Conquer Club

Farmers' Almanac Predicts a 'Polar Coaster' Winter With Harsh Weather


2020 Farmers' Almanac predicts "yet another freezing, frigid and frosty winter for two-thirds of the country," with the worst conditions forecast for areas east of the Rockies all the way to the Appalachians.

"This winter will be filled with so many ups and downs on the thermometer, it may remind you of a 'Polar Coaster,'" the report stated.

The almanac anticipates a cold, wintry mix in the Northeast and New England regions of the U.S. with a frosty and wet forecast for the mid-Atlantic. The Midwest should expect frozen and snowy weather, while California, Arizona and Nevada will see cool weather with normal precipitation.

The most frigid temperatures will take hold from the northern Plains to the Great Lakes region. Residents in cities from Washington, D.C., to Boston will experience colder-than-usual weather, and above-normal precipitation will fall on the eastern third of the U.S., as well as the Midwest and Great Plains and Great Lakes regions.

"With colder-than-normal temperatures in the Northeast and above-normal precipitation expected, our outlook forewarns of not only a good amount of snow, but also a wintry mix of rain, sleet – especially along the coast," the report stated.

According to the report, the harshest weather will arrive during the final week of January and persist through the beginning of February. The first week of 2020 could bring frequent precipitation in the eastern U.S. with strong winds. Between Jan. 4 and 7, as well as between Jan. 12 and 15, "copious amounts of snow, rain, sleet and ice" are predicted to fall.

Residents northeast of the Texas panhandle to the western Great Lakes will experience "a memorable storm producing hefty snow" in January and the weather system will bring plummeting temperatures and the coldest Arctic air in February.

As the harshest winter weather moves out, the report predicts that spring will be slow to start with occasional wet snow and unseasonably cold temperatures will linger until April.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-08-27/farmers-almanac-predicts-a-polar-coaster-winter-with-harsh-weather

"copious amounts of snow, rain, sleet and ice"

Irony: In order for "Global Warming" to be true, the Farmer's Almanac must be WRONG. This is because the Almanac works on long and short term cycles in weather pattern and Global Warming is supposed to break those cycles. Global Waring is supposed to be the "mule" in the weather equivalent of Hari Seldon's historical predictions of the galaxy. If it doesn't then it is clear that Global Warming is only causing minor changes to overall climate cycles. (It could be causing massive damage in other ways, but then again so are a lot of pollutants, including and especially micro plastic.)

Two more points to consider, from someone who lived and still lives on the north shore of Long Island.

"Snow" is a complex condition. Too cold and it doesn't really significantly snow (that's why Antarctica is a "dessert") and too warm and it rains. You need the right mix of warm moist air and cold dry air to keep the snow flakes in thermals to get bigger and bigger to get the real big snowfalls. That's why the biggest snow happens when cold air passes over warm bodies of water (and right into Buffalo NY).

Ironically, somewhere above the wonderful line of cold and warm is the jet stream. Any minor change in the stream can have major impacts on the weather in the United States as the Great Lakes are more or less underneath them as well. A bulge to the north or south can change weather drastically.

Global Warming is a big part of the reason why the eastern half of North America has been having hard winters lately. Because Asia is a larger land mass than North America, and Asia has been having extraordinarily warm winters, the enormity of the high pressure air mass over Asia has been enough to force the polar vortex off the North Pole and down over North America.

So, yeah, you have to look at the big picture. As the climate warms more and more, Asia gets hotter and hotter, and the polar air gets forced further down into North America. There were a couple days last winter when the North Pole was warmer than Winnipeg.

As for the Farmer's Almanac, despite a whole shitload of folklore singing their praises, their actual record is not particularly impressive. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. Overall no better than guessing.

Dukasaur wrote:Global Warming is a big part of the reason why the eastern half of North America has been having hard winters lately.

We have? Perhaps it's just this north fork long islander but I haven't noticed it.

Dukasaur wrote:
As for the Farmer's Almanac, despite a whole shitload of folklore singing their praises, their actual record is not particularly impressive. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. Overall no better than guessing.

hmmm. seems like that notion applies to Science as well..
since Science is the art of proving the previous Scientific Facts Wrong..

NomadPatriot wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:
As for the Farmer's Almanac, despite a whole shitload of folklore singing their praises, their actual record is not particularly impressive. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. Overall no better than guessing.

hmmm. seems like that notion applies to Science as well..
since Science is the art of proving the previous Scientific Facts Wrong..

Science is a process of constantly refining our knowledge. Yes, sometimes new facts are found which disprove older theories. That's how you improve -- you work with the best knowledge available, but if something better comes along, you replace what's obsolete.

