Farmer's Almanac Predicts Bitter Winter for U.S.

[SlowSpyder]

If I recall they predicted a very normal summer for us as well, but this summer has been the coldest I remember. It was in the low 40's two nights ago... So they may be accurate overall, but they weren't too on target with this summer it seems.

 

[seemingly random]

The contrary view is much more accurate. The farmer's almanac was a slightly better track record than religious texts at predictions.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Beev
Cue the "omg global warming really means global climate change!" idiots.

fine i won't say it :laugh:

however, both Toledo and Columbus, Ohio have had mild winters the past few years, and quite warm summers.

This summer has been quite unpredictably mild, which makes me fear a bone-chilling winter.

We used to get some nasty winters in NW Ohio, but no so much lately. I expected the trend to return to such a winter one of these years, it was only due.

I, however, DO NOT want to have to walk to and from class during the winter if it's going to be like the winters I remember growing up.
I hope I have an easy winter quarter, because I'll probably end up skipping the nasty days. But I need to trudge on though, some of the bullshit this year isn't going to be optional.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Apparently they use a

top secret mathematical and astronomical formula, that relies on sunspot activity, tidal action, planetary position and many other factors

to predict the weather up to TWO YEARS in advance. Two. Years.

They're doing horoscopes. Many of the predictions are likely based on proven climate trends (not that anyone knows for sure, since they won't divulge their secret method), but they also throw out a lot of vague predictions, then take credit for the hits and hope we forget the misses.

By the way, if you think one cold winter should convince people that global warming doesn't exist, by your own logic, if the winter is warmer than normal, will you change your own mind? Don't get me wrong, either way, you're still an imbecile, but at least if it's the latter you'll avoid being a hypocrite too.

Can we call you an imbecile because the data that has been gathered so far pretty much destroys the notion of man made global warming.
To think that man can have that much impact on the planet is kind of dumb. I mean that giant ball of fire in the sky that sends more energy to the earth in one second than mankind has produced in all of history, goes through cycles and a upturn in output of the sun producing that much energy could possibly affect the temperature of the planet.

The reason "man made global warming" is in is because it's a pre-tense to use to control PEOPLE, not the weather, but PEOPLE.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Analog

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

By the way, if you think one cold winter should convince people that global warming doesn't exist, by your own logic, if the winter is warmer than normal, will you change your own mind? Don't get me wrong, either way, you're still an imbecile, but at least if it's the latter you'll avoid being a hypocrite too.

Like I said, anyone that is a member of the "Church of Global Warming" cannot be reasoned with, because just like bible thumpers, they're right, your wrong, and there's no way to argue with them. Resorting to insults is indicative of this type of naivety.

Damn it! And just when Exxon also agreed that there is global warming. They must be idiots too, and you're right? Else, they're right and you're the idiot. Hmmmmm... I don't think it's a flip of the coin here, folks. 😛

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Apparently they use a

top secret mathematical and astronomical formula, that relies on sunspot activity, tidal action, planetary position and many other factors

to predict the weather up to TWO YEARS in advance. Two. Years.

They're doing horoscopes. Many of the predictions are likely based on proven climate trends (not that anyone knows for sure, since they won't divulge their secret method), but they also throw out a lot of vague predictions, then take credit for the hits and hope we forget the misses.

By the way, if you think one cold winter should convince people that global warming doesn't exist, by your own logic, if the winter is warmer than normal, will you change your own mind? Don't get me wrong, either way, you're still an imbecile, but at least if it's the latter you'll avoid being a hypocrite too.

Can we call you an imbecile because the data that has been gathered so far pretty much destroys the notion of man made global warming.
To think that man can have that much impact on the planet is kind of dumb. I mean that giant ball of fire in the sky that sends more energy to the earth in one second than mankind has produced in all of history, goes through cycles and a upturn in output of the sun producing that much energy could possibly affect the temperature of the planet.

The reason "man made global warming" is in is because it's a pre-tense to use to control PEOPLE, not the weather, but PEOPLE.

Are you, perchance, a talk radio host?

 

[FleshLight]

Most people who don't acknowledge climate change lack science degrees.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Apparently they use a

top secret mathematical and astronomical formula, that relies on sunspot activity, tidal action, planetary position and many other factors

to predict the weather up to TWO YEARS in advance. Two. Years.

They're doing horoscopes. Many of the predictions are likely based on proven climate trends (not that anyone knows for sure, since they won't divulge their secret method), but they also throw out a lot of vague predictions, then take credit for the hits and hope we forget the misses.

