Snow 3/18
Botheredbyuu2 
lorie 
JeffersonRepub 
LibertyThinker News12NJ says 2"-4" for our area, and while it'll be snowing all day sat, it's early sunday morning when the accumulations really start happening... so now we're talking monday AM commute....
https://www.facebook.com/JustinGodynick/videos/1930386347174882/
ianimal just got the nixle on my phone: 2"-4", 6AM sat to 6AM sunday
IDK why I mentioned the monday commute earlier, just so effing effed that we're getting more snow it must've effed up my thought process.... effing effer.
WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I will be up at High Point riding all weekend regardlesss......bring it!
Darrin 
redmink1This is literally the third or fourth snow storm of the season....a few years ago we had snow every single week. You guys should be counting your blessings!
I think everyone is just spoiled from last years one and done
Darrin... I could not agree more... a few years ago I was having a hard time finding enough room to pile the snow from shoveling...
There is snow and there is snow. I think we can qualify this one as not the best snow we ever had although at least the power held which is a plus for sure.
This was not one of the nicest snows. It was heavy, moved around a bit, and had to be dispatched before it turned to a block of ice. The cold following was most unusual for a late winter snow.
My driveway runs East/West --- and I start from the West. Beyond being drifted in, a 15mph East wind slowed my early blowing until it moved around to the North. Bottom line: took 4-5 hours to do a 30-minute job and it's a big blower. Just too wet and heavy. Had some cars in the driveway, guests n all, so plowed that section the next day. Was picking up 2-inch thick slabs about the size of tombstones which they may have been. Or at least I felt like I could use a tombstone after that :>(
I do like a good snow. I can understand your desire to put on your pretty snowsuit and take a ride in the snow. I like to do the same in my 4WD on the backroads sometimes well before I ought to. But we got lucky on this one, it was a bad snow and had the potential to be a disastrous snow. So I do not take them lightly --- until they are over.
strangerdanger It's not the amount of snow for me, it's the TIMING. If these 2 storms had happened in dec/jan/feb, fine. But I HATE March snow... it's supposed to be spring on MONDAY. I HATE when winter hangs on and won't die the death that is so overdue....
Must be global warm...er, I mean cool....wait..... what is it called now? Atmospheric schizophrenia? I can't keep track....
It is Global Warming and your kids will face it head on.
Have you noticed the past three or more years, how the seasons seem to be shifting. March is now the new February. November is the new October. I was heating last year until a week before Memorial Day.
There is potentially good news in all this. Once we develop GMO-based, dna-altered seeds that can grow in the Great American plains, I mean desert, we can start farming the Sahara!
4catmom 
Iris The sad thing is the climate is having what amounts to convulsions and confusion as it changes gears from one season to the next. The seasonal clock is off and things are indeed changing. The experts call it climate change and there are many reasons for it. Basically we should just agree to disagree and hope that those who disregard climate change are right. However It is always important to have a plan B just in case we are. Our grandchildren and their descendants would be grateful.
Jono I like to feed the birds in this weather. They can see food on top of the white snow banks. I put out some leftover corn and a baked apple, plus seeds, and they ate it all up. They may have a hard time finding food now and I hope to help them out.
DannyC I don't know if anyone saw the Raptor Trust writeup on Facebook regarding woodcocks. Because of that mild weather we had, they have already migrated to this area. The problem is, they survive on earthworms and since there is a foot of snow they have nothing to eat and are starving to death.
If you happen across one, Raptor Trust is asking you to bring it to them. They already have so many woodcocks in dire need of food. Anything to help the woodcocks is greatly appreciated!
Iris - Sorry, I do not see any woodcocks, which are very distinguishable with their long beaks. At least seven other bird varieties though, who sure like to eat. Any advice on attracting and feeding woodcocks in this snow and weather?
I personally have never seen any around here. I'll check with a friend and get back to you, DannyC.
Brad, it is not just winter and NJ it is all the seasons and the impact is world wide.
These "inverted trough's" the forecasters speak of always seem to fizzle out and never materialize. Yesterday was a perfect example of that! NWS cancelled their Winter Weather Advisories early for our area Saturday morning after they saw the early Saturday morning model runs coming in saying fuhgeddaboudit!!!
Enough is enough. This snowlover says bring on Spring! With any luck we reach 60 by next weekend on Saturday!! Unfortunately rain might be in the picture but we have plenty of time to work on that...