Dukasaur wrote:
Science is a process of constantly refining our knowledge. Yes, sometimes new facts are found which disprove older theories. That's how you improve -- you work with the best knowledge available, but if something better comes along, you replace what's obsolete.

ohh.. Science is... " THEORIES".. ok. .cool..

but today's Weather Scientist's are 100% correct about Global Warming..

no one will ever " disprove their theories". right.. ?

"that's how you improve -- you work with the best knowledge available, but if something better comes along, you replace what's obsolete... "

Global Warming is .. ' Settled Science".. isn't it. ?

if people are not willing to even listen and consider the arguments of scientists who are not in favor of Global Warming. then how is Science ever going too .. Improve.. ?

soon enough.. Global Warming ,oops... I mean Climate Change, wait i mean Climate Chaos fanatics will be .. Obsolete.. ( sorry .. I have trouble keeping up with the ever "Redefining & Improving" terminology..

NomadPatriot wrote:
"that's how you improve -- you work with the best knowledge available, but if something better comes along, you replace what's obsolete... "

Global Warming is .. ' Settled Science".. isn't it. ?

if people are not willing to even listen and consider the arguments of scientists who are not in favor of Global Warming. then how is Science ever going too .. Improve.. ?

What makes you think they haven't considered them?

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:
"that's how you improve -- you work with the best knowledge available, but if something better comes along, you replace what's obsolete... "

Global Warming is .. ' Settled Science".. isn't it. ?

if people are not willing to even listen and consider the arguments of scientists who are not in favor of Global Warming. then how is Science ever going too .. Improve.. ?

What makes you think they haven't considered them?

because the Global Warming people have said numerous times it is " Settled Science".. that means unquestionable.. permanent.. no need to consider anything else, no need to replace an obsolete set of ideas if something better comes along... no need to improve.. it's .. Settled..

NomadPatriot wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:
"that's how you improve -- you work with the best knowledge available, but if something better comes along, you replace what's obsolete... "

Global Warming is .. ' Settled Science".. isn't it. ?

if people are not willing to even listen and consider the arguments of scientists who are not in favor of Global Warming. then how is Science ever going too .. Improve.. ?

What makes you think they haven't considered them?

because the Global Warming people have said numerous times it is " Settled Science".. that means unquestionable.. permanent.. no need to consider anything else.. it's .. Settled..

Things are settled until something better comes along. Nothing is immune to being challenged.

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:
"that's how you improve -- you work with the best knowledge available, but if something better comes along, you replace what's obsolete... "

Global Warming is .. ' Settled Science".. isn't it. ?

if people are not willing to even listen and consider the arguments of scientists who are not in favor of Global Warming. then how is Science ever going too .. Improve.. ?

What makes you think they haven't considered them?

because the Global Warming people have said numerous times it is " Settled Science".. that means unquestionable.. permanent.. no need to consider anything else.. it's .. Settled..

Things are settled until something better comes along. Nothing is immune to being challenged.

obviously Duk.. you do not actually know the definition of Settled Science...

Settled Science is a phrase often encountered in newspapers and press reports, usually associated with climate change reporting. Basically it is used to indicate that the science of climate change is 'settled' and therefore further discussion on the point is pointless as the underlying science is so strong as to not require any more discussion.

NomadPatriot wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:
"that's how you improve -- you work with the best knowledge available, but if something better comes along, you replace what's obsolete... "

Global Warming is .. ' Settled Science".. isn't it. ?

if people are not willing to even listen and consider the arguments of scientists who are not in favor of Global Warming. then how is Science ever going too .. Improve.. ?

What makes you think they haven't considered them?

because the Global Warming people have said numerous times it is " Settled Science".. that means unquestionable.. permanent.. no need to consider anything else.. it's .. Settled..

Things are settled until something better comes along. Nothing is immune to being challenged.

obviously Duk.. you do not actually know the definition of Settled Science...

Settled Science is a phrase often encountered in newspapers and press reports, usually associated with climate change reporting. Basically it is used to indicate that the science of climate change is 'settled' and therefore further discussion on the point is pointless as the underlying science is so strong as to not require any more discussion.

Press reports on scientific issues often oversimplify them. Nothing is immune to challenge. The basic theory of an anthrogenic cause to the current wave of planetary warming is very strong. Nothing better has come along. That doesn't mean that something better can't or won't come along at some point in the future.

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:
"that's how you improve -- you work with the best knowledge available, but if something better comes along, you replace what's obsolete... "

Global Warming is .. ' Settled Science".. isn't it. ?

if people are not willing to even listen and consider the arguments of scientists who are not in favor of Global Warming. then how is Science ever going too .. Improve.. ?

