. So sorry for the people that died.

botheredbyuu2 botheredbyuu2
Nov '14

Somebody's got a lot of shoveling to do before Sunday's game versus the J_E_T_S...

ianimal ianimal
Nov '14

They're offering $10/hr plus free tickets for the game to those that help shovel. Seeing the train of snow just pouring over the area, you'd be shoveling from now to kickoff.


I wonder if they could move the game to Toronto? The CFL is done, I think... at least for the Argos, it is.

ianimal ianimal
Nov '14

I hope that wasn't a jab at the Double Blue ianimal. No way moving to Toronto, that venue is reserved for Hamilton if anyone is going to need an emergency move. They're still in it baby...


I was going to post on the thread "I'm happy because"...I don't live in Buffalo until I saw this thread.

Chickadee Chickadee
Nov '14

I heard that first they will get more snow up to 2 feet in some areas. Then it is going to warm up and rain. The snow acts like a sponge and holds more moisture and gets really heavy. They are warning people to get the snow off their roof asap. This could get ugly. Prayers for those who died.

JustCoach JustCoach
Nov '14

I would be good to go! Got 6 Snowmobiles baby!

Darrin Darrin
Nov '14

You're a big CFL fan, GC? I never would have guessed. Thought you were strictly a hockey guy.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Nov '14

Not so much a fan as constantly in the loop because of all of the Canadian sites, resources, and broadcasts I see. Hamilton is a place I worked [backspace-backspace-backspace] paid a sales call on a while ago and have ties to.


i saw some videos today of snowmobiles getting stuck there

Reggie Voter Reggie Voter
Nov '14

I heard on the radio that it normally takes 3 days to clean 1 foot of snow out of the stadium for a football game. I think they got about 4 feet in that specific area and another foot coming. They better be shoveling 24/7 until Sunday morning.

Calico696 Calico696
Nov '14

Cfl fields are too long and wide.

fujixt1 fujixt1
Nov '14

Re: Major Snowstorm in Buffalo

New tourist slogan for Buffalo.

Calico696 Calico696
Nov '14

Just amazing even for the folks up there. I heard thunder snow was reported in the Buffalo area which I thought was rare for lake effect. However according to this article it's quite common for those areas in November and December when the Lake's waters are still "warm":

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/11/thunder_snow_lake_effect_lake_ontario_lake_erie.html


Calico I just DIED.

Rebecka Rebecka
Nov '14

Fujixt, Buffalo has played games in Toronto each of the past few years prior to this one. They'd just need to restripe the field.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Nov '14

Re: Major Snowstorm in Buffalo

Picture from a transporter we use in Buffalo

thehazguy thehazguy
Nov '14

Re: Major Snowstorm in Buffalo

Another one

thehazguy thehazguy
Nov '14

Hey reggie voter I went to school there too. Never saw anything like this though. Crazy.

Christine g
Nov '14

I should end my 6-8 month hiatus from FB to see how distant relatives are doing up there. It usually isn't too big a thing for them since their family ties go back over 100 years there, but this is definitely an exception.

While I'm not a scientist (famous line, eh?), geology is what I was going to college for (with a math minor) and I've followed progress in the field as much as an amateur scientist could. I was never totally convinced by the "Global Warming" camp, since once enough Gore-ites jumped on the bandwagon and the scientific community in general took it up with the conclusion leading the results, any naysayers were shouted down and unable to get Govt. and school funding unless they were trying to prove the theory. A number of things I've read, sometimes even those that "showed" Global Warming due solely (or mainly) due to human activity either "weighted" their results or showed graphs that someone with an open mind could see that their interpretation was a stretch, if not an outright misinterpretation.

A book "Ice Ages" by Imbrie & Imbrie give nod to Global Warming and essentially state that it is actually perhaps buffering the inevitable, which according to their theory is another Ice Age, which occur in relatively regular cycles, as mainly dictated by the Milankovitch Cycles. We are currently in an interglacial period, which is a geologically small time compared to the Ice Age periods. "Continental Drift" aka Tectonic Activity may also be a factor in this, since the position of the Continents now as opposed to during earlier Ages may support or delay the onset of the next Glacial Period. Human activity definitely has an effect on all this, but it's hard to say exactly how much it matters in the overall scheme of things as far as what the Earth has in store for us. One thing that characterizes the Interglacial Periods is irregularity in Climate, sort of like Irritable Bowel Syndrome to make an analogous, but odd characterization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Of course one can say that all the naysaying about climate change (aka Global Warming, as they've redefined the nomenclature) is driven and financed by the coal, oil and other non-renewable energy industries to keep themselves alive and less regulated, as well as those who have been brainwashed by them, however I can truly say that I've read a large number of books, mostly pro Global Warming, that still left me unconvinced. Apparently I'm not the only one and there are true scientists with diplomas behind them that disagree with current theory and say that we're looking at the data the wrong way and with a predetermined outcome in mind. If this guy's book and theory is correct, then we are really looking at things the wrong way:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/dark-winter-cold-global-cooling/2014/11/16/id/607672/

I can't vouch for where his funding comes from, etc. and I would hope that he is ethically on the straight and narrow, but it is definitely food for thought.