By the way, if you think one cold winter should convince people that global warming doesn't exist, by your own logic, if the winter is warmer than normal, will you change your own mind? Don't get me wrong, either way, you're still an imbecile, but at least if it's the latter you'll avoid being a hypocrite too.

Can we call you an imbecile because the data that has been gathered so far pretty much destroys the notion of man made global warming.
To think that man can have that much impact on the planet is kind of dumb. I mean that giant ball of fire in the sky that sends more energy to the earth in one second than mankind has produced in all of history, goes through cycles and a upturn in output of the sun producing that much energy could possibly affect the temperature of the planet.

The reason "man made global warming" is in is because it's a pre-tense to use to control PEOPLE, not the weather, but PEOPLE.

Global warming is an accepted fact. That man is contributing to it is an accepted fact. The degree to which man is contributing to it is debated. By accepted fact, I mean to experts in climatology, not to people who listen to radio talk show hosts. Furthermore, as you hint at natural sun cycles, yes, it is true that the Martian Polar caps are diminishing. However, the first papers trying to determine whether this effect was sufficient to explain that the Earth is warming came to the following reason: It's only partially responsible for the effect on Earth. Something else is causing the Earth to warm up.


Also, globally, CO2 levels are at an incredibly high level and have risen at an incredible rate. Are you claiming that mankind hasn't caused that, because we're too puny to have that much of a global effect? Also, species are going extinct at a rate rarely witnessed in history. Are you claiming that this isn't also due to man's tinkering with his environment? Ditto methane in the atmosphere - are you claiming that the higher levels aren't due to activities of man? You seem to underestimate mankind. Ever heard of nuclear winter? You're either underestimating mankind, else overestimating nuclear bombs.

 

[IGBT]

hot or cold, it doesn't matter the thermal theists and eco-KOOKS with their willing accomplices in/out of the media will kludge a reason why humans are to blame. Then they'll brainwash ya with their goofy faulty computer models.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Global warming is an accepted fact. That man is contributing to it is an accepted fact. The degree to which man is contributing to it is debated. By accepted fact, I mean to experts in climatology, not to people who listen to radio talk show hosts. Furthermore, as you hint at natural sun cycles, yes, it is true that the Martian Polar caps are diminishing. However, the first papers trying to determine whether this effect was sufficient to explain that the Earth is warming came to the following reason: It's only partially responsible for the effect on Earth. Something else is causing the Earth to warm up.


Also, globally, CO2 levels are at an incredibly high level and have risen at an incredible rate. Are you claiming that mankind hasn't caused that, because we're too puny to have that much of a global effect? Also, species are going extinct at a rate rarely witnessed in history. Are you claiming that this isn't also due to man's tinkering with his environment? Ditto methane in the atmosphere - are you claiming that the higher levels aren't due to activities of man? You seem to underestimate mankind. Ever heard of nuclear winter? You're either underestimating mankind, else overestimating nuclear bombs.

You must be like the Pope of the Church of Global Warming or something, spreading about your "science" and "facts" as though they were anything more than slipshod theory and liberal nonsense! PSHAW! I SAY GOOD DAY TO YOU, SIR!

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: IGBT
hot or cold, it doesn't matter the thermal theists and eco-KOOKS with their willing accomplices in/out of the media will kludge a reason why humans are to blame. Then they'll brainwash ya with their goofy faulty computer models.

I don't need to ask if you, perchance, are a talk radio host. You are not one. You've been listening to them though.

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Global warming is an accepted fact. That man is contributing to it is an accepted fact. The degree to which man is contributing to it is debated. By accepted fact, I mean to experts in climatology, not to people who listen to radio talk show hosts. Furthermore, as you hint at natural sun cycles, yes, it is true that the Martian Polar caps are diminishing. However, the first papers trying to determine whether this effect was sufficient to explain that the Earth is warming came to the following reason: It's only partially responsible for the effect on Earth. Something else is causing the Earth to warm up.


Also, globally, CO2 levels are at an incredibly high level and have risen at an incredible rate. Are you claiming that mankind hasn't caused that, because we're too puny to have that much of a global effect? Also, species are going extinct at a rate rarely witnessed in history. Are you claiming that this isn't also due to man's tinkering with his environment? Ditto methane in the atmosphere - are you claiming that the higher levels aren't due to activities of man? You seem to underestimate mankind. Ever heard of nuclear winter? You're either underestimating mankind, else overestimating nuclear bombs.

You must be like the Pope of the Church of Global Warming or something, spreading about your "science" and "facts" as though they were anything more than slipshod theory and liberal nonsense! PSHAW! I SAY GOOD DAY TO YOU, SIR!

Not only that, but he's not a talk radio host and HE HASN'T EVEN BEEN LISTENING!! ZOMG!!!