Vic The trick, however, is to look at ALL the facts, not just select those that might support your pre-decided point of view... if one looks at ALL the facts, the picture becomes clear - you know, like scientists do. You would want your medical researchers to look at ALL the facts in developing treatments for your condition wouldn't you? Well that's what GOOD science is - open-minded, not politically driven review of ALL facts available - not distorted hand-picked perspectives... I encourage you to look not only at "real" facts but consider the motivations of those who TELL you what to think and who alter facts..... (can't believe that this "debate" continues in a world with so much access to science).....
pmnsk Science is supposed to be a game of research and learning..The "facts" are supposed to change as we learn more. Debate is healthy in science.We only have a few seconds ( Based on age of the earth) of data concerning global warming..Err cooling...Err climate change..much of which was altered to support a specific political agenda..when one side starts screaming " settled science",,you now know they have no interest in learning or discovering new facts
Don't dare say "global warming", anymore. That's a Gore term. The politically or un-politically term, depending on which side your on, is climate change. And people even dispute that. I've never seen more severe weather and records broken, in the past 15 years, than I've seen in the previous 35 years. In the 70's, we would get a little snow, almost every week. Summer? Rain at least once a week. Now it's feast or famine". I really don't think that the Nobel Peace prize is given, based on just a theory. The Musky had three "100 year" floods, in a matter of a few weeks. Even in the first 10 years I've lived here, I've only seen the river flood once... crossed over rt 57, few miles past Diamond Hill! I'm sure some of the "old timers", who have been here their whole life, have some good flood stories, however, so many, so severe, in such a short time frame? Humans will cause the next mass extinction, one way or another. Wow... and I'm supposed to be talking about this weeks weather... sorry.
sparksjbc1964 Yes, research and LEARNING - we do actually come to understand some things over time - hone information with more detailed specific research - it doesn't all remain unknown - hence our ability to reach the moon and develop cures for diseases - it is in the areas where the science affects big business where the facts remain "debatable" long after the scientific community has demonstrated over and over and over - it is falso those that doubt "authority" - though science has not claimed authority, merely science - who, for whatever reason, disclaim anything that isn't their own creation - and most importantly - worth repeating - those that benefit economically from a particular perspective - this is where the challenging takes place by non scientists- not in other areas, interestingly.
"Climate change" is the correct term though.
"Global warming" is the short term effect, but the reality today is that the phrase is more of an emotional trigger than it is an accurate representation of the big picture. Climate change is the accurate descriptor.
Climate over time always oscillates, that's what the science of climate history has shown. We are in a warming cycle now, yes, but the temperatures are not historically unprecedented by any means. What is rare is the rate-of-change on the warming direction today relative to the historical record. But that's not what we hear in the emotion-grabbing news, is it?
IMO the questions we need to ask ourselves aren't necessarily about *controlling* our climate (that's a fools errand to me because I think all we can really do is nudge it as the energy required to actually change it is immense) but more about predicting and adapting to it.
That's not to say we shouldn't stop unsequestering carbon dioxide that's been holed up under our crust for millennia. That's a worthy goal of course, and over time that can help to reverse the trend.
But our entire existence today is dependent on fossil fuels. Swivel your head as you're reading this and it would be impossible to not see something that required a fossil-fuel input to create. That's primarily what many people are concerned about, a reversal of human "progress".
Working to reduce carbon emissions is a worthy goal for sure, especially since it's fairly clear our activities have nudged the climate trend, but at this point that's not the answer to the bigger problem of how we can adapt to a changing climate. Our ancestors had to adapt as well, and we will need to do the same.
justintime 
And while pmnsk, and others, seek paralysis through analysis, sparksjbc1964 and others want to rebrand global warming because Gore coined it, the vast majority of scientists across the world can prove, I said prove -- "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." Hello, McFly, anybody in there. I say the time has come to take action.
NASA -- bunch of snowflakes these space travelers are. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
If you are still questioning, or strangerdanger yet -- disbelieving, ask yourself this: is a little creature comfort worth killing your family legacy? I mean do we really need to continue to increase the pollution levels across the Earth at breakneck speeds? How long do you continue to turn a blind eye and refuse to take action?
Recently we just voted for a man who's stakes one of his claims to fame to bringing back coal. Lots of coal. Matter of fact, he loves all fossil fuels and ignores clean energy. He kids about alternative energy and employs none --- even at his Shangri La in FL. He is in the process of gutting the EPA and the clean environment regulations and laws it enforces. That will not help. His energy plan does not even include the word solar.
Look at our CO2 emissions (see picture_. Are you that oblivious to think this can continue without a negative impact. Do you think it's fake science? Or how about that the negative impact may, just may, have already crossed the tipping point. We really don't know the answer to that one. You might ask your scientist to respond, but they already have and you are not listening. No matter how "analytical" you profess to be.
I am a simple guy so the example I use is the Earth as a huge tub of water. Within that water we place a huge block of ice and call it the North/South Poles. After a while there will be a steady melting creating certain patterns of water and air movements as warm meets cold. Steady is the key. Now take that ice and crush it. Put the chips back in the water. Will there be a pattern shift? Will movement be accelerated? Will there be massive pattern ebbs and flows? You betcha. Welcome to our current weather. Guess what: then the chips melt and guess what's left?