I'm just saddened for the loss of life in the Buffalo area. Natural Disasters, regardless of the cause(s) always show how our small our place in the Universe truly is.

Phil D. Phil D.
Nov '14

He is right to the point you can get different results depending how far back you go or where you start from.

Old Gent Old Gent
Nov '14

"I was never totally convinced by the "Global Warming" camp..."

Considering northern New Jersey used to be under a glacier almost one *mile* thick that melted long before SUV's and hair spray propellant were concerns, I'd say that global warming/cooling is just a natural function of a very complex planet.

Any 30 or 100 year study is but a pimple on the geological timeline that defines ice vs. warm ages.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Nov '14

I'm with you, Phil. If there's one oxymoron I can do without ever hearing again... It's "scientific consensus". Before he died, the author and medical doctor Michael Crichton wrote a speech condemning the practice that's really stuck with me... and I think you and I may have even discussed it before. Here is a transcription of it:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Nov '14

Snowfall totals for that area as of this morning:

http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=buf&product=PNS&issuedby=BUF&format=ci&version=1


This is Global Climate change. Still very early with a reported 47 degrees lake temperature. Combine this with very cold air for the season and there you go.

Extremes in temperature and precipitation are characteristics of Global Climate Change. Yes, the climate has been warming since the last ice age, but all of the man made activities is creating a dangerous and somewhat unknown climate cocktail...


IJay, you are 100% correct but the deniers will never be convinced. As the greenhouse gases caused by our industry and use of fossil fuels have caused massive melting of the icecaps they still deny. When the ocean finally rises to their doors as the coastline disappears they will deny it was global climate change and blame it on the government, some secret plot, a natural disaster, or anything but the truth.


They are expecting another 3 feet of snow today through tomorrow up there. I wonder what will be the fate of the Jets/Bills game?

Calico696 Calico696
Nov '14

"but the deniers will never be convinced"

"Convincing" has no part in the argument. It's either proven or it's not. And global warming/climate change has not been proven. Scientific consensus is not proof in ANY WAY.

Scientific consensus can be a very dangerous as well as very wrong (as in drawing the incorrect solution/conclusion) practice. I have just finished a book about scientific consensus with regards to the health/nutrition "directives" we have been fed (pun intended) over the years....

"fat is bad for you"
"only certain fat is bad for you"
"only tans fat is bad for you"
"carbs are bad for you"
"only simple carbs are bad for you"
"sugar is bad for you"
"coffee is bad for you"
"coffee is good for you"
"no wait, coffee is bad for you"
"well, how much coffee do you drink?"
"wine is ok"
"wine is bad for you"
"wine is good for you"
"only red wine is good for you"
"any alcohol, in small amounts, is good for you"
"fat makes you fat"
"fat doesn't make you fat, calories do"
"no, it's not the fat OR the calories making you fat, it's the carbs"
"you moron, it's the sugar"

I could go on & on & on. It surprised me how much people apparently WANT to be fed information, even if it's bad information... maybe it's just laziness- they want someone to do their thinking for them so they don;t have to think themselves....

"Global warming"/"climate change" has never been proven, and back in the 70's the "scientific consensus" was actually global COOLING. At one time, "scientific consensus" was that earth was FLAT. And that the sun revolved around the earth. THAT was "Scientific consensus."


Heartland Institute analyst, Peter Ferrara, notes“If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.” So there was thirty years of cooling followed by 20 years of warming and almost 18 years of cooling…and that’s what the global warming scare is all about.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/17/what-the-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-about-global-warming/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '14

Agree with you completely, JR... it's certainly possible that warming is occurring, I won't deny that because I just don't know; however, it's far from having been "proven" scientifically. If it were, there would be no need for the AGW community to resort to claims of "consensus". Consensus is a political term, not a scientific one.

"At one time, "scientific consensus" was that earth was FLAT. And that the sun revolved around the earth. THAT was "Scientific consensus.""

At that time, "scientific consensus" was driven by religion. Any scientist who claimed differently was labeled a "heretic" and imprisoned or worse. Today, it's driven by politics and research grant money. I'm not sure which is worse...

