Snowstorm rolls in after record-setting warmth

CBS 4 News

Published March 1, 2008 at 4:44 p.m.
Updated March 2, 2008 at 10:51 a.m.

Text size

More Local News

Comments

March 1, 2008

5:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Quidam writes:

Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back!
"If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death."

... the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has revealed that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/gl...
March 1, 2008

5:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Fishbear writes:

Sasquatch,
While this year may have had high snowpack, as I'm writing this it is 72 degrees outside in Aurora and it's only the 1st of March. Realistically it's not called global warming - it's climate change. And there is significant evidence that the world climate is changing. The Sahara is still expanding. Hurricanes and tropical storms are becoming more severe. Crop staple areas such as the California wine country and Italy are finding it harder to grow grapes for wine. And most of the globally 'hottest' years on record have been within the past decade and a half. The correlated link between atmospheric CO2 levels and the global temperature is delayed- meaning that if all CO2 and methane outputs were to stop right now the global average temperature would continue to rise for decades, and likely centuries before it stabilized. In fact, this snowpack is more of a mark of climate change as well- towns in Colorado are paralyzed as they've already blown through their snow removal budgets. 'Global warming' doesn't mean that we're not having winter- it just means that whatever weather we get, we're going to get more of it in a shorter span of time.
March 1, 2008

6:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

forwhatitis writes:

Hey fishbear..... Nice try you idiot. OMG!!! The sky is falling!!!!!!
March 1, 2008

6:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

forwhatitis writes:

Fishbear, you forgot to add that NFL teams are having undefeated seasons! We shot down a bad satelite! There are always going to continue to be firsts in our lifetimes, get used to it.
March 1, 2008

6:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Quagmate writes:

Climate change is inevitable. Attributing to man is narrow-minded. Mt. Pinatubo ejected more greenhouse gases and pollution in one eruption than man has yet to emit in the industrial era.

Where was man in the 1600's when the global average temp was 3 degree warmer, grapes were grown in the US Northeast for wine and crops grew in field in Scotland that are now too cold to grow on? Where was man in the 1790's when in the Northeast they called it the Year Without Summer, Ice was on lakes until July.

How long has the Sahara been expanding? Hurricanes are more severe? The lowest barometric reading was over 100 years ago for Hurricane (which oddly enough is the 100 year cycle the Gulf waters are on).

By the way, where is that hole in the Ozone? Oh yea, Scientists discovered it is on a cycle also, not growing every year, in fact it’s gone right now (the hole that is).

Anecdotal evidence is fine if you want to control a mob, facts however are facts.
March 1, 2008

7:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

drnugget writes:

snow storms at high elevations during the winter means global warmng is false? Ummmm, ok. Sounds like a bunch of creationists are in the house. SCIENCE IS EVIL!
March 1, 2008

9:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

forwhatitis writes:

here fishbear, this is more your speed: http://www.dailycamera.com/
March 1, 2008

10:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

KP13 writes:

A magical phenomenon created man, Science is false, evidence lies

Tard monkeys are all over this page!

The best line of the day " NOAA has revealed that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back." LOL

I also did a backflip with a twist on the way to my car ealrier!

Thanks for all the great insight into global warming, man a feel so much better after reading all these ingenious posts!

Was it 74 deg on march 1st today?
March 1, 2008

10:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

MereMortal writes:

KP13: You write about science, and then you talk about one warm day as proof of man-made global warming? We have been in a general warming trend for about 16,000 years now. How much of that trend is due to man? 0%, 2%, 20%, 80% 100%? Please tell us, oh wise one.
March 1, 2008

11:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

MereMortal writes:

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."

China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.

In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.
March 2, 2008

12:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dee writes:

I think tomorrow I'm going to stay home, build a fire, make cocoa and watch old movies. If this is global warming, I say BRING IT ON!
March 2, 2008

1:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

nonayerbsns writes:

Fisbear: pay NO attention to the fools who try to dissuade others from acknowledging the truth. Sadly, most of them are likely, at best, high-school graduates, at worst, high-school dropouts who never paid attention to even the most rudimentary of science lessons.
March 2, 2008

1:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

nonayerbsns writes:

Fisbear: pay NO attention to the fools who try to dissuade others from acknowledging the truth. Sadly, most of them are likely, at best, high-school graduates, at worst, high-school dropouts who never paid attention to even the most rudimentary of science lessons.
March 2, 2008

3:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

windbourne writes:

I always have to laugh at some of these postings. Yes, there is a lot of snow on the ground. The problem is that with warming, there is more moisture in the air. Once it hits cold air, you get precipitation. In addition, as to the look out the window test, those are by far the most silly responses. Why? Because, weather changes daily or hourly. Climate is long term changes. As it is, we are seeing weather be all over the board. With a la nina year, we are suppose to be in a warmer time (which we are), and a bit more moisture. Of course, we are seeing LOADS more snow esp in south CO (now, if we could just get more to northern CO).
But the question should be, is climate changing? AND that answer is absolutely yes. Of course it changes over a slow period. Our current problem is that it is changing FAST based on past evidence. And that indicates man.
So rather than looking at weather, look for something else that indicates long term changes. In particular, snow cover on the ground is a matter of weather. How much snow cover over 2 decades is climate. A much more reliable indicators are the glaciers. Are the shrinking, growing, or staying the same? In general, nearly all of the none-Antarctica glaciers are shrinking. That includes Greenland. There are a few glaciers, out of 10's of 1000s, that have started and grown, in particular, in south America and New Zealand. But the real problem is that even in Antarctica, the edges are breaking apart while the center is growing. So what does that indicate? Warmer temps, and increased moisture in the air. IOW, the warmer temps over the oceans will lead to more moisture which in a perm cold area, it will grow it.

America is looking at real problems for itself, but ours are relatively easily solved. Here in northern CO, we will see less snow, more rain. Our real problem will be our storage. We will see increased evaporation losses. In particular, we are building more and more shallow water reservoirs. Those will have massive losses.
So we get around that by building deep mountain reservoirs AND/OR re-injecting water back into the ground (recharge the aquifers).

According to the DOD's study, the real problem will be in other nations. In particular, a number of countries at the equator will receive MUCH less precipitation. Perhaps the biggest problem of all, will be Asia. Much of china and India depend on water from glacier melt in the Himalayas. The problem is that those are shrinking the fastest (notice the recent massive flooding over the last few year?). IOW, China and India will be losing the bulk of their drinking water. And what will ANY nation do once they lose their water and food? Seek it anyway they can.

Hopefully, this recent snow will lower the temp a bit and increase the glacier's size. But to count on 1 winter in a multiple decade issue is pretty foolish.
March 2, 2008

3:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

windbourne writes:

BTW, sasquatch/hank, how did you come up with 2007 being cold?

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicator...
2007 SECOND WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD
Northern Hemisphere Temperature Highest Ever

Or are you a faith based kind of guy on this?
That is, that you have faith that Fox news will report it correctly?
March 2, 2008

5:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

gratefulweb writes:

sasquatch = ignornat sally
March 2, 2008

6:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

forwhatitis writes:

Hey nonayerbsns:

Or, they are college graduates, who didn't listen to hype, became multimillionaires and retired at 41 years old to live a life without having to listen to idiots like yourself. And, we learned how to use a computer and not post the same stupid message twice in a row.

It's fun to watch some of you bumble around your self-perceived expertise. I think that's what I'll do today.....
March 2, 2008

7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

forwhatitis,

I truly wish that you were right and that global warming wasn't taking place. Wouldn't that be great!

as a Botanist, I have observed plants blooming earlier each year and the growing season getting longer across the country. Denver is in USDA zone 5 ( Coldest winter temperatures of minus 10 to minus 20 degrees fahrenheit). We are now seeing many zone 6 plants ( 0 degrees to -10 degrees) overwintering in our area. Other botanists and horticulturists all over the world have reported the same thing in their areas .

Add our data to that of the glaciologists and climatologists and you have thousands of peer reviewed studies proving global warming is occurring. There are still a few scientists who question global warming, but their ranks shrink daily as they see the results of their own research and other new data arriving daily in scientific journals.

There still exists some controversy as to the degree to which man is contributing to the process. One post mentioned volcanic activity as being a larger source of CO2 emissions than man. I am not a geologist or volcanologist and can't confirm or deny this. Decaying or burned plant material also contribute CO2 to the atmosphere, even as living plants act as CO2 sinks. As a botanist, I do know that vast stretches of rain and temperate forests have been cut down in recent years. Millions of acres of farms, fields and forests that once absorbed CO2 are now covered with highways, buildings and parking lots.

I don't think it is much of an intellectual stretch to see that man is contributing to global warming.

