LibertyBell

You need to have cold air on this side of the globe to tap into it.

Absolutely. I think that's another side benefit of education and more opportunities. Also, Ehrlich was off because of modern technology and farming techniques, but the main concern now is different (deforestation, pesticide use, etc.) Hopefully we can control that too. I saw one of the bright spots of the interview was they were paying farmers not to chop down trees. And it wasn't even that much they had to pay them-- something like 1000 dollars per year per farmer (which added up to 1.5 million per year overall which was funded entirely by donations) and that's more than they make by chopping them down.

Ehrlich was off because of modern technology and farming techniques, but the main concern now is different (deforestation, pesticide use, etc.) Hopefully we can control that too. I saw one of the bright spots of the interview was they were paying farmers not to chop down trees. And it wasn't even that much they had to pay them-- something like 1000 dollars per year per farmer (which added up to 1.5 million per year overall which was funded entirely by donations) and that's more than they make by chopping them down.

I know and it's to their credit they mentioned that but they also talked to other scientists in the video piece and it's basically a case of "delayed not denied" I posted this in our subforum too, and it's food for thought. I know what he said was delayed (and they covered that too) but the main reason why it's inevitable is we have a physical limit and that's the surface area of the planet (of which only 30% is land.) There's also the fact that we're chopping down all the forests-- which is part of what is driving the current mass extinction. On top of that there's heavy pesticide use, which is causing the destruction of pollinators. The 70% of all species going extinct since 1970 is pretty alarming and that will be up to 95% by 2100. We'll conserve a few sure, but a lot are going extinct-- many already have. I don't believe in depopulation either, but I do believe in maintaining a balanced birth vs death rate, which is 2 children per family. I think we'll get there (we already are starting to because male infertility is rising, even in developing countries)-- so it seems like Nature has its own way of doing things to keep humanity in balance with other species. That's actually a part of the discussion they didn't cover and it's fascinating to see how the planet regulates itself. The thing I agree with that they said the most is-- the planet will be fine, even after we're gone.

I know what he said was delayed (and they covered that too) but the main reason why it's inevitable is we have a physical limit and that's the surface area of the planet (of which only 30% is land.) There's also the fact that we're chopping down all the forests-- which is part of what is driving the current mass extinction. On top of that there's heavy pesticide use, which is causing the destruction of pollinators. The 70% of all species going extinct since 1970 is pretty alarming and that will be up to 95% by 2100. We'll conserve a few sure, but a lot are going extinct-- many already have. I don't believe in depopulation either, but I do believe in maintaining a balanced birth vs death rate, which is 2 children per family. I think we'll get there (we already are starting to because male infertility is rising, even in developing countries)-- so it seems like Nature has its own way of doing things to keep humanity in balance with other species. That's actually a part of the discussion they didn't cover and it's fascinating to see how the planet regulates itself. The thing I agree with that they said the most is-- the planet will be fine, even after we're gone.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/earth-mass-extinction-60-minutes-2023-01-01/ So eyeopening-- even though some of us knew about this already-- it's still sobering to see it and read it-- especially on New Years Day!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/earth-mass-extinction-60-minutes-2023-01-01/ So eyeopening-- even though some of us knew about this already-- it's still sobering to see it and read it-- especially on New Years Day!

Right if we don't get anything by the end of January we won't even make 20 inches for the season.

So it looks like January 1977 is the only one where JFK really fits my requirement of a single digit high and below zero low.

I'm surprised JFK missed the record high of 62 by one degree from 1950 and yet Islip hit 65. We also got to 65 here in Nassau County....JFK must have had less sun than we did.

Thanks Chris! What are the records for the earliest the models have picked up on big noreasters? Would it be either February 1978 or March 1993 (or both)? I think they picked up on February 1983, January 1996 and PD2 early too, but we were in the suppression zone originally for those storms.

Thanks Don and did all three have lows of -1 or -2 at JFK?

Why can't we ever be flooded with COLD Pacific air lol. It seems to produce snow just fine in the West.....

Is Allsnow19 playing the role of Snowman19 this year lol?

anything that screws over the fossil fuel companies makes me happy

I love that! May we all get what we want in 2023. Lots of snow and everything else!

Change his name to Allsnowcancel until he does! And Happy New Years! This rainy New Years reminds me of an old Dan Fogelberg song about snow changing to rain.

Happy New Years everyone!

Well I would like that-- my mom's birthday was Sept 17 and mine was Sept 15, so I have a special connection to both numbers.

No not even close, my record is 15!

I wouldn't even look at anything beyond 10 days....and we have to use the dreaded analogs if we want to get into any discussions of what might happen beyond that.

Interesting that the mountains of Northern New England are warming a lot faster than the Rocky Mountains (though they are warming too, and now forest fires are happening there in Colorado)

I think we have to stick around for a few more decades to remind people this actually happened in the 80s lol. If people just look at snowfall, the 80s weren't all that good but there were several interesting weather events and extremes back then that just don't look very likely anymore. April blizzard? Below zero on Christmas morning? I don't see that happening again in our lifetimes.

Thanks Don, did JFK also have single digit highs and below zero lows on these dates (or in 1977)? I lived in Park Slope, Brooklyn in the 70s and early 80s up until November 1982 (I saw the April 1982 blizzard there!) and we moved to Long Island's south shore after that so I saw February 1983 there. Normally I use NYC as my "location" up through Veteran's Day 1982 (the day we moved) and JFK after that. JFK got over 20" in February 1983 (I think-- they always do better in strong el nino snowstorms-- same thing happened in PD2 and January 2016!) so that works for me!

Thanks nice memories-- it was like a dusting here if I remember correctly. The 80s definitely had mostly thread the needle and wasted cold was so common back then, looks like we might be back to that kind of pattern. If that's true we should be happy with getting to around 2 feet of snowfall every year.