I say why pollute more, let's pollute less. It's easy. You don't need government, you can start this yourself. Since 2010 or so, I reduced by fossil fuel usage by 50%; for the fossil fuel I do use, much is much more efficient and, I think, therefore cleaner. I have increased my use of renewable resources to 50% of my heating bill, again burning at a much cleaner rate than my old 1970's oil furnace. Here's the good part: I am warmer than ever and spending less $$$ every year.
As far as government, the facts, and the rest, let's face it --- for four year at least, we're going to make it far worse before we even start to make it better given the bozo-what-be-in-charge.
The majority opinion once thought the earth was flat..Nobel prizes are more political than anything else (i.e Bob Dillon) All science IS a theory and not supposed to be fact ..One small different opinion can change the theory of science in a huge way. Nicolaus Copernicus found it much easier to mathematically prove the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than the Sun revolves around the Earth. He was lone wolf in a world earth centrists scientists of that time. I realize most people like "facts" but without enough good "data" you don't have any. The old computer adage " GIGO" garbage in = garbage out definitely applies to climate change scientists who refuse to consider their "facts about the earth warming up" could be wrong..as well as a host of other scientific theories
If climate change is something new, then come someone help explain to me how the ice age occurred. It appears to me climate changes are cyclical and have been here forever.
CraftBeerBob This seems to be the most prevelant view:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming
Context is provided in the sub-links. The graph in the link below is the one I immediately recall when these conversations come up:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change
My view is that setting a long term goal to reduce our conversion of sequestered carbon to atmospheric carbon is 100% worthwhile. But big, short term changes will disrupt societies more than they would impact the climate, so setting long term plans and working toward them makes the most sense IMO.
JIT, we actually agree....mostly...on this.
Where we disagree is when you say: "IMO the questions we need to ask ourselves aren't necessarily about *controlling* our climate (that's a fools errand to me because I think all we can really do is nudge it as the energy required to actually change it is immense) but more about predicting and adapting to it," I say do all of the above.
Sure, we can't control our climate and any attempt will yield unanticipated outcomes. But hell, we need to make an attempt. Perhaps the nudge you recommend.
And, of course, I agree with adaptation. To do so will require even more energy though so clean energy becomes more and more important. The other world-killer will be farming, but as I alluded to earlier, tongue in cheek, the positive outcome is we might learn to farm the Sahara finally ending world hunger for all we know.
There's another response which, at some point, will be either our destiny or our death. We need to establish colonies off planet. Sure, sounds tin foil hat. But that's the best way to defend the species from destruction of this planet. I mean if you want to be sure to make it to work, having two cars significantly ups your potential of making it. Think about it. From another planet (or moon), you can see em coming from zillion of miles away...... The chance of that asteroid hitting both is very low. Lots of advantages to ensuring the species survives.
gee stranger, you totally missed my point - clearly I wasn't clear or you read it with a preconceived notion of what I was saying....
If I had simply stated it, I thought you felt the topic required more study. I feel it is time to begin taking actions based on the studies to-date. Sorry if I missed it, and if I did it's all on me. Certainly have no preconceived notions of virtual you.
What I was trying to do - obviously in a clumsy way - was to say that the data is all there - the science is there - that if it is unclear or uncertain, it is due to a bias - I agree, it is way way past time to take action - but it seems that others - and those in power - are slanting the "facts" to suit those who view "facts" through political lenses or economic lense...
pmnsk, the period between the last major peak transitions, per the graph in the last link I posted, by eye seems to be 80,000 to 100,000 years or so. Can you see where we are in the natural planetary cycle? We are already at the natural high temperature point, so to be in a warming period is not unexpected whatsoever. Also note the total temperature swings that the planet has gone through.
Like I said, we may have been increasing the rate of change during the past century, which is something to be concerned about, but for the life of me I can't see how our impact would change the historic norms for this planet. People who decry the negative effects of global warming are inferring that the previous 80,000 year cycle will all of a sudden be changed by our use of fossil fuels, that the warming trend will continue to infinity? The history is telling us that at some point in the future (probably in a few hundred years) the trend will reverse due to a natural balance that the planet seems to seek. And again, I have no problem being a good steward to the planet by reducing our carbon releases, but certainly the costs should be weighed against the real threat - wouldn't you agree?
The long term trend is indicating that our short term additions to the normal heating cycle happens to coincide with the normal climate change shown in the historical record. IOW, take the last century off the chart and ask how different would the outcome be if we just skipped the last 100 years, what the projected trend would have been anyway? Not much in the grand scheme of things that I can see.
"The core samples, taken from the Artic ice sheets, don't lie."
No? But sometimes scientists do...
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/07/former-noaa-scientist-colleagues-manipulated-climate-change-data-for-political-reasons/
When politics is involved, you can Trust No 1.
Plenty of opposing info out there, you just have to look past CNN/CNBC/ABC/PBS/etc...
Just one of many...
https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3
Commenting is no longer available.