SASQ. Once again, I wonder what you are going to say about your "window test" on a dry 95 degree day this summer? Are you going to say: "I guess global warming does pass the window test"? Your "logic" is what I would expect from a mythological ape like yourself.
March 2, 2008

7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

mtnrunner2 writes:

The idea that people who have so little regard for the opinions of others on a simple public form wish to influence world policy worries me. How about having a discussion without insults? Your behavior simply discredits your position.

There may or may not be human-caused global warming; there is scientific evidence both for and against, and it appears that in the meteorological community, the consensus is for.

However, science aside, it is the politics I have a problem with. I don't intend to stand by idly while environmentalists hysterically railroad civilization into accepting yet another set of draconian limits on my freedom. If there is warming, prove it in a court of law like other forms of damage. If it can be proven, you will be able to stop it before it accumulates into something of great impact. And if there are no such laws, help bring them about. But require that they be objective; that they actually require that real damage be done, and that they compensate in proportion to any actual damage done by whoever did it. This is the proper use of tort law in a free society; otherwise, we should be left to conduct our lives as we see fit.

The measures I have seen suggested so far all involve violation of individual rights. Any interference with trade, laws for or against this or that type of energy use, funding of projects with tax money, and treaties with other nations to impose such things on us (such as Kyoto) are all violations of my rights. Back off.

Environmentalists also shouldn't expect successful and happy humans in any country to impose entropy on themselves for the sake of the cause by turning off lights, turning down thermostats, buying expensive energy efficient cars, not taking trips, riding public transportation that they don't want to ride, and generally adopting a cringing and apologetic attitude about their right to live happily and consume as they choose on this Earth. That's called lack of self-esteem. If there is a real threat, then humanity has the intelligence to deal with it assuming it is actually here.
March 2, 2008

8:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

sqjnk writes:

my scientist can beat up your scientist!

I think global warming is due to all the hot air coming out of saquatch.

when i look out the window it proves the world is flat!
get with it people. those hippy "round earthers" have fabricated pictures of a spherical earth to try and increase sales of balls and spheres in general. Anyone who looks out the window knows the earth is flat. I can't beleive you've all been fooled by those hippy, vegetable eatin communists. Join the flat earth society today! Sasquatch is running for our group president, he needs your support.
March 2, 2008

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

mttnrunner2,

In our world of free enterprise, it goes without saying that the business model usually trumps the scientific model, unless that scientific model shows the way to make yet more money. Carried to the extreme, everything has a value doesn't it? Trees, animals, water, minerals and energy, to name a few.

In times of rapid change (in this case, environmental change ), there are bound to be winners and losers. I contend that a winning business model would be one that embraces the change that most of us see coming. I am a botanist, but also a businessman and fiscal conservative. You can bet that I build efficient water and energy use into my own business plan, and at home as well. It saves lots of money over time and also pays a bonus to the environment.

We live in a global economy, and that economy is demanding energy efficient products and services. If we are smart, and many in the business world are, we will find money to research and develop these products and sell them to a world that is increasingly interested in them.

Environmentalists have been called "chicken little" for the sometimes hysterical approach employed by some to get the attention of the rest of the population. I say that those who are slow to recognize change are like the proverbial ostrich with it's head in the sand, unable to see what's coming. Neither is a very smart bird! The chicken littles do damage to their cause by being shrill and critical. The ostriches are equally damaging to our economy and the health of our planet. To use another time worn phrase: If you don't have your health, you don't have anything". The science I have seen indicates that change is here and we can expect much more of the same. If you have a choice of business and personal lifestyle models, which would you choose: the sky is falling model, the head in the sand model, or the one that offers efficiencies and profit to both yourself , our economy and the natural world? I have no problems choosing the latter without the lawsuits and court judgements you suggest.
March 2, 2008

9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

forwhatitis writes:

greenleaf, do you loose sleep at night because of your beliefs?
March 2, 2008

9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

forwhatitis,

Because I have the beliefs I have and act upon them, I do sleep very well indeed! Thanks for asking!
March 2, 2008

10:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Sasquatch,

You are absolutely right, climate change has been going on for billions of years. The geologists, paleontologists and glaciologists tell us that is true. They also tell us that it has rarely occurred so suddenly.

Do you really think there is nothing we can do to mitigate it's effects? Nothing at all?