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Global warming is an accepted fact. That man is contributing to it is an accepted fact. The degree to which man is contributing to it is debated. By accepted fact, I mean to experts in climatology, not to people who listen to radio talk show hosts. Furthermore, as you hint at natural sun cycles, yes, it is true that the Martian Polar caps are diminishing. However, the first papers trying to determine whether this effect was sufficient to explain that the Earth is warming came to the following reason: It's only partially responsible for the effect on Earth. Something else is causing the Earth to warm up.


Also, globally, CO2 levels are at an incredibly high level and have risen at an incredible rate. Are you claiming that mankind hasn't caused that, because we're too puny to have that much of a global effect? Also, species are going extinct at a rate rarely witnessed in history. Are you claiming that this isn't also due to man's tinkering with his environment? Ditto methane in the atmosphere - are you claiming that the higher levels aren't due to activities of man? You seem to underestimate mankind. Ever heard of nuclear winter? You're either underestimating mankind, else overestimating nuclear bombs.

You must be like the Pope of the Church of Global Warming or something, spreading about your "science" and "facts" as though they were anything more than slipshod theory and liberal nonsense! PSHAW! I SAY GOOD DAY TO YOU, SIR!

Yeah, and when is Hussein Obama going to produce his birth certificate?! I don't want government death panels, I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: IGBT
hot or cold, it doesn't matter the thermal theists and eco-KOOKS with their willing accomplices in/out of the media will kludge a reason why humans are to blame. Then they'll brainwash ya with their goofy faulty computer models.

See, this guy, this guy right here--THIS is the voice of reason! DO YOU HAVE A PODCAST TO WHICH I CAN SUBSCRIBE?!?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Apparently they use a

top secret mathematical and astronomical formula, that relies on sunspot activity, tidal action, planetary position and many other factors

to predict the weather up to TWO YEARS in advance. Two. Years.

They're doing horoscopes. Many of the predictions are likely based on proven climate trends (not that anyone knows for sure, since they won't divulge their secret method), but they also throw out a lot of vague predictions, then take credit for the hits and hope we forget the misses.

By the way, if you think one cold winter should convince people that global warming doesn't exist, by your own logic, if the winter is warmer than normal, will you change your own mind? Don't get me wrong, either way, you're still an imbecile, but at least if it's the latter you'll avoid being a hypocrite too.

Can we call you an imbecile because the data that has been gathered so far pretty much destroys the notion of man made global warming.
To think that man can have that much impact on the planet is kind of dumb. I mean that giant ball of fire in the sky that sends more energy to the earth in one second than mankind has produced in all of history, goes through cycles and a upturn in output of the sun producing that much energy could possibly affect the temperature of the planet.

The reason "man made global warming" is in is because it's a pre-tense to use to control PEOPLE, not the weather, but PEOPLE.

Global warming is an accepted fact. That man is contributing to it is an accepted fact. The degree to which man is contributing to it is debated. By accepted fact, I mean to experts in climatology, not to people who listen to radio talk show hosts. Furthermore, as you hint at natural sun cycles, yes, it is true that the Martian Polar caps are diminishing. However, the first papers trying to determine whether this effect was sufficient to explain that the Earth is warming came to the following reason: It's only partially responsible for the effect on Earth. Something else is causing the Earth to warm up.


Also, globally, CO2 levels are at an incredibly high level and have risen at an incredible rate. Are you claiming that mankind hasn't caused that, because we're too puny to have that much of a global effect? Also, species are going extinct at a rate rarely witnessed in history. Are you claiming that this isn't also due to man's tinkering with his environment? Ditto methane in the atmosphere - are you claiming that the higher levels aren't due to activities of man? You seem to underestimate mankind. Ever heard of nuclear winter? You're either underestimating mankind, else overestimating nuclear bombs.

Thanks for saving me the trouble. The weird thing about my post is that I didn't say a single thing in support of global warming. All I did was point out how stupid it is to base your opinion on short term weather rather than decades and centuries of climate data and computer models.

 

[SampSon]

We got hammered with snow in WNY this past winter.
Can't get much worse.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Thanks for saving me the trouble. The weird thing about my post is that I didn't say a single thing in support of global warming. All I did was point out how stupid it is to base your opinion on short term weather rather than decades and centuries of climate data and computer models.

Well, I certainly trust the scientists that the planet is warming, but 150 years of bad data and 30 or 40 years of decent data is pretty damned "short term", especially when we have no idea what "normal" is for the planet anyway. Hell, warmer sounds good. Year round wheat and soy production in Canada, Russia, and Kazakhstan? Might work out just fine.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Apparently they use a

top secret mathematical and astronomical formula, that relies on sunspot activity, tidal action, planetary position and many other factors

to predict the weather up to TWO YEARS in advance. Two. Years.