What makes you think they haven't considered them?

because the Global Warming people have said numerous times it is " Settled Science".. that means unquestionable.. permanent.. no need to consider anything else.. it's .. Settled..

Things are settled until something better comes along. Nothing is immune to being challenged.

obviously Duk.. you do not actually know the definition of Settled Science...

Settled Science is a phrase often encountered in newspapers and press reports, usually associated with climate change reporting. Basically it is used to indicate that the science of climate change is 'settled' and therefore further discussion on the point is pointless as the underlying science is so strong as to not require any more discussion.

Press reports on scientific issues often oversimplify them. Nothing is immune to challenge. The basic theory of an anthrogenic cause to the current wave of planetary warming is very strong. Nothing better has come along. That doesn't mean that something better can't or won't come along at some point in the future.

so you are admitting the 'Humans are causing Global Warming' Theory could be wrong.. that it's not Settled Science?

so everyone shouldn't be freaking out .. because it's not something that has been .. Proven.. with actual undeniable facts..
interesting..

"Science" is a method; a way of looking at, ordering, and making predictions of the world around us. Nothing so annoys me as much as "Settled Science." Facts can easily be settled, because they can be shown to be true or false. Theories can be "somewhat" settled ... at least until new facts come in that are not in line with the theory. One problem (or is it an advantage) is that most people look at a narrow range of facts. Reconciling these sometimes contradictory facts is not easy (unless you're Einstein).

This is exceptionally true for complex systems such as the weather, but since it's a bogyman of sorts I will use the example of the human body. We know a lot about the human body, thousands of scientists have given us millions of facts. Yet, often, when a doctor prescribes something to address a certain condition it only makes another condition, previously not present, form. Take a pill, for example, to cure one type of kidney stone and the kidney will start to produce another type of kidney stone.

All of this is interesting, but pointless. We're really not talking "science" here. We're talking "politics." More importantly, we are talking about the weapons of politics, which is generally antithetical to real science. No one really cares if the environmental damage done by making solar panels might be greater than the environmental damage saved by solar panels. (I'd put solar panels on my roof if it wasn't for those tall trees in my front yard, blocking the sun and absorbing CO2. Annoyingly I'm on a hill and if the sun were in the north I would have ideal conditions.) If people were really serious about the science we would be looking at international policies to get China into line.

But we don't because the politics is to bribe scientists through easy grant offers that establish the "fact" that we need to raise taxes so that the people in power can ... er make more money? (Or break the back of the coal miners union, as was the original situation in the UK.)

NomadPatriot wrote:
so you are admitting the 'Humans are causing Global Warming' Theory could be wrong.. that it's not Settled Science?

so everyone shouldn't be freaking out .. because it's not something that has been .. Proven.. with actual undeniable facts..
interesting..

No, the facts are undeniable enough. The planet is heating up fast. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is likewise increasing fast. Forests are disappearing. Etc., etc. These things are measurable facts.

The parts that are theory are in the exact interplay of all these factors. Theories are forever subject to challenge. Nonetheless, you work with the best theories you currently have available.

Exactly how much of the warming is anthrogenic may still be open to challenge, but there's no realistic challenger in sight. When we discussed this in the other thread, for instance, we talked about some of the other things that affect climate -- the wobble of the earth's axis, the shifting of the tectonic plates, etc. All of those act on scales of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. None of them offer useful theoretical alternatives for the changes we are seeing right now. Maybe there's some other factor we haven't discovered yet. But until it shows up, you work with what you have.

By way of analogy, we don't know everything there is to know about cancer, either. Various theories continue to be fought over. But if you get cancer tomorrow, are you going to just ignore it because the theory isn't perfect enough, or are you going to demand treatment right now, with the best medicine we have available?

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:
so you are admitting the 'Humans are causing Global Warming' Theory could be wrong.. that it's not Settled Science?

so everyone shouldn't be freaking out .. because it's not something that has been .. Proven.. with actual undeniable facts..
interesting..

No, the facts are undeniable enough. The planet is heating up fast. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is likewise increasing fast. Forests are disappearing. Etc., etc. These things are measurable facts.

The parts that are theory are in the exact interplay of all these factors. Theories are forever subject to challenge. Nonetheless, you work with the best theories you currently have available.

Exactly how much of the warming is anthrogenic may still be open to challenge, but there's no realistic challenger in sight. When we discussed this in the other thread, for instance, we talked about some of the other things that affect climate -- the wobble of the earth's axis, the shifting of the tectonic plates, etc. All of those act on scales of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. None of them offer useful theoretical alternatives for the changes we are seeing right now. Maybe there's some other factor we haven't discovered yet. But until it shows up, you work with what you have.

