ugg baby shoes snowiest on record in Ann Arbor
Total snowfall in Ann Arbor was 29.9 inches in February, reports University of Michigan weather observer Dennis Kahlbaum, which he says is 17 inches more than normal. That made last month the second snowiest since 1880, the beginning of modern weather record keeping.
The record was set in 2010, when 33.1 inches fell in Ann Arbor.
So far this winter, Ann Arbor has had 59.3 inches of snow 12 inches more than normal for this point in the season, Kahlbaum said. Last year, Ann Arbor only had 34.7 inches of snow during the December through February period.
Although weather record keepers consider the end of February the end of meteorological winter, it often not the end of winter like weather. Ann Arbor usually receives about 8.5 inches of snow in March, Kahlbaum said.
The winter of 2010 2011 had February as its snowiest month. If you mean that the 2009 2010 winter had the snowiest February ever, then snowplow service was much better on my area roads that February of 2010 than it was a year later. February 2011 was a month not to be forgotten, what with getting stuck in rural intersections due to uncleared snow, and spinning tires. Not like February 2010 at all. Dennis Kahlbaum always used to tell us in his monthly articles about each months temperature range, precipitation expectation, and amount of daylight. He always said that January is the snowiest month of the year. I don know if January 2010 was snowier than the following month, but January 2011 definitely was less snowy than the following month.
The ignorance on display in the anti science posts above are really, really sad. Equating one month of precipitation totals (not temperature, mind you) with proof that there isn global warming is ridiculous.
If you don want to actually look at real climate data, why do you feel entitled to even speak on the matter?
Concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
Known, factual emissions of carbon by human activity
Global average temperature (not just one local region, ok?)
Severity of storms (including above average precipitation rates)
These things all correlate. If you deny that, then you aren trying to know the truth. Your decisions affect all of us. Please get educated.
SEC, I actually agree with you. Humans are contributing. We don know if it 10% or 90%, but we definitely contributing.
As for your other proof of no correlation, no, try again. Glaciers? Ice caps? Hello.
Your global average temperature data is just flat out wrong. Simply google global average temperature and read the preponderance of data that lies before you. They do use 51 80 as the base period. Guess what? We over 0.5C hotter now. Stop cherry picking the facts and repeating what you hear on faux news. Please.
First, let me be clear, I totally believe that human activity is CONTRIBUTING to the warming of the Earth, which is, by the way, a naturally occurring phenomenon. Your climate data:
Concentration of CO2. Yes, we have seen an Global Annual Mean increase in CO2 of 53.76 ppm over the past 32 years.
Factual Emissions of CO2 by human activity. yes, our output has increased dramatically and adds about 6 billion tons per year.
Now the effects (Per NASA and NOAA):
Global Avg. Temps: NASA used a 30 year average (mean) to determine the baseline (1951 1980). The average (mean) temperature for that period is 57.2 Fahrenheit. People like you now say that we are hotter by taking the average (mean) temperature for each following year and comparing that individual year with the 30 year average (mean). Get the issue? No? well, let me put it into perspective. NASA data says the 9 hottest years have occurred since 1998. Perhaps so.
Severity of Storms: Many people, like you, claim that man influence on Global Warming is causing more severe weather, particularly hurricanes (I found no claims about cyclones). GFDL (Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory part of NOAA) analyzed all the Atlantic storms going back to 1878 and found: summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. (NOTE: this source was updated January 30, 2013).
The ignorance of someone claiming we deny scientific proof, yet spends (excuse me, wastes) so much time posting multiple comments on a public news forum thinking they will change anyone opinion global warming is actually more sad. Yet you accuse folks posting here of not being educated when you are literally wasting your time arguing with people for not buying into your beliefs when common sense dictates in the end they will believe what they want to believe. Hopefully your not on company time with your little soap box crusade.
The skeptics are usually carbon profiteers or economists.
Fossil fuels as an energy source should never run out mathematically.
The amount of fossil energy required to extract and process fossil energy normally obsoletes the process before very long because it takes more energy every year to get the same. Unless.
Unless you are an economist or profiteer where paper dollars are used to the negative cash flow of resource costs.
Who cares if I waste two barrels to pull one barrel? If the wasted fuel costs me less than losing control over future carbon profits then it drill baby drill.
Control those who print your money and how worried are you about the business bottom line? Not much. But risk a control change? Now how worried are you about profiting from that evaporating resource that costs more to dig than it is worth?