Even if you believe that man's activities are having no effect, don't you think we at least need to do a little planning for the future? For example, I don't think it would be wise to make a long term investment in what is now ocean front property. At least look for something on higher ground and a thousand yards farther from the sea!
March 2, 2008

1:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

ghostie writes:

mttnrunner2 and greenleaf, knock it off. What are you trying to do, elevate these Comment pages to intelligent discussion? Next thing you know we'll have intelligent ideas, then intelligent actions. The Comments pages will be ruined...where will people spew out their grammatically-challenged opinions?
March 2, 2008

1:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Why so much rancor from the Anti`s? Why use the word idiot? I truly wonder what Sasq would have to see out his window to change his mind.
March 2, 2008

2:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

me2,

Sasquatch has learned the power of the sound bite upon those who drink shallowly from the trough. He also uses it to jerk the chain of people he perceives to be environmentalists. Too often he succeeds in this.

He is so locked into this narrow metaphorical window of his that it would be hard to let any light in.

"Idiot" speaks for itself, those that use insult as debating points can't support their argument with their own words.

Eloquent conservative voices such as the deceased William F. Buckley kept their arguments at a high level, intending to influence and not offend. those who use insult haven't learned that once you have insulted, you lose the opportunity to influence.
March 2, 2008

2:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

greenleaf, I read an article on the "Salt Dump" in the Northern Atlantic. Warm water carries salt up from the Gulf and the salt is dumped as the water cools. Then the water returns to the Gulf. Fascinating, now that more fresh water is pouring into the Northern Atlantic each year, from the melting of ice up North, the Gulf Stream could actually reverse.

Of course I am waiting for a "reversal of polarity". Wonder what Sasq would say about that.

Probably "the magnets on my fridge are still here, so polar shift is a myth."

We are overdue for a magnetic reversal, that would cause world wide havoc.

I also wonder about the frozen methane in the oceans. If that stuff starts to thaw, look out.

Since sasq doesn`t believe in man made or accelerated GW, he probably won`t believe in these other things I mentioned.
March 2, 2008

2:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Hello again GWM,

It's good to know that you appreciate "bigfoot". I do too, in my own way! You and I have had a good discussion on this subject and I don't disagree with anything you just said. Solutions to our problems will take reasonable voices on both sides of the issue, whatever it maybe. One question, though, how do we get to the bottom of "what is real and what is imagined"?

As a scientist, I can only use science and ignore anecdotal evidence and hearsay. Is there another way?
March 2, 2008

3:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

me2,

I have read these theories too. They are just that; theories. There are, indeed, many things that could happen, SASQUATCH'S asteroid being one of them. "Could" doesn't mean "likely" and these are, as far as I know, all based upon computer modelling and less upon anything actually observed. Global warming has presented a wealth of observable data. Observable data should be enough to get us moving. It's the extreme arguments that are unsupportable by hard evidence that have gotten the environmental movement in trouble before, however well intended we may have been. I guess that I am saying: " don't drive yourself crazy with the possible, but unlikely". It's better to go with what we know than to even try to incorporate such unproven concepts into our arguments.

I am glad that you are concerned, however! Me too!

nospmisjo'

Wow, and sometimes I think that that I'm a cynic!

You have to have a little faith in mankind! Maybe you can feel better about the world by working to find solutions to our problems. I can only speak for myself. It helps me!
March 2, 2008

4:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Francesca writes:

mtnrunner: "The idea that people who have so little regard for the opinions of others on a simple public form wish to influence world policy worries me. How about having a discussion without insults? Your behavior simply discredits your position."

This comment could be so easily applied to nearly every story that appears in RMN. May I steal this please?

I think I just saw a baby mammoth go by the window. Oh. Wait. That was on the television. My bad. Guess it's not as cold outside as I thought it was.
March 2, 2008

4:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

forwhatitis writes:

Greenleaf: Alone??
March 2, 2008

5:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

GWM, I have some doubt about Uncle Bill as well!

I respect your beliefs my friend and would never belittle them.

As for Scientific theory: Theories are never totally proven beyond a doubt because scientists are always searching, testing, interpreting and tweaking.

In fact, I often envy the certainty of religion and taking things on faith. I am sure that there is a great deal of peace in that!

We really aren't that far apart here. In the theory of evolution, I see more clearly the hand of God. What else could have conceived of such an elegant and beautiful process. Many other biologists feel the same way. Science and religion don't have to be direct opposites to one another.

