Falling snowflakes glimmered in streetlights, so wide that they billowed to the ground like parachutes, and so tantalizing that even awestruck adults reached out their hands or stuck out their tongues to catch one.
By Wednesday evening, the flakes were big enough to hold their shape for a moment on the street before melting into the pavement, and a dusting had collected on parked cars in some parts of town. The flurries tied a record for Houston’s earliest snowfall ever and warmed the hearts of winter weather lovers who have pined for snow since it last made an appearance on Christmas Eve 2004.
“I’ve got a pot roast in the Crock-Pot, and I’m going to go home, change into my warmest pajamas and eat pot roast and enjoy what may be the only real winter day we have all year,” said Tina Arnold, an Illinois native who took advantage of the wintry backdrop to pick up Christmas presents Wednesday at The Woodlands Mall. Since 1895, records indicate, snow has fallen this early just once — on Dec. 10, 1944. Ali Ahly had been cooped up in an office all day when he stopped to gas up his white Mercedes-Benz near the corner of Hillcroft and the Southwest Freeway at 7:30 p.m.
The 43-year-old, wearing jeans and a leather jacket, stepped out from under the gas station canopy and looked up as the downy flakes sifted toward him. Then he stretched his hand toward the sky. “This is real snow,” he said. “I feel like I’m in Lake Tahoe.”
This global warming thing is starting to sound bogus.
“This global warming thing is starting to sound bogus.”
Over 31,000 scientists agree. This is a political movement pushed hard by environmentalists.
Forgot the link: http://www.oism.org/pproject/
How dare someone post a story like this. We need to preach Global Warming and we don’t need the facts to get in our way.
@steelcobra
Could you please site your source for that number?
By the way, “Global Warming” is a misnomer. It should be more accurately called “Global Climate Change” and it will not effect all localities the same way. Globally the temperatures will rise but locally the weather (not climate) will become more chaotic. Do you think adding carbon dioxide and methane have no effect on climate?
“This global warming thing is starting to sound bogus.” /// Its thinking like that that has the issue renamed to “Climate Change.”
This is on a par with viewing a one day up tick in the current stock market as showing the market is doing just fine.
FUD–ignorantly, on purpose, or defensively “sarcasm.” Which is most likely?
I like global warming. This is a bummer.
I just realized we no longer use the words Global Warming – we now use Global Climate Change so we are covered in either direction. This way we can blame any temperature change either warmer or cooler as being man made. (We used to blame this change on Mother Nature but now it is Man that is doing this. We used to call the climate change seasons – summer, winter, fall, spring but this doesn’t help our political agenda)
What are we going to do with the CO2 that causes Al Gore?
There was snow in New Orleans. Rare. Very rare.
The Green Inaugural Ball is going to be hosted by Al Gore, will be held Jan. 19 at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery in Washington. Someone should ask him a question publicly about the snow in New Orleans.
Oh, never mind, I know his answer already will be ” ‘Tis due to global climate change my children…….”
Oops… Made a little methane myself…
Global warming is, after all, just a theory. Global climate change is a little more accurate in its terms. Everyone with a brain can agree: we do need to be less wasteful and more careful.
Anyway, yeah… strange to see snow in Houston.
#1 – steelcobra
>>Over 31,000 scientists agree.
That should be “over 31,000 self-described scientists. There’s not way to tell what sort of background these self-proclaimed “scientists” have, or if they’re actually scientists at all. It’s an honor system. (The author of the report cited in the petition, is also a signatory to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, which has been heavily criticized as bullshit).
On the other hand, the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) unequivocally concludes:
* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
* Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18).[14]
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3].
o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years
#12–Now Pedro, you know I’m on your side but WTF does “tell the picture to remove itself from reality.” mean? In context I’ll guess you are asking Mustard to misstate the IPCC report so that it conforms to your uninformed/unstudied/unfounded opinions on Climate Change? Why should Mustard to that?