They're doing horoscopes. Many of the predictions are likely based on proven climate trends (not that anyone knows for sure, since they won't divulge their secret method), but they also throw out a lot of vague predictions, then take credit for the hits and hope we forget the misses.

By the way, if you think one cold winter should convince people that global warming doesn't exist, by your own logic, if the winter is warmer than normal, will you change your own mind? Don't get me wrong, either way, you're still an imbecile, but at least if it's the latter you'll avoid being a hypocrite too.

Can we call you an imbecile because the data that has been gathered so far pretty much destroys the notion of man made global warming.
To think that man can have that much impact on the planet is kind of dumb. I mean that giant ball of fire in the sky that sends more energy to the earth in one second than mankind has produced in all of history, goes through cycles and a upturn in output of the sun producing that much energy could possibly affect the temperature of the planet.

The reason "man made global warming" is in is because it's a pre-tense to use to control PEOPLE, not the weather, but PEOPLE.

Global warming is an accepted fact. That man is contributing to it is an accepted fact. The degree to which man is contributing to it is debated. By accepted fact, I mean to experts in climatology, not to people who listen to radio talk show hosts. Furthermore, as you hint at natural sun cycles, yes, it is true that the Martian Polar caps are diminishing. However, the first papers trying to determine whether this effect was sufficient to explain that the Earth is warming came to the following reason: It's only partially responsible for the effect on Earth. Something else is causing the Earth to warm up.


Also, globally, CO2 levels are at an incredibly high level and have risen at an incredible rate. Are you claiming that mankind hasn't caused that, because we're too puny to have that much of a global effect? Also, species are going extinct at a rate rarely witnessed in history. Are you claiming that this isn't also due to man's tinkering with his environment? Ditto methane in the atmosphere - are you claiming that the higher levels aren't due to activities of man? You seem to underestimate mankind. Ever heard of nuclear winter? You're either underestimating mankind, else overestimating nuclear bombs.

Not to forget, that simply using observation of other planets to explain conditions on our planet, isn't exactly enough.
For instance, you have to take into effect what we see on other planets is only right now, and we have little confirmed evidence of conditions local to those planets outside of a very short history.
What we know about Mars - is it used to have an atmosphere that likely permitted liquid water on the surface. Numerous problems had an impact on Mars' ability to maintain that atmosphere - lower gravity and a weaker magnetic field to shield the planet from the solar winds both contributed to the atmosphere slowly escaping to space.
But just like atmospheres of other planets form, space debris and dust in the region were able to be pulled in, and early Mars internal conditions, like its volcanic history, allowed for an atmosphere to establish as the planet settled down. But it couldn't hold on to the atmosphere.

Venus had a comparable atmosphere to Earth, but for some reason a runaway greenhouse gas buildup led to an increasingly denser atmosphere over time, and warmer temperatures on the surface than would normally be seen at its distance (still going to be a warmer planet than Earth if it maintained a comparable atmosphere). Now, it's ground-level atmosphere has a pressure equivalent to the floor of our oceans.

Saturn won't have rings forever. Most planets once had rings as well.

Point being - those that claim that our local conditions are changing because of the same factors on other planets will be wrong.
(this post wasn't to counter you, DrPizza. Rather provide more for others)

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Beev
Cue the "omg global warming really means global climate change!" idiots.

It does. Global Warming results in Global Climate Change.

 

[Auggie]

From Wikipedia:

Carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere is considered a trace gas currently occurring at an average concentration of about 385 parts per million by volume or 582 parts per million by mass. The total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3.0×10^15 kg.

Man made CO2 is a joke compared to other global and celestial forces affecting our atmosphere. Anybody recall how in the 60s and 70s everybody went bat shit crazy about global cooling? People were saying we were headed for a new ice age. Look where we are now.

 

[Baked]

What's winter?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Auggie
From Wikipedia:

Carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere is considered a trace gas currently occurring at an average concentration of about 385 parts per million by volume or 582 parts per million by mass. The total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3.0×10^15 kg.

Man made CO2 is a joke compared to other global and celestial forces affecting our atmosphere. Anybody recall how in the 60s and 70s everybody went bat shit crazy about global cooling? People were saying we were headed for a new ice age. Look where we are now.

Fail

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Didnt Dr Pizza say something along the lines of:

Global warming is pretty much accepted amongst the experts, but the cause of it is still debated while in AT we're still debating whether global warming even exists at all?