# Do you think we are in for a crazy New Year plowing?



## 496 BB (Feb 11, 2010)

Without ANY snow or salting around here and after reading all the winter predictions (guesses) Im thinking its all going to come at a crazy fast rate. I still think we will get all that is forecasted but thinking we may be repeating some of the craziest winters we have ever had. I know some think it may be a bust but Im still optimistic. One and main reason is because we are over 16" ABOVE avg for precip this year alone. Cant remember the last time we were even remotely close to that. I think Jan and Feb and hell maybe even March-April we will all be b!tching about snow. Couldnt just come in 6" spurts cause that would be too nice. Must be nice Tx gets snow before us 

Whats your thoughts? Snow or Global Warming?


----------



## Italiano67 (Feb 16, 2005)

I think it will be a light snow total. We were predicted to be 70+ and I say we will be lucky to hit 40. You cant erase 2 months and then expect to catch up.IMHO. By the way our local weatherman is back pedaling already and saying snow is so hard to forecast and he says we now MIGHT get 60 inches. I say no way. Also I know we wont be hauling any snow now because the most of the property owners will take their chances with how far we are into winter.


----------



## FISHERBOY (Aug 13, 2007)

*Snow*

Well its not global warming, we are in a second year la nina, the difference between this season and last season is. 
2010-11 we had a strong negative NAO&AO which is a blocking pattern over Greenland, it keeps the cold air locked in over the east coast of the U.S. Pretty much from late dec, to about mid feb of last season.

2011-12 This season its opposite we hav a positive NAO&AO, the cold air doesn;t hav staying power, it lasts for a few days and then it warms up (this season so far). Even next week the arctic hound will be out of its crate for a few days, but by the end of next week it tries to warm up, or gets bac to normal temperatures for our areas.

With regards to snowfall i really hope we all get to plow soon, but with this weather pattern its so hard to say.


----------



## John from OH (Mar 16, 2000)

30 years of plowing and I've seen this pattern before. We might see a big storm or 2 towards spring, but I doubt it. We've had several years of above average snow fall, that pattern has to swing back the other way. We have daffodils that are 4" tall already and lots of plants budding up and the spring birds are singing here in northern Ohio.


----------



## Italiano67 (Feb 16, 2005)

Thats what I think too.


----------



## BPS#1 (Oct 16, 2011)

496 BB;1397784 said:


> Whats your thoughts? Snow or Global Warming?


Global warming is a complete crock just like the ozone hole creating R22 freon turned out to be. 
Global warming was designed for one reason and one reason only. To fatten Al Gore's pockets
at the expense of the gullible.

The weather runs in cycles. Always has, always will.
Before the invention of combustion engines scientists have determined there were periods
where the earth's temps were warmer than they have been the last couple years.


----------



## windrowsnow (Aug 31, 2008)

John from OH;1397907 said:


> 30 years of plowing and I've seen this pattern before. We might see a big storm or 2 towards spring, but I doubt it. We've had several years of above average snow fall, that pattern has to swing back the other way. We have daffodils that are 4" tall already and lots of plants budding up and the spring birds are singing here in northern Ohio.


not sure what part of northern ohio ur at but around here i havent seen daffodils up. everybody is in a panick about no snow, it isnt even january yet guys we still have all of january february and march, hell i remember having snow in april!!


----------



## pooleo8 (Nov 8, 2009)

We are suppose to get up to 18" from sunday night-monday morning. I think when it comes, it will hit hard. A few of the worst winters in michigan started out just the same. Late, late snow. High water levels. Lake Michigan is up 7" from last year. The snow making machine will not turn off for a long time this year. Be prepared!


----------



## H&HPropertyMait (Oct 17, 2011)

pooleo8;1398021 said:


> We are suppose to get up to 18" from sunday night-monday morning. I think when it comes, it will hit hard. A few of the worst winters in michigan started out just the same. Late, late snow. High water levels. Lake Michigan is up 7" from last year. The snow making machine will not turn off for a long time this year. Be prepared!


X2, im glad we're all catching up on sleep now, because we aren't going to sleep at all once winter arrives.


----------



## POWER STROKE (Oct 23, 2010)

H&HPropertyMait;1398032 said:


> X2, im glad we're all catching up on sleep now, because we aren't going to sleep at all once winter arrives.


X3 I agree with both of you, when it hits, It's gonna hit hard


----------



## BOSS LAWN (Nov 6, 2011)

I think it'll all start of struggling with the snow but when Sat. night turns over winter will start. Already had too much sleep as it is. Im ready for a few days of no sleep.


----------



## watatrp (Jan 10, 2001)

As of this morning, northern Indiana is under a storm watch with a possible 6-10" of snow. It will be all lake effect so don't think it will help out anyone except my local area. I've only been out plowing twice this winter so far. Hopefully, this will just be the start of a return to a normal winter.


----------



## H&HPropertyMait (Oct 17, 2011)

watatrp;1398131 said:


> As of this morning, northern Indiana is under a storm watch with a possible 6-10" of snow. It will be all lake effect so don't think it will help out anyone except my local area. I've only been out plowing twice this winter so far. Hopefully, this will just be the start of a return to a normal winter.


Gooooood!!!! Man I'm crossing my fingers. Happy plowing to ya


----------



## KM81 (Dec 18, 2010)

I think that once it starts, we are going to get slammed. We have had SO much rain lately, that if it was snow we would sitting under about 30" right now. Its just a matter of time before the mercury drops below that magical number 32 and stays there!


----------



## Banksy (Aug 31, 2005)

If it starts, I think it will be a decent year for the rest of you. I've given up on any kind of winter here. My pond was frozen over this time last year. I may even put the plow back under the deck.


----------



## hunt 444e (Oct 1, 2011)

new hampshire has had 26 " to date we have had 3 workable events in my area. could be a late snow season but we just keep getting warm fronts warming everything up hard to tell we saw 108' natural ladt year and i dont think we will be even close this year .


----------



## BPS#1 (Oct 16, 2011)

Banksy;1398240 said:


> If it starts, I think it will be a decent year for the rest of you. I've given up on any kind of winter here. My pond was frozen over this time last year. I may even put the plow back under the deck.


As a kid I grew up in eastern KY.

I remember seeing 30 below a couple times. 
Other winters there'd be NO ice all winter.

One year I remember it was 80 on christmas day. Of course kids thought that was the greatest thing. 
Being able to play outside in Dec barefoot.

It goes in cycles.


----------



## 496 BB (Feb 11, 2010)

Just so there is no confusion.... the global warming reference was sarcasm...

I think it will hit hard later. Im saying 2nd-3rd week January. Dont think cold will be around all winter though.


----------



## KSB (Mar 5, 2007)

If you do not believe in global warming you are really ignorant.


----------



## BPS#1 (Oct 16, 2011)

KSB;1398423 said:


> If you do not believe in global warming you are really ignorant.


Nice try. Thats really rich.

Global warming was designed for one purpose. And that was to make the likes of Al Gore rich off the backs of the gullible.

The weather has gone in cycles since the earth was. It'll continue going in cycles until the end of the earth.


----------



## BMB Plowing (Nov 20, 2010)

The way things are going so far this year in CNY, I'm not expecting much for the rest of the year.


----------



## Banksy (Aug 31, 2005)

KSB;1398423 said:


> If you do not believe in global warming you are really ignorant.


Vermont.....of course


----------



## Milwaukee (Dec 28, 2007)

I only thought of that. It seem to be same weather pattern cycle every 4-6 years I believed. 

Global warning is BS


----------



## Banksy (Aug 31, 2005)

Milwaukee;1398475 said:


> I only thought of that. It seem to be same weather pattern cycle every 4-6 years I believed.


Funny you say that. 6 years ago the lake ice in NH was very poor and looks like this years may be laso

The area that is now called Michigan used to be a rain forest/jungle type environment, but now it snows there. Global warming was made up to make scientists and politicians rich.


----------



## KSB (Mar 5, 2007)

Thats why 90% of the worlds nations have signed onto the Global Warming Initiative. This is a real problem and the facts support it. Tell your story to a polar bear. Take the time and get educated if that is possible for you.


----------



## SNOMACHINE (Dec 2, 2009)

windrowsnow;1398007 said:


> not sure what part of northern ohio ur at but around here i havent seen daffodils up. everybody is in a panick about no snow, it isnt even january yet guys we still have all of january february and march, hell i remember having snow in april!!


Where ya be in northwest Ohio? What area?


----------



## sectlandscaping (Sep 7, 2009)

KSB;1398518 said:


> Thats why 90% of the worlds nations have signed onto the Global Warming Initiative. This is a real problem and the facts support it. Tell your story to a polar bear. Take the time and get educated if that is possible for you.


Thats why theres 20,000 experts who disagree with global warming. The same people who were misquoted as supporting it. If you look at the numbers where in a cooling period.


----------



## KSB (Mar 5, 2007)

Live in denial if you choose. Behold the four horseman.


----------



## Banksy (Aug 31, 2005)

KSB;1398737 said:


> Live in denial if you choose. Behold the four horseman.


So, what kind of truck and plow do you have? Post some truck/snow pics and talk about plowing or go sign up on imabrainwashedliberal.com/algore


----------



## sectlandscaping (Sep 7, 2009)

*Experts claim 2006 climate report plagiarized*
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-21-climate-report-questioned_N.htm


> An influential 2006 congressional report that raised questions about the validity of global warming research was partly based on material copied from textbooks, Wikipedia and the writings of one of the scientists criticized in the report, plagiarism experts say.
> 
> Review of the 91-page report by three experts contacted by USA TODAY found repeated instances of passages lifted word for word and what appear to be thinly disguised paraphrases.
> 
> ...


*Global warming scam perpetuated by government, industry, and Wall Street - and taxpayers have been footing the bill!*
For over 20 years, the dogma of man-made global warming has been trumping sound science and even basic logic. The result has been a global movement of pseudo-scientific alarmism about climate change that seeks to solve it with scams like global carbon taxes.

But a simple visual chart put together by Jo Nova shows how governments, industry, and Wall Street have been behind the global warming scam all along, and how they continue to use taxpayer dollars to fund it.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033906_global_warming_skeptics.html#ixzz1i9WadRUh










Its a political issue motivated by taxes. Besides that the climate is based on cycles of warming and cooling. It has always been like that and the data proves it. The main problem with the global warming agenda is blaming humans. Mount St Helens explosion put more CO2 in the air then every car ever.


----------



## Italiano67 (Feb 16, 2005)

Enough political blathering! Talk about threads getting off topic.


----------



## superdog1 (Oct 13, 2011)

KSB;1398737 said:


> Live in denial if you choose. Behold the four horseman.


I good piece of advice- Keep religion out of the forums. It is really unproductive. While I am a God fearing man, my views are just that, MINE! Just because I have a certain idea about God and the climate doesn't mean that anyone here wants to hear about it. There are plenty of forums on the internet that devote all of their content to the Bible. Find one and be happy.


----------



## sectlandscaping (Sep 7, 2009)

anyways I dont think we're in for a bad winter. Maybe a few unexpected April storms.


----------



## nekos (Oct 16, 2003)

sectlandscaping;1398626 said:


> Thats why theres 20,000 experts who disagree with global warming. The same people who were misquoted as supporting it. If you look at the numbers where in a cooling period.


lol

Name 10 that disagree with global warming... And Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh don't count.

The over all temperature of the earth has been rising for the last 200 + years. Any 4 year old can figure this out. The only debate is how much humans are effecting it... And please don't reply. This is a conversation you are not even remotely capable of having.


