January Snow Becoming Much More Widespread Around Washington DC

Ten years ago, half of Maryland typically didn’t receive January snow. Now snow covers the entire state almost every January. This is the exact opposite of what experts predicted.

ScreenHunter_6497 Jan. 28 08.44

Advertisement

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to January Snow Becoming Much More Widespread Around Washington DC

  1. Mohatdebos says:

    You should send this information to the office of Congressman Joe Kennedy. I recall reading a news report in which he lamented the decline in snow cover in the Washington, DC area.

  2. annieoakley says:

    The MA Kennedy family is creepy. Each generation is more arrogant and unprincipled than the previous one.

  3. Pathway says:

    That’s hard to fathom, as Joe was a bootlegger and a nazi sympathizer. FDR had to remove him as ambassador to England because of his love of the fascists.

  4. I wonder why they never talk about the water content of the snow. There is a lot more water in 10 inches of wet snow than 10 inches of dry blowing snow.

  5. sfx2020 says:

    The increasing amounts is even evident in the “official” records, which do not actually match what happened in DC.
    http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/winter/storm-pr.htm#TopDaySnowfall

    The Feb 2010 double blizzard event is not accurately reflected in that data.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I am not surprised. Last years February snow storm in mid NC was reported as above freezing temperatures and rain until I screamed bloody murder all over the internet.

      It helps that it made front page news in the local papers complete with photos. The major hail storm that damaged my roof in March vanished from the ‘official reports’ too.

      Funny how consistently adding a couple degrees or more to the record can trip you up and cause a snow storm to turn into a virtual rainstorm….

  6. sfx2020 says:

    While I rarely discuss it on internet, the issue of snow is most likely the biggest problem for those trying to convince the world at large that things are heating up, more than ever before. Because unlike temperatures, snow is in your face, snow is measured by satellites, snow is a real thing that must be dealt with, snow is visual, and snow is directly connected to cold. And nobody can actually go back and adjust the snow coverage maps, much less the snow pack records kept by reservoirs and utilities. Snow is actually the reason I became a skeptic of the official story, specifically the historic double blizzards of Feb 2010 in DC and surroundings, in which it was impossible to ignore that the official snow totals were nothing like what actually happened.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yes nothing like catching them in a bald faced lie.

      I was chipping two inches of Ice that had formed in my stock tanks over night and had four to six inches of white fluffy ‘rain’ on my pastures. Yet the ‘official record’ showed a minimum temperature of 33F at the station within walking distance.

      • sfx2020 says:

        I hesitate to speak about certain things, knowing full well the human nature and psychology of us, as human beings. Emotional wording most often gets somebody to put up defenses, and after that happens, not much we say will matter, except to those who already believe as we do. I’m also an extreme skeptic, I don’t trust my own view of things, and seek to falsify my own ideas, since the easiest person to fool is ourselves.

        With me so far? So when faced with an obvious problem with official records not matching what I observe, I actually want to know why. Rather than accuse I sