What is the temperature drop in your area?

[Jim]

Temperature drop happens here too, but on this temperate island it never amounts to very much. Extremes as described by Jim are worse than the North Pole!

Where do you hang out then, Jim?

I'm in northern Illinois, USA, Tom. Latitude 41.3° N. You must be about 10° farther north. Just wait until the Gulf Stream shuts down, and you'll start seeing what winter is like.

[oldsalt1]

Everybody knows that it is warm at the north pole this time of year and that's because of all the activity that is going on there

[Uncle Al]

OK everyone, TAKE A BREATH

I started this thread hoping to spread the word that WINTER COLD is headed
south and east. The AMOUNT of temperature drop is potentially dangerous.
I don't want to see anyone getting ill from being out in extremely cold
temperatures. This thread was not intended to recreate "Global Warming"
or "Climate Change" warnings, rhetoric or other such 'ilk'.

We're all adults here - normally - so we don't need vicious verbal attacks by
one member onto another member(who ever that may be). If you want to
speak on these topics, go to one of the Climate Conventions held each year.

Put your away Skirt Cafe' is not the arena for this type of dissertation.
AND I DO MEAN DISSERTATION. Your comments were not offered as a discussion.

Uncle Al

[moonshadow]

We've had a few frigid days here and there, but never more than two in a row where the daytime high might have struggled to hit 20. However the average this month seems to be in the 40's and 50's, with lows dipping just below freezing, perhaps the high 20's on occasion.

Winter time doesn't get started this way until mid January. That's when we'll have the two or three weeks where the daytime high struggles to get out of the teens, and the wind blows from the North at 40MPH on average. I dread it. I've been banking money left and right in preparation for when the gas man comes knockin.

The trailer has been surprisingly tight considering it's age and condition. Previous tenants seemed to have sprayed a fair share of expanding foam, caulking, and even a little newspaper stuffed in various cracks and crevices. It's actually not drafty, however still as old mobile homes go, it's probably not very well insulated and the walls are thin, even the exterior walls. So it still doesn't hold heat particularly well. Still for one 1500 watt space heater to heat the whole place when daytime high is 35 or higher is impressive in my book.

[wsherman]

Hi everybody!
Well here's my two bits Shiley though they may be!
Go ahead laugh it's intended.
Started off today officially at -22 Fahrenheit check just a little while ago and we warmed up to zero and the forecast says that we will continue to warm up until we get into the 20s to mid-20s tomorrow at the rest of the week looks good. I think we're out of the deep-freeze at least for a while.
Wednesday is the solstice yay! The days start getting longer. Look out summer here we come!

I hates winter! Gollum! Gollum!!
We hates it!

Bill and sir Brinkley the exuberant!
In the first line it should read "chilly.

[Kirbstone]

You're right of course, Jim. The whole of Western Europe from Portugal right up to Norway & the Passage to St Peterburg are warmed twelve months a year by the Gulf Stream. I hope I don't live to see it shut down.

Tom

[Darryl]

Our average monthly temperature, from 2000 to 2015 runs about like:
Nov 56
Dec 45
Jan 34
Feb 32
Mar 37
Apr 53

We have several days where the high is only in the mid-20's this year, but also abnormally warm days. Jan-Feb is probably the worst.

I usually keep the (gas) thermostat set at 50-55 degrees. Then use electric space heaters when I'm in the room being heated.
Kitchen: oil-filled radiator
Great Room: oil-filled radiator
Bedroom: ceramic plate
Computer room: ceramic plate

While the electric bills goes up, it isn't too different from high summer air-conditioning usage (where I try to keep it between 75-85). And the gas averages about $35 and the electricity abut $60.

At night, my bedroom space heater has a wireless remote, and I've a great comforter to snuggle into, and keep a ready turtleneck, sweater and tights or fleece-lined tights or leggings. The bathroom gets the primary furnace airflow so it is bearable to dash in and take care of business in the middle of the night. And I retain an old-house habit - putting plastic sheeting over windows for a bit more insulation.

I've some friends that have been doing much the same the past decade or so. They've nice warm comforters on the couch and recliners - the downside? Sometimes when watching a movie, someone starts snoring.

At the moment, I'm in the computer room and I was cooking for the week so I can take lunch to work and so on which I assume is why I am in the computer room now and feeling cozy with no heat other than the main furnace (set to 50). Wearing support hose, fleece-lined footed tights, half-slip, heavy midi skirt, turtleneck t-shirt and marled (?) cowl-neck sweater. And, of course, the server and workstation and TV generate some heat.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

First of all Uncle Al, if you're interested in the temperature variations in the various areas, consult the US Weather Service's website, because anecdotal evidence isn't evidence, as my Econ professor used to say. But if you want my anecdotal evidence here it is. Our climate in Western Oregon is incredibly different from when I arrived here 40 years ago. In the Winter it used to stay above freezing nearly every day. Misting one day, drizzle the next and on the third day we'd have rain and clearing. Sparkling sunshine. MAYBE 2 or 3 scattered days of snow or freezing rain. In the Summer, we'd have maybe a day or two in the high 90's. A record-breaking year would hit 100F. Now we can expect a week maybe two of snow and ice in the Winter and week in 100's in the Summer.