----------



## Banksy (Aug 31, 2005)

I will admit that winters don't seem to be as cold and the lack of lake ice in NH suggests that. The earth is billions of years old and ever changing still. That said, I will not freak out because some politician uses 100 years of temp records to sell books, movies and green technology. And while they try to convince us of this man made problem, they fly to conferences devoted to addressing this problem while burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel to get there. 

Volcanoes do more damage to the atmosphere than we do and volcanoes have been around longer than us. The earth was once a warm (maybe even tropical) place before humans and then the ice age occurred prior to cars and factories. Explain that please.

I have no problem with "green technology" but until it's affordable, I won't be buying a hybrid anytime soon.


----------



## sectlandscaping (Sep 7, 2009)

nekos;1399298 said:


> lol
> 
> Name 10 that disagree with global warming... And Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh don't count.
> 
> The over all temperature of the earth has been rising for the last 200 + years. Any 4 year old can figure this out. The only debate is how much humans are effecting it... And please don't reply. This is a conversation you are not even remotely capable of having.


Thats easy enough. Your forgetting that in the last decade theres been 4 years where the temperatures went down. The climate is always changing if it wasnt we would be in trouble.

Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society said in a 2011 email exchange with a journalist: "First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it."[7]

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences has made his views clear in several newspaper articles:"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But - and I cannot stress this enough - we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.".[8] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas - albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[9][10]

Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University and former Chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003) said in 2005 evidence given to a select committee: "In conclusion, observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future."[11]

Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre said in his 2009 book: "There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."[12]

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London said in a 2007 opinion piece: "It is claimed, on the basis of computer models, that this should lead to 1.1 - 6.4 C warming. What is rarely noted is that we are already three-quarters of the way into this in terms of radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 (+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose that all of this is due to humans."[13]

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute said in a 2009 essay: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."[14]

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences said in a 2007 news agency interview: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity."[17]

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said in a 2002 lecture for The Heritage Foundation: "Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities--over 80 percent--occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural."[18]"The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change."[18] "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[19][not in citation given]

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in a 2004 newspaper letter:"That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[20]

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland said in a 2006 newspaper article: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[21]

David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester was reported to have said in a 2007 paper in the International Journal of Climatology: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[22]

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University said in a 2006 presentation to the Geological Society of America: "Glaciers advanced from about 1890-1920, retreated rapidly from ~1925 to ~1945, readvanced from ~1945 to ~1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. ... Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO2, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5°C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."[23]

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[24]

William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"[25]

William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology wrote in a 2004 article and book: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[26]

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware wrote in a 2006 article for the National Center for Policy Analysis: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[27]

Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in 2005: Global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn't changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[28]

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada said in a 2007 newspaper article: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[29][30]

Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide said in a 2002 television debate: "Natural climate changes occur unrelated to carbon dioxide contents. We've had many, many times in the recent past where we've rapidly gone into a greenhouse and the carbon dioxide content has been far, far lower than the current carbon dioxide content... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[31]

Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo said in a 2007 presentation to the 9th International Symposium on Mining in the Arctic: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error, because the Medieval warm period (the "Climate Optimum") and the Little Ice Age both are absent from their curve, on which the IPCC bases its future projections and recommended mitigation. All measurements of solar luminosity and 14C isotopes show that there is at present an increasing solar radiation which gives a warmer climate (Willson, R.C & Hudson, H.S. 1991: The Sun's luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature 351, 42-44; and Coffey, H.E., Erwin, E.H. & Hanchett, C.D.: Solar databases for global change models. www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html). Warmer climate was previously perceived as an optimum climate and not catastrophic. ... On a wet basis the Earth's atmosphere consists by mass of ~73.5% nitrogen, ~22.5% oxygen, ~2.7% water, and ~1.25% argon. CO2 in air is in minimal amount, ~0.05% by mass, and with minimal capacity (~2%) to influence the "Greenhouse Effect" compared to water vapor"[32]

Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University said in a 2010 article originally written for the Italian magazine La Chimica e l'Industria (Chemistry and Industry): "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030-2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."[33][34]

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said in a 2006 online essay: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes."[35]

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia said in a 2005 award acceptance speech: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[36] Also in a 2006 television program: "It's not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists."[37]

Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics was reported to have said in a 2003 paper for Energy & Environment: "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[38]

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville said in 2008 testimony to a US Senate committee: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind's role is relatively minor".[39]

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center said in a 2007 paper for Astronomy & Geophysics: "The case for anthropogenic climate change during the 20th century rests primarily on the fact that concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increased and so did global temperatures. Attempts to show that certain details in the climatic record confirm the greenhouse forcing (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2001) have been less than conclusive. By contrast, the hypothesis that changes in cloudiness obedient to cosmic rays help to force climate change predicts a distinctive signal that is in fact very easily observed, as an exception that proves the rule." [40]

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa said in a paper published in Geoscience Candada in 2005: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. The two scenarios are likely not even mutually exclusive, but a prioritization may result in different relative impact. Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[41]


----------



## BPS#1 (Oct 16, 2011)

nekos;1399298 said:


> lol
> 
> Name 10 that disagree with global warming... And Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh don't count.
> 
> The over all temperature of the earth has been rising for the last 200 + years. Any 4 year old can figure this out. The only debate is how much humans are effecting it... And please don't reply. This is a conversation you are not even remotely capable of having.


Just because you disagree with some one on an issue is no reason to be a pompous


----------



## Italiano67 (Feb 16, 2005)

This thread is useless now.


----------



## KSB (Mar 5, 2007)

Why do you think that? This is a very important issue and has impacts that directly affect our industry and its future. No, we do not all have to agree and I think differing viewpoints are healthy if the discussion is taken seriously. Happy New Year! 48 degrees here today and more rain on the way.


----------



## 496 BB (Feb 11, 2010)

Ok you global warming supporting *****' Im pretty sure you have managed to screw up yet one more thing in this world with that being this thread. I did NOT intend for this being a debate on the bs comprised with global warming. It IS indeed a joke. You indeed watch way too much Msnbc. The media WILL make you think it is indeed true. Media brainwashes you. Just ask the people who voted for Obama and now realize there is no hope and change. You need to take your views and other BS to another forum or start your own here (which Im sure will get plenty of supporting facts as to why it is bs) because this thread is not relevant to your agendas.

To remind everyone this thread was about if you think snow is coming or if all the forecasts about this being a bad winter are wrong. Now please continue


----------



## Banksy (Aug 31, 2005)

I think it's going to be a very dry winter. I'm even going to put my plow back in it's summer home this week. Maybe that will kick start something. Our winters are over in late February, so we have like 7-8 weeks left and I have 0 confidence that it will snow. 

All I'm hoping for now is good ice for fishing in NH this year.


----------



## dlcs (Sep 2, 2004)

Just don't feed the trol!


----------



## 496 BB (Feb 11, 2010)

So you plow in NC and goto NH for fishing? Didnt really know NC got that much snow. Whats the yearly avg there anyways? We are at 27.xx" avg and I know that not crap compared to most on here. Last year we were exactly around that. Hoping for more this year but we'll see.


----------



## Banksy (Aug 31, 2005)

I think our average is 8" or so. I've plowed twice a year for the past three years. A 2" storm here is way different than up north. 6 months before I moved here, this area got 2 feet of snow! At a "Benjamin" per hour it adds up quick. I have no truck payments and my plow was paid for in the first storm I used it. I've driven to the mountains before to plow, but I'm not doing that anymore.

Nobody really counts on plowing here to make a living. It's basically get it when you can. Most landscape companies don't even plow here, but some have one or two trucks with plows. A lot use skid steers and all they do is make a darn mess. 

My family has a place in NH so I go there to fish.