IMO, in order for the whole debate to have any meaning whatsoever, one needs to "prove" three things. First, that the global temperatures are constantly increasing. Second, that the temperature increases are due to anthropogenic causes that we can control and third, that it can be reversed. Otherwise, it's not much different from the knowledge that the sun will eventually go supernova and the earth will eventually be uninhabitable. A fact of life, but one that no one can do anything about. If that's the case, then being proactive and designing for a future world with higher temperatures and higher sea levels will be a much more effective use for the money that is being used for AGW research.

ianimal ianimal
Nov '14

Re: Major Snowstorm in Buffalo

"they will deny it was global climate change and blame it on the government, some secret plot, a natural disaster, or anything but the truth.


The thing we know for a fact is that global warming is caused by a lack of pirates.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Nov '14

I don't think it really matters whether global warming is man-made or a gift from God.

Fact is that if you put a block of ice in a tub of water, certain cooling patterns develop.

If you crush that block of ice and place it back in the tub, a whole different set of cooling patterns develop, much faster and more aggressive.

Perhaps as the ice caps crunch up we are seeing that type of effect.

Meanwhile, beyond whether you believe or not, it just seems prudent to rapidly decrease the crap we artificially add to the air, the sea, the earth because we want the cheap, easy, good life. Perhaps there's harm in pollution, perhaps not, but there's no harm in reducing it except for short-term cost. But we will have added cost anyway since, we will be forced to deal with higher temperatures, aggressive storms, rising waters, etc. by developing workarounds. Everything from the food we eat, houses we live in, emergency support systems (home or city) to even crazy things like Carbon Reduction Machines: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080929123941.htm. Oh boy, new jobs!

Problem is the tipping point. I am betting we could stop all emissions immediately and not see the effect for decades with the end result not even being close to what were familiar with in the past.

Meanwhile Iman's Super Nova comment reminds us that our spaceship Earth is exactly that, a single spaceship. If we want to survive, we gonna need a second car..... That's the only sure fire way to be sure we can still drive to work if the first one breaks.

Yup, there's lots to be done so what are we talking about as a nation? Ferguson!!!!

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Nov '14

not to take over this thread...

"They'd just need to restripe the field."

It's not that easy to convert a field... CFL- NFL.

There is a 0 yard line between two 50's... there for you also have to more one of the uprights.

I am not saying it can't be done because it has been done many times not just for NFL but there is an International Bowl Game for College football in Toronto.

fujixt1 fujixt1
Nov '14

"Meanwhile Iman's Super Nova comment reminds us that our spaceship Earth is exactly that, a single spaceship. If we want to survive, we gonna need a second car..... That's the only sure fire way to be sure we can still drive to work if the first one breaks."

So, your solution to the supernova issue isn't to try to "fix" the sun, but to plan for the eventuality instead? That's pretty much contrary to the AGW solution; they would probably propose to fly extra hydrogen to the sun, lol.

ianimal ianimal
Nov '14

"I don't think it really matters whether global warming is man-made or a gift from God."

As a practical matter, no. But from a political and economic standpoint, where they are proposing to institute "carbon taxes" and label carbon dioxide as "pollution", then it matters a lot.

ianimal ianimal
Nov '14

So, every problem needs the same solution? You're sounding conservative :>)

And along with any workarounds, cleansing machines, new hot weather plant types, taxes and fines ----- there will always be economic pain. More pain for emergencies than careful planning.

There are many reasons we may need a second spaceship, some god given some man made. And remember, for man-made disasters, as the prophet Carlin said: "we're not killing the earth, we are killing ourselves, the Earth will still be here, it will be fine."

"Oh when Earth dies and it won't be long
Hey you're gonna be sorry that you treated it wrong
Yeah you're gonna be sorry that you treated it bad
Hey, earth has an after life, it will survive, it's gonna gloat and insects will be glad

Might be a ozone crash, or the CO2 might O. D.
Hey there's going to be a photograph with Man's obituary
You're gonna see it and you'll cry
You're gonna wanna wear black
Hey Planet Earth is fine, you may be dead but you can bet your life,
Earth got you back

(apologies to Wainwright)

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Nov '14

SO mg's solution is to colonize Mars (a "2nd spaceship") lol

You went and saw "Interstellar" last weekend, didn't you?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '14

"Agree with you completely, JR... it's certainly possible that warming is occurring, I won't deny that because I just don't know"

That's where I'm at. "show me." And don't just show me (prove) that global warming is occurring, prove that MAN-MADE global warming is occurring. Maybe it is. But you're gonna' have to prove it before I am for draconian anti-fossil fuel measures.

mg also has a good point that it would probably be prudent (e.g. common sense-ical) to develop cleaner and longer-lasting (perpetual?) energy resources, but we need to keep drilling and pumping until those are developed to the point of global usefulness. And again- I am not for arbitrary draconian measures against fossil fuels to "force us" to develop these new technologies. It would simply be in humankind's best interests to develop them.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '14

Crazy pics from Buffalo.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-most-terrifying-pictures-of-the-snow-in-buffalo?bffb

Calico696 Calico696
Nov '14

Get ready Buffalo and points south.....round 2 incoming!!! Insane! (Time sensitive link)

http://radar.weather.gov/radar.php?rid=BUF&product=NCR&overlay=11101111&loop=yes


I am a big believer in more. I want more electricity, faster cars, bigger engines, more, more, more.....