The scientists refer to it as human-caused global climate change because that what it is. Well over 90%, I believe 96% at last count, of the published climate scientists say that the climate is changing and human activity is the primary driver. Not cyclical climate change or any other credible mechanism. PERIOD. It is settled science right up their with evolution. I'm not going to call someone stupid for believing otherwise; I will say they are willfully ignoring the scientific facts to support some political agenda that makes little sense to me, except that it advances the narrow short-term interests of Big Oil.

So yes Oldsalt1 and Carl I am saying when it comes to the cause of climate change you're wrong! I will credit you this Carl, you're smart enough to say that the intelligent, logical thing to do is everything we can as a species to slow down, if not reverse the process. If by some incredibly improbable chance virtually all of the climate scientists are wrong, we'll have a more energy and resource efficient society. If on the other hand, the climate scientists are right and we continue to do virtually NOTHING to slow down the build-up of greenhouse gases, we will have made the planet uninhabitable for human life and it will be far too late to do a damned thing about it.

Really, those of you are still willfully in denial of these scientific facts is that the world you want to bequeath to your kids and grandkids??!!

I better stop before I get REALLY angry.

[PatJ]

The bottom fell off the thermometer because we owed it 15 degrees (-15 F.)
However we are expecting a heat wave today all the way up to 15 degrees (+15 F.)

It will be only a 30 degree shift in temperatures, but it will really be appreciated.

The worse temperature drop that I experienced was back in 1970 when I left Southeast
Asia (Thailand) with a temperature near 90 and then landed in the Windy City (Chicago)
with the temperature about 10 below zero.

It took days and a lot of good booze to get warm again.

[oldsalt1]

The real question is if the activity of Santa and his Elves is causing the heat wave at the north pole.

I never said that pollution wasn't a serious problem . And we should do whatever we can to change the course we are on. However I don't believe that the actions of man are the only cause of change.. The earth froze over and heated up long before man was involved. My initial point of contention was why is it impossible for many who support the climate change theories to engage in a discussion on the subject with out resorting to name calling.

[oldsalt1]

The worse temperature drop that I experienced was back in 1970 when I left Southeast
Asia (Thailand) with a temperature near 90 and then landed in the Windy City (Chicago)
with the temperature about 10 below zero.

The worst temperature change for me was back in November 67 when I left Fort Jackson SC at 30 degrees and a snow storm and landed for jungle training in panama at 107 degrees

[hoborob]

I have sat back and allowed the arguments to rage regarding the topic of Climate Change/Global Warming.

The ONLY indisputable fact that is presented is that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. The data for this is readily available.

The question of what is causing that is what is in question. One source is that more CO2 is being released into the atmosphere and not being drawn back out. The idea of Carbon Sequestration has been floated as a way to reduce the effects of the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The observable facts include the estimate that the current levels of CO2 are still lower than those that were there just prior to the last Ice Age that occurred on our planet. In reality we only have at most a couple of hundred years of actual observations to draw information from with no real knowledge of just how long the natural climate cycles may be. With 100 years of data on a cycle that is only 50 years long the data can be readily used to predict what will happen in the next cycle. However 100 years of data on a cycle that is 10,000 years long is insufficient to make accurate predictions.

In the end the only information that can be truly said is that the natural carbon sequesters that are in existence on our world must be in a diminishing status. Trees are perhaps the most successful Carbon filters that we have and the supply of them is going down. Why is the question and I will leave that to others. The ultimate point is that the arguers for Climate change point to conclusions based on data that just may be inconclusive while those that argue against may be ignoring the same data. The information that does exist says that the earth has gone through many heating and cooling cycles throughout the eons and the Cooling periods immediately followed the warming periods. Are we in one of those warming periods that is preceding a cooling period that is coming. Your guess is as good as mine.

[Sinned]

Ray, moderate your language please. I don't like being called a ******* idiot or a cretin when I am not. I agree that we need to change our ways and stop burning up the earth's resources. I am just not convinced as Carl was trying to say that we are really making that much difference as there are other natural earth and solar cycles that could swamp anything we can do. Otherwise I shall ask the mods to close his thread. Remarks are not supposed to get personal and I DID TAKE IT PERSONALLY.

Carl, UA no need to take it any further as I shall ignore anything that the rude uncivilised Ray can add. Goodbye.