By way of analogy, we don't know everything there is to know about cancer, either. Various theories continue to be fought over. But if you get cancer tomorrow, are you going to just ignore it because the theory isn't perfect enough, or are you going to demand treatment right now, with the best medicine we have available?

we are discussing the terminology " settled Science". being used by the Climate Scientists.
they say it's Settled Science.
Settled Science entails it is no longer Theory.

how can it be Settled Science if by what you are saying it isn't Settled Science. ?

are you suggesting the climate scientists are wrong because it cannot be Settled Science since they are only working with the data they currently have. and will not be wiling to consider new data when it is presented. ..?

NomadPatriot wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:
so you are admitting the 'Humans are causing Global Warming' Theory could be wrong.. that it's not Settled Science?

so everyone shouldn't be freaking out .. because it's not something that has been .. Proven.. with actual undeniable facts..
interesting..

No, the facts are undeniable enough. The planet is heating up fast. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is likewise increasing fast. Forests are disappearing. Etc., etc. These things are measurable facts.

The parts that are theory are in the exact interplay of all these factors. Theories are forever subject to challenge. Nonetheless, you work with the best theories you currently have available.

Exactly how much of the warming is anthrogenic may still be open to challenge, but there's no realistic challenger in sight. When we discussed this in the other thread, for instance, we talked about some of the other things that affect climate -- the wobble of the earth's axis, the shifting of the tectonic plates, etc. All of those act on scales of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. None of them offer useful theoretical alternatives for the changes we are seeing right now. Maybe there's some other factor we haven't discovered yet. But until it shows up, you work with what you have.

By way of analogy, we don't know everything there is to know about cancer, either. Various theories continue to be fought over. But if you get cancer tomorrow, are you going to just ignore it because the theory isn't perfect enough, or are you going to demand treatment right now, with the best medicine we have available?

we are discussing the terminology " settled Science".

Hmm... Well no.

YOU are discussing the definition of a term. Duku is explaining very eloquently how science works, because it's clear you don't understand. You choosing to completely ignore his insightful post and just go back your semantic argument is par for the course.

mookiemcgee wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:
so you are admitting the 'Humans are causing Global Warming' Theory could be wrong.. that it's not Settled Science?

so everyone shouldn't be freaking out .. because it's not something that has been .. Proven.. with actual undeniable facts..
interesting..

No, the facts are undeniable enough. The planet is heating up fast. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is likewise increasing fast. Forests are disappearing. Etc., etc. These things are measurable facts.

The parts that are theory are in the exact interplay of all these factors. Theories are forever subject to challenge. Nonetheless, you work with the best theories you currently have available.

Exactly how much of the warming is anthrogenic may still be open to challenge, but there's no realistic challenger in sight. When we discussed this in the other thread, for instance, we talked about some of the other things that affect climate -- the wobble of the earth's axis, the shifting of the tectonic plates, etc. All of those act on scales of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. None of them offer useful theoretical alternatives for the changes we are seeing right now. Maybe there's some other factor we haven't discovered yet. But until it shows up, you work with what you have.

By way of analogy, we don't know everything there is to know about cancer, either. Various theories continue to be fought over. But if you get cancer tomorrow, are you going to just ignore it because the theory isn't perfect enough, or are you going to demand treatment right now, with the best medicine we have available?

we are discussing the terminology " settled Science".

Hmm... Well no.

YOU are discussing the definition of a term. Duku is explaining very eloquently how science works, because it's clear you don't understand. You choosing to completely ignore his insightful post and just go back your semantic argument is par for the course.

Pretty much this. Thanks, mookie.

NomadPatriot wrote:we are discussing the terminology " settled Science". being used by the Climate Scientists.
they say it's Settled Science.
Settled Science entails it is no longer Theory.

how can it be Settled Science if by what you are saying it isn't Settled Science. ?

are you suggesting the climate scientists are wrong because it cannot be Settled Science since they are only working with the data they currently have. and will not be wiling to consider new data when it is presented. ..?

You're reading too much into the meaning of a word. I don't even know which "they" you are referring to. Maybe they used the wrong word in the situation, but if you're taking it to mean that something isn't open to new data, then you're misinterpreting the word.

There's no such thing as a scientist unwilling to consider new data. A scientist always welcomes more data. Science is a constant process of reducing uncertainty, but day 1 in any science course you learn that you can never eliminate uncertainty completely.