----------



## 496 BB (Feb 11, 2010)

Cool. I love NC. Ur right about people freaking when it snows...hell they do that here...lol


----------



## Banksy (Aug 31, 2005)

496 BB;1399717 said:


> Cool. I love NC. Ur right about people freaking when it snows...hell they do that here...lol


The threat of snow empties out the milk, bread and eggs from the store. I'll take a pic next time because it's hilarious. 

My avatar pic is a storm here a couple years ago.


----------



## MikeRi24 (Dec 21, 2007)

I'm not really holding my hopes up for much snow. They have foretasted 2 "big" storms now that have both been HUGE busts. They are forecasting another one tonight, and I just don't see it. The ground isnt even frozen here. Our winters have a lot to do with the lake (I'm from Buffalo, NY just on the eastern end of Lake Erie), and the lake is something like 8 degrees above average right now. Looking at all the weather maps, the jetstream is holding all the arctic Canadian air up north of us. I do, however, have a bad feeling in my gut that sooner or later the jetstream is gonna shift a little and shoot all that cold air right over the warm lake and then we're pretty much gonna be in for it non-stop. With all the rain we have been having here, if the temps had been at their averages, we would have been being pounded all winter. I feel kinda guilty cuz I have a few customers that pay half of their seasonal contract up front and the other half 2nd week of Jan and I have to go ask them for the rest of the money and we havent even plowed yet haha.


----------



## zak406 (Feb 13, 2008)

KSB;1398423 said:


> If you do not believe in global warming you are really ignorant.


How do you plow with a prius¿ :laughing:

Also if what your saying is true dont you think its time to get out of the snow removal and de icing business? Thumbs Up

As for winter everytime they predict snow near me its been a bust, not to be a bearer of bad news but im going to go with no snow or light winter in pittsburgh. I wouldnt have wanted to sink money in plowing this year!


----------



## KSB (Mar 5, 2007)

If you look at your original post for this thread you asked the question about global warming, so don't get done on those that responded to it.


----------



## ALC-GregH (Nov 26, 2008)

I'm looking at the radar and see 4 different states that are getting dumped on right now with snow.


----------



## nekos (Oct 16, 2003)

sectlandscaping;1399425 said:


> Thats easy enough. Your forgetting that in the last decade theres been 4 years where the temperatures went down. The climate is always changing if it wasnt we would be in trouble.
> 
> Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society said in a 2011 email exchange with a journalist: "First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it."[7]
> 
> ...


I told you not to reply because you are not even remotely capable of having this conversation... So what do you do ? Spend 8 hours looking up Scientists that said the same damn thing i did.

The earth is warming but the effect humans have on this warming is debatable.


----------



## allaspects10 (Jan 1, 2011)

and we dodged the bullet again last night what a season


----------



## 496 BB (Feb 11, 2010)

I guess reading comprehension is not a prerequisite to responding here.


----------



## ALC-GregH (Nov 26, 2008)

nekos;1400487 said:


> I told you not to reply because you are not even remotely capable of having this conversation... So what do you do ? Spend 8 hours looking up Scientists that said the same damn thing i did.
> 
> The earth is warming but the effect humans have on this warming is debatable.


You had to quote him. That post is a mile long. Took me 10 minutes to scroll down past it. :laughing:


----------



## hunt 444e (Oct 1, 2011)

*do you think we are in for a crazy new year plowing*

bansky i would bring the boat this year winni probably wont freeze and if it does were not going to be driving trucks out there. The rotary club is already talking about not having the derby. i dont know what the weather is o bring talking cold cold the est of this week but the week after 40 s again. just weather pattern i guess all thing on this earth work off of cyles.


----------



## Banksy (Aug 31, 2005)

hunt 444e;1400613 said:


> bansky i would bring the boat this year winni probably wont freeze and if it does were not going to be driving trucks out there. The rotary club is already talking about not having the derby


I've been wondering about that. The derby is why I come up. It's been an annual tradition for us for 25 years or so. I always spend time up there before and after the derby. I never drive my truck out there. That's why I have atvs and a sled. Thanks for the heads up.


----------

