Yup.
Never been cold in Uxbridge in January before. :smash:

Scott.
Keep it up and it will be Plastic Lures only for me from know on :love::love:

plastic


:yak5:

What's next you going to tell me your a closet bluefish lover too?

:hee:

Only in the smoker or hanging off a 12/0 for shark bait.

What a coincidence Paraco just dropped 157.2 gallons of global warming

That's enough for 2 more weeks. ugh.

Send pics lol

Scott, it's going to be colder next weekend.

ok I can bug Bryan more then :hee:

Superstrike rules :smash:

GO CHINESE
:yawn:

NWS - Uxbridge MA

Friday Night: Mostly cloudy, with a low around 2.

Saturday: Mostly sunny, with a high near 19.

ya gotta stop cuttin n pastin off the ch5 website :rotf2:

I don't do that media weather thing. thats the National Weather Service, BOX office in Taunton

yea I forgot you read the bifurcated trajectories of Jupiter over uranus and it's affects on clouds in the jetstream

yeah everythings changed now that we found out the earth wobbles

-9 this morning in the truck at 4:15


Global Warming :rotf2:

it grows colder BEFORE
 

GLOBAL WARMING....

then slowly winter disappears...

AGREED Nebe , i once saw a weather report
for Montana, i believe it was....

-20 degrees in the morning
and by late afternoon it was 80 degrees

so thats a 100 degree change in a single day.

consider yourself lucky..............

RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DULUTH MN
518 PM CST FRI JAN 21 2011

...RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE SET AT INTERNATIONAL FALLS MN...

A RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE OF -46 DEGREES WAS SET AT INTERNATIONAL
FALLS MN TODAY. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF -41 SET IN 1954.

i read once......
that even rubber tires fracture at very low temperatures

- 68 with a wind chill....sumthin like that

these must be the "shovel ready" jobs that Obama promised...why isn't he out taking credit for the snow??:rotf2:

he's too busy doing a SNOW JOB

somethin's keeping him skinny

LOL, too funnie. :D

and yet the Artic is "balmy"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/sc...d.html?_r=1&hp

makes sense I guess:

Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change
James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, New York

page 11
" For example, Earth is now closest to the sun in January, which favors warm winters and cool summers in the Northern Hemisphere....."


or maybe all of the hot global warming air is rising to the top of the world...pushing the arctic air blast that we are experiencing southward

I hope the polar bears don't drown.....:happy:

doubters:
 

I have included an excerpt below from a survey of scientists on global warming. 2 points I would like to highlight: 1. 97% of climatologists believe global warming is occurring and humans play a role. 2. The majority of scientists who dispute it are in the petroleum industry or meteorologists.

82% of all scientists questioned believe not only in global warming, but that humans are contributing to it.

Looking at the wealth of data, how could I as an informed person so adamantly disagree with the 97% of climate experts? There is no logic to it, unless I have political reasons to oppose it.

The constant use of weather as an example that global warming isn't occurring are completely in-valid. The noreaster is especially strange since more frequent, stronger storms is something that is indicated by global warming.

Think what you want, but please don't make it as if your side of the argument has the data on its' side unless you want to show all of the data.

****The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Those scientists were obviously idiots and not utilizing the in-depth scientific research and methods that the climatologists who participate in this forum use.

Their method? Looking out the window. :smash::smash:

It's like the nitwits who catch a lot of fish one day and then say, "see, I caught as many fish as I wanted to. That proves we have an abundance of fish around."

Isn't the weather outside my window considered the climate?:rotf2:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
In our survey,
the most specialized and knowledgeable
respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science
as their area of expertise and who
also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed
papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals
in total).

The 97% "Consensus" is only 79 Self-Selected Climatologists

While 97% of "climate scientists think that global warming is 'significantly' due to human activity," a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this "consensus" and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.

Close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming.

Let's not lose sight of what the Doran poll asked:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Of course, the answer to #1 is "risen", if you consider "pre-1800" to be around 1800 or a couple of hundred years of so before, because we were in the little age age, and there's little doubt we have warmed form that time.

The answer to number #2 depends largely on the definition of significant, but I'd guess that even Richard Lindzen would consider the co2 contribution significant, based on his forcing calculation.

And of course, warmers seem to treat a risen/yes reply to this poll as affirmation of catastrophic AGW projections, which may not be intended.[/QUOTE]

you'd think it would be much easier to convince everyone of something that is so obvious...and settled :uhuh: :rotf2:...it appears that the biggest climate challenge for the climate changers is defending the settled science of global warming...maybe we need another movie :rotf2:

Answer to number 1...Your talking over 200 years. The climate changes..No?

Answer to number 2... Brilliant. The number of humans has gone up. Um...could be a factor.

Do you think the the earth might have warmed a fraction without humans?Pretty sure it has in the past.


Edit: Sorry Scott, Didn't read your post until after. Guess a couple window watchers like ourselfs think alike.

I wonder what Oog and Grog thought of the Ice Age?
I bet they blamed it on all the methane gas the dinosaurs created after eating all the vegitation.

Now we study cow burps....where does it all end?????