Dukasaur wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:
so you are admitting the 'Humans are causing Global Warming' Theory could be wrong.. that it's not Settled Science?

so everyone shouldn't be freaking out .. because it's not something that has been .. Proven.. with actual undeniable facts..
interesting..

No, the facts are undeniable enough. The planet is heating up fast. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is likewise increasing fast. Forests are disappearing. Etc., etc. These things are measurable facts.

The parts that are theory are in the exact interplay of all these factors. Theories are forever subject to challenge. Nonetheless, you work with the best theories you currently have available.

Exactly how much of the warming is anthrogenic may still be open to challenge, but there's no realistic challenger in sight. When we discussed this in the other thread, for instance, we talked about some of the other things that affect climate -- the wobble of the earth's axis, the shifting of the tectonic plates, etc. All of those act on scales of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. None of them offer useful theoretical alternatives for the changes we are seeing right now. Maybe there's some other factor we haven't discovered yet. But until it shows up, you work with what you have.

By way of analogy, we don't know everything there is to know about cancer, either. Various theories continue to be fought over. But if you get cancer tomorrow, are you going to just ignore it because the theory isn't perfect enough, or are you going to demand treatment right now, with the best medicine we have available?

we are discussing the terminology " settled Science".

Hmm... Well no.

YOU are discussing the definition of a term. Duku is explaining very eloquently how science works, because it's clear you don't understand. You choosing to completely ignore his insightful post and just go back your semantic argument is par for the course.

Pretty much this. Thanks, mookie.

NomadPatriot wrote:we are discussing the terminology " settled Science". being used by the Climate Scientists.
they say it's Settled Science.
Settled Science entails it is no longer Theory.

how can it be Settled Science if by what you are saying it isn't Settled Science. ?

are you suggesting the climate scientists are wrong because it cannot be Settled Science since they are only working with the data they currently have. and will not be wiling to consider new data when it is presented. ..?

You're reading too much into the meaning of a word. I don't even know which "they" you are referring to. Maybe they used the wrong word in the situation, but if you're taking it to mean that something isn't open to new data, then you're misinterpreting the word.

There's no such thing as a scientist unwilling to consider new data. A scientist always welcomes more data. Science is a constant process of reducing uncertainty, but day 1 in any science course you learn that you can never eliminate uncertainty completely.

that is weird.. because earlier you wrote
-->

Dukasaur wrote:Things are settled until something better comes along..

you said yourself " things are Settled until something better comes along"..
how can it be 'Settled' Duk..?
I thought science can never be settled..

so the 'they' I am referring to is you Duk.. you said it was Settled....


so shouldn't the terminology be " it is LIKELY humans are causing Global Warming. .."...?

since all science is just a Theory and nothing is ever 100% proven & settled...

Are you skipping your medication?

NomadPatriot wrote:
so the 'they' I am referring to is you Duk.. you said it was Settled....

No, you introduced that term, here: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=231174#p5117478

I was just responding to you, using the words you brought in.

NomadPatriot wrote:so shouldn't the terminology be " it is LIKELY humans are causing Global Warming. .."...?

since all science is just a Theory and nothing is ever 100% proven & settled...

Yes, that's the unstated proviso. Science always allows for the fact that there's uncertainty. When the uncertainty is less than 5%, a theory is considered publishable. When the uncertainty is vanishingly low as it is in this case, people treat it as certain, but of course some small level of uncertainty remains.

Dukasaur wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:
so the 'they' I am referring to is you Duk.. you said it was Settled....

No, you introduced that term, here: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=231174#p5117478

I was just responding to you, using the words you brought in.

NomadPatriot wrote:so shouldn't the terminology be " it is LIKELY humans are causing Global Warming. .."...?

since all science is just a Theory and nothing is ever 100% proven & settled...

Yes, that's the unstated proviso. Science always allows for the fact that there's uncertainty. When the uncertainty is less than 5%, a theory is considered publishable. When the uncertainty is vanishingly low as it is in this case, people treat it as certain, but of course some small level of uncertainty remains.

i guess now you are just intentionally denying what you said. because you realize it destroys what you have been claiming.
typical.

you are not even willing to admit you said the science of global warming was settled. even though I directly quoted you saying it.

i stated " 'they' claim Global Warming science is Settled".. you agreed with that saying " things are settled "..

but at least you do admit I am right that Global Warming is just a theory and it cannot be proven humans are the cause of the current situation..

that it is not settled science. that the scientist studying Climate Change can possibly be proven wrong.
that when people say " humans are causing Global Warming".. that they are wrong..

but i will assume you will just deny all of this as well & continue down the 'Humans cause global warming' narrative