[dillon]

Why isn't it possible for anyone on the left to make a comment or express an opinion with out resulting to name calling. Maybe there are some of us who believe what the "ignorami' on the right are saying. How come you didn't quote your leader Al Gore who complains about pollution while flying around on his private jet.

Al Gore does lease a private jet for use, but does not own one. He is a regular passenger on Southwest Airlines. That he uses a private jet at times should not be surprising for someone with a net worth around $500 million. It puts him on ladder of ostentation well beneath Trump, of course, and well beneath Rudy Giuilani, renowned for the extravagance of his sky-rides. It almost puts Gore in the game with big name televangelists like Pat Robertson, Kenneth Copeland, and Mark Barclay, and a few Roman Catholic Bishops in West Africa (for the American pastors, jets are tax-free thanks to the churches' exemptions from various taxations). And Gore's leased Gulfstream is about equal in comparison to the jets routinely used by Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Hannity, apparently, ONLY uses private jets.

So is it right for Gore to use a private jet? The image that the "ignorami of the right" oft repeat - and I make no apology for a harsh term; one needs to own up to the bait one voluntarily swallows - is that anyone opposing corporate welfare for Big Carbon is disingenuous if they are not penniless, barefoot hitch-hikers in hair-shirts. You can decide if it's okay for a wealthy man to display the trappings of his success. I never made an issue of Trump's outlandish displays, despite his Manhattan penthouse decorated in gaudy ostentation of a style that I could only call "Turkish brothel." And you can decide if the fact that Gore purchases carbon offsets on the exchange market for each use of his leased jet is sufficient recompense for such a grievous offense. And you may continue with the charade that Democrats are hypocritical about their money. The fact is that we also want to prosper, but we conscientiously place some concerns and values as important goals for government and society, and prioritize the condition of the planet we bequeath our children and grandchildren; collectively, they will inherit a mess that some of their elders prefer to deny.

You are, of course, free to doubt the data concerning climate change and the correlation to human carbon contributions to the atmosphere. It is diverse, and takes time and effort to actually examine it; clearly it is far easier to parrot a party line, especially when one is predisposed against questioning one's established path. I, too, often wish I could happily proceed as I please without thought or concern; scientific evidence can be terribly inconvenient to a belief system. I would ask only that you be objective in your regard for science, whether or not you find it upsetting or displeasing in its revelations. Data published in respected journals is refereed and follows established research standards; the decision to act upon it or ignore it is yours. Thwarting scientists and burying their work will not change reality; it is only the proverbial (and factually false) "ostrich effect" - hiding one's head in the sand rather than confronting a threat. And I'd also ask that your own motives are as pure as those which you insist your opponents exhibit.

Too, I would add that, contrary to the message that the extremes of the political spectrum put forth, you are, in fact, free to pick and choose among the issues; you are not buying a phone service; you do not have to take all issues "bundled." I certainly don't accept all that is thrust at me by my own Party; taxes being one area of disagreement. Oil pipelines are another; they are safer and more energy efficient than rail shipping. That support does not mean that I think we should have any national policy other than moving expeditiously away from use of fossil carbon as fuel, but simply an acknowledgement of the reality that we will have industrial and other needs for some amount of petroleum and gas forever; we simply should not be dumping it willy-nilly into the atmosphere as methane, CO2 and other gases. And methane escape to the atmosphere is one of many big questions about "fracking" that has yet to be answered. Methane is 21 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2.

You clearly regard all Democrats as monolithic in our points of view. We are not. I do, in fact, have numerous policy differences with President Obama, but, nevertheless, his inauguration was the moment in history when I felt my greatest pride in being American. It was, to me, a milestone on the path to the fulfillment of the promise that "All men are created equal." Despite the fact that he has not addressed all my hopes, he was far from the raving, pathological demagogue that his successor clearly is. While I may disagree on policy from both sides, one thing I would not do is to reject science I can understand just because a partisan media poo-poos it as "a plot." To do so, IMO, constitutes willful ignorance, which I see as squandering the gift of intellect. Sorry if that offends, but that's my honest opinion. I don't pull punches in fights that matter.

[oldsalt1]

Why isn't it possible for anyone on the left to make a comment or express an opinion with out resulting to name calling. Maybe there are some of us who believe what the "ignorami' on the right are saying. How come you didn't quote your leader Al Gore who complains about pollution while flying around on his private jet.

You are, of course, free to doubt the data concerning climate change and the correlation to human carbon contributions to the atmosphere. It is diverse, and takes time and effort to actually examine it; clearly it is far easier to parrot a party line, . Thwarting scientists and burying their work will not change reality; it is only the proverbial (and factually false) "ostrich effect" - hiding one's head in the sand rather than confronting a threat. And I'd also ask that your own motives are as pure as those which you insist your opponents exhibit.





Ostrich effect.. There is also the chicken little effect " The Sky is falling."