Science. Thump on it like a bible but when you disagree, simply dismiss it. And that why indeed we have the bible. Figure out why.
It was called “Global Warming” until snow started falling in the Sub tropics. Then it was renamed “Global Climate change”.
Typical political marketing crap. The last two winters pipes have frozen and broke in homes around where I live. That has not happened here since indoor plumbing existed was introduced in the U.S.
Undoubtedly, the climate is changing. However, the climate has never been stable.
It was called “Global Warming” until snow started falling in the Sub tropics and idiots or oil company shills started claiming this was “proof” that global warming was not happening even though such localized aberrations are all part of the model. So then, yes, marketing stepped in as it always does to help the idiots along.
Good call Paddy-0. How much of your opinion of Global (Whatever) is based on what you see out your front window? Can you see Russia?????????
Dope.
#12 – ‘dro
>>Great dissertation on how to avoid the reality
>>of a snowfall in Houston.
Whoa! ¡You’re really limbering up there, m’hijito! ¡Chévere!
As to the “reality of a snowfall in Houston”, you might want to STFU while you’re still ahead. In my neck of the woods, where the average temperature is in the low 30’s, it was almost 70 last week. And two years ago, it was in the 80’s on New Year’s Day. I guess my two instances trump the one aberrant snowfall in Houston.
And for a good time, google “houston snowfall global warming”. You will see every anti-science lunatic in the world (all 672,000 of them) all over this como hedor sobre mierda.
Key issues: #1 is that total 20th century temperature rise was half a degree Celsius.
#2: Natural CO2/Methane deposits contain far greater volumes than we can hope to produce.
#3: Plants grow significantly better with higher CO2 concentrations. In fact, current levels are dangerously low. A drop of 100-150ppm could result in plant die-offs.
#4: CO2 levels FOLLOW, not precede, warming trends by 50 years.
#5: We are recovering from a small ice age.
#6: There is a ridiculously massive fusion reactor that fluctuates in output almost right next door.
Who gives a shit about science, anyway, eh? John McCain?
I’m no expert and don’t believe human caused global warming has been “proven,”==I’m just a casual reader on the subject, catch as catch can after a few days of in depth googling.
But my response to #17–steelcobra:
Key issues: #1 is that total 20th century temperature rise was half a degree Celsius. /// Meaning what? How about it took 200 years for the natural carbon sinks to get full before the atmosphere started loading up?
#2: Natural CO2/Methane deposits contain far greater volumes than we can hope to produce. /// Again, so what? Its all sequestered and not part of the equation. It becomes an issue overnight if ocean temp rise causes it to become gaseous. Related to global warming but you don’t connect it.
#3: Plants grow significantly better with higher CO2 concentrations. In fact, current levels are dangerously low. A drop of 100-150ppm could result in plant die-offs. /// “Better” is not scientific terminology and you don’t define it. Better for what? Often increased co2 increases plant bulk but not plant flowering and reproduction. “Better” equals I forgot to think before I posted.
#4: CO2 levels FOLLOW, not precede, warming trends by 50 years. /// Historical record shows the lag more often to be 500 years or more. Are you chart shopping to match data?
#5: We are recovering from a small ice age. /// Again, so what?
#6: There is a ridiculously massive fusion reactor that fluctuates in output almost right next door. /// Yes, and taken into account in all the models.
Here is what moved me from believer to agnostic on the human causation: The first few years of model reporting showing the dangers of CO2 DID NOT INCLUDE WATER VAPOR in the model “because it was too complex to model” yet water vapor is around 96% (from memory) of the atmospheric greenhouse gas. Its albedo also varies by concentration (cloud formation) so indeed it is complex. Yet when criticism of this huge missing factor was taken into account, as if by magic, the results of global warming by co2 did not change at all.
All highly suspect in my book.
why do you post a picture of New Orleans in a story about Houston?
hee hee hee
#20 hit it on the head
Come on could you please stop confusing Weather and Climate?
And btw. we are in a short term down turn of temperatures, that will offset global warming for a while. Global warming is just another time scale.
Your weather now and in 10 years will tell you nothing about climate change.
Global Cooling is a self correcting action. As more snow falls in Houston and New Orleans, these good God fearing Americans will buy more SUVs.
Seriously, the earth warmed and cooled for billions of years before man and will do so for billions more. The sun contributes the energy for almost all of this variation. Study that fluctuation and you will find your solution.
# 15 bobbo said, “Good call Paddy-0. How much of your opinion of Global (Whatever) is based on what you see out your front window?”
I have no opinion of “global warming”. I have no opinion of gravity. I simply observe what exists in the real world.
Why do you have an opinion of Global Warming? It is better to just observe reality.
Maybe you should read Fallen Angels by Jerry Pournelle. He used to appear on TWiT all the time. The book shows what would happen if the Greens won and implemented measures against global warming.
There is a massive glacier trying to cover North Dakota, science is suppressed, and freedom of speech is suppressed in order to keep up the myth of global warming.
#25–Paddy-O==if you have no opinion, why do you post as if you do?
Big difference between a universal constant and a theory. Better to put a hold on both thought eh until the wrinkles are worked out?
What you think you are mindlessly observing oozes out unresponsibly. Thats what I observe reality to be, and so, I make it my opinion as well.
Breaking News: The environment is changing.
And it will change back in a few months. They’re called seasons.
I think the big question here is why the passion?
The passion for arguing that climate change does exist, and the passion to say that it does not.
Firstly more chaotic weather absolutely fits climate change. Thus strange weather in Houston supports that idea.
Secondly there is scientific consensus that a significant proportion of the increase of global temperature over the last 100 years is due to human activity. Some think that solar output plays a factor too. Other effects may be at play too – natural, man made who knows. Bottom line is
1) Climate change exists (there is a global change in temperature in the last 100 years)
2) A significant part of it appears to be due to the activity of humans.
So when someone says they ‘don’t believe in climate change’ – they could mean
1) That they really don’t think the global temperature has changed – they are wrong
2) They don’t believe humans have had an effect – they could be partially right, but are very unlikely to be totally right
3) They don’t think we can do anything about it
On 3 – they might be right.
Oh and the whole – its a theory argument is very dull. Everything in science is – as everything is open to improvement based on new information. That’s how science works… and how the modern world is made possible.
Anyway back to why the passion? By and large (and this may be a gross generalization…)
Well for supporters – they are passionate because they think they are saving the world. Why else?
For the non-supporters – they are passionate because they want to keep the status quo.
What is the status quo? Its where people in the rich countries consume way way more energy than in poorer countries. Say compare US energy consumpion _per capita_ to China.
Accepting climate change involves some people making significant changes. They need to take responsibility – as their actions could seriously effect the world population. Those people don’t like that idea too much. They like it the way things are.
I don’t know if making these changes will stop climate change significantly. Or how much is due to humans.
What I do know is that there is an awful lot of waste, of resources and energy, and trying to be a bit more careful with the planet is probably a good idea.
Given that, and the evidence – seems to me we need to take the whole thing seriously, as opposed to just denying humans could possibly have an effect on the world.
I’ve never seen so many words add up to: “If you disagree with me, STFU!”
I’m more equivocal than that.
Global warming is going to fall on deaf ears with gas at or near $1.50 again. Nobody but tree hugger’s give a damn about the environment when it is not affecting their wallet. Al Gore and his junk science cannot over come the fact that we know so little about our weather history except for the last 100 years or so. We do know their has been cycles of hot and cold so what makes everyone think anything has changed?
More CO2 yet colder temperatures. I’m sure the activists will bring out new models saying it’s all accounted for.
So far we have at least a 30 year trend of no cooling, followed by a short trend of massive cooling. Hopefully temperatures will go up next year, so the global warming crowd can claim vindication.