But to be prudent, I want more without screwing stuff up.

So I agree, drill, drill, drill, if you can do it cleanly. At the same time, let's invest in getting more, cleaner power ---- we can't keep burning Jurassic Park forever or we will go the way of what we are burning. I have said in the past, this is a great place to waste tax dollars. Waste because we are going to drill a number of dry wells before we hit clean, extendable, technologies for energy.

Meanwhile, it will never be enough. If we want to survive, and more importantly, expand, i.e. ------> more, then sure we will need another spaceship. Mars sounds sucky to me except for training. Think we want to pull a Jefferson's and be "moving on up........" not down.

But show me? Man, by the time you can see it for sure, 100% gwarrrrrreeeeeenteeeed, it won't matter. You can't see a home invasion, government takeover, or Martians coming either, but yet you've been preparing for years.

Meanwhile, back on point, I heard that it's like having two, count em, two F150's on your roof in Buffalo. If today's band moves North, you might make it three. Now I know my home which was really old up there had no way to easily clear those second story roofs. That's scary on top of scary. Did go through a few 4 footers though, but 5 is a whole nuther story.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Nov '14

ianimal, there is no god...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pp5mWs8k5I


OMG - people are still pushing Climate Change...lol

AL Gore - that you?


1- Climate change is always and forever here. This morning it's cold, today it will be warm. This year was warmer than last year. Last century averaged warmer temperatures than the one prior. This millennia is colder than the one 10,000 years ago. Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Denying it is like self-inflicted blindness.

2- What climate change *means* can be debated till the cows come home. Looking at ice core samples the planet has undergone many cycles of hot/cold swings. Heck, take a look at the boulders here in NJ and nearly every one of them is rounded on their corners from being rolled and pushed by *ice* that used to cover this area. Did humans cause that?

3- Prudence isn't a bad thing. Stemming the release of carbon that's been sequestered for millennia, as well as reducing the impact of cutting down a primary carbon collection system (deforestation) just makes sense. But it has to be done in with regard to how making those changes will impact human societies.

justintime justintime
Nov '14

Common sense says the activities of man effects Earth; just how much is the question...


"Meanwhile, back on point, I heard that it's like having two, count em, two F150's on your roof in Buffalo"

Would that be the old F150, or the new, aluminum F150? Let's hope this works for Ford, but...

Reggie Voter Reggie Voter
Nov '14

"But show me? Man, by the time you can see it for sure, 100% gwarrrrrreeeeeenteeeed, it won't matter. "

Yup- I don't base major policy and global decisions on bullshit guesses, hunches, or politically-driven dogma. I want to base it on science. Which we don't yet on this issue. Consensus is NOT science.

So, you want to change global policy "because maybe" something is happening, but are fully in favor of limiting people's firearms related rights "because probably not." We MIGHT be hurting the planet, let's change it. ....... You MIGHT have a home invasion someday, but don't worry about it. That's consistency right there.


"or Martians coming either, "


Martians? You mean we won't be able to use the Mars as our 2nd spaceship? Somebody better break the news to Matt McConaughey

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Nov '14

Mars isn't going to have any better luck surviving the sun going supernova than the Earth will. The only chance for the temporary survival of the species beyond the life of the sun and/or the ability of our own planet to sustain us is suspended animation and intergalactic travel to a solar system with an earth-like planet that is somehow uninhabited. But, even that is just a Band-Aid. Because, at the end of the last day, entropy wins.

ianimal ianimal
Nov '14

Sometimes legislation, in our currently structured society, is necessary for promoting prudent, mindful, forward-thinking policies that promote current well being and ensure future quality of life. Second smoke laws, seatbelt mandates, prohibiting development of wetlands, for example, are all meant to improve life through limiting potentially hazardous actions.
We know that carbon emissions cause poor air quality which is undeniably a factor in respiratory health, cardiac complications, and harmful smog - a daily concern in places in like LA.
So, yeah, there are clear and persuasive reasons to limit emissions and mandate cleaner energy initiatives.

kepa
Nov '14

So it will be over one day...


Who says I am not worried?

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Nov '14

Russia's president has got it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO14Hb5ra_c


Back to the Top | View all Forum Topics
This topic has not been commented on in 3 years.
Commenting is no longer available.