The most important concept here is respect. I feel that from you and that is refreshing in these forums where insult is so commonplace.
March 3, 2008

9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

GWM,
I thought I would drop into this post one last time, hoping to find you here. It sounds as though we both share a deep appreciation of the marvels of creation. This might be our common ground. We have slightly different views based upon our personal experiences but I don't think either of us takes this subject lightly.

I feel that we have a duty not to take the best of our world for ourselves alone, leaving our children and grandchildren with less than we have enjoyed ourselves. I might also say that God would want us to protect His creation as the sacred thing it is.

I will always believe that respect is the beginning, if not the answer in itself. Respect for each other's beliefs and opinions and for the health of our world on every level is key.

Yes, ..."...and so it goes...!
March 3, 2008

1:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

sam writes:

This is an argument that will never be solved. People pick experts and studies to quote who agree with what they're already thinking. Yes, we need to take care of our environment, but the earth can probably handle a lot more that what we give it credit for. Recycle your cans, don't buy a giant SUV, don't waste water, etc. Do what you can to help individually, but I think we'll be alright.
March 3, 2008

6:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Dan2,

You have many good points Dan. The data I am most familiar with as a botanist is mostly pretty recent. Tree growth ring data from bristlecone pine give us some information regarding climate and drought cycles over several thousand years in specific areas. Pollen analysis reveals more about climate at specific times in specific places. and the strata within which their pollen is found helps to isolate the chronology. All plant species live within a certain range of temperatures.

We have considerable data regarding plants in agriculture and horticulture going back over one hundred years in many locations world wide. Temperature, humidity and general weather data from the same locations and times have also been extensively analysed. See my march 2, 7:40 post for more.

I agree totally with your comments on corn based ethanol, a concept that is the darling of the giant agribusiness lobby ( Archer Daniels Midland and Con Agra ). This is an idea that environmentalists take no credit for. I have been aware that it was a bankrupt concept for over 2 years. A far better approach is cellulose based ethanol from field stubble, forest thinning and switch grass. Biodiesel also has considerable promise.

I can't comment on the catalytic converter concept, but I bet you are right.
As for greenhouse gasses from livestock, I believe that you are referring specifically to corn fed beef cattle. The problem here is that a cow's stomach isn't meant to digest corn. They inefficiently digest corn and produce methane as a result. Grass fed cattle don't produce methane.

I see the concept of global warming as the largest challenge our generation(s) will face short of global nuclear war. The first danger is one you mention that I see frequently in business: the knee jerk response. This is why no one in their right minds would want the chaotic response haste and hysteria produce. The second danger may be taking too much time developing a reasonable response to the problem ( obviously, I believe GW is occurring). The third is finding political and community leaders( in industry, clergy and science ) who can motivate people to take careful and considered steps in their own interest and for the greater good of all.

In my industry, we use bmp: best management practices to determine a step by step course of action based on the best information available.

The devil is, and always has been, in the details.
March 4, 2008

5:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

SAS. Are you sure that you don't work for Exxon Mobil?

Yours is increasingly a minority opinion old buddy, and it makes you look like a one trick pony. Isn't it time to be less of a contrarian and become part of the solution instead?

Besides, a Sasquatch calling a living, breathing human a hoax is a bit of a stretch don't you think?
March 4, 2008

5:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

oatis writes:

Remarkable! A full 18 vertical inches of polarized prattle between inexplicably defensive liberals (we all know it's the truth, guys--you don't have to upset yourselves)and predicably big-business pandering neocons(who will still be denying it when Lake Mead dries up in 20 years) but nary ONE mention of IMMIGRATION!

It's refreshing to see you all stay on message! Usually, six posts is the maximum until one of you chuckleheads figures out a way to drag in immigration, or at least terrorism:

Oops! I guess I did it!

Sorry!
March 4, 2008

5:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

hey Oatis,

Actually, I'm a fiscal conservative businessman who also happens to be an environmentalist. Where do I fit in your estimation? Oh, wait a minute, you wanted to talk about immigration didn't you?
March 6, 2008

1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

SASQUATCH,

The only hoax here is a certain mythological ape!

Home › News › Local News

Snowstorm rolls in after record-setting warmth

CBS 4 News

Published March 1, 2008 at 4:44 p.m.Updated March 2, 2008 at 10:51 a.m.

Related Stories

More Local News

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs

Published March 1, 2008 at 4:44 p.m.
Updated March 2, 2008 at 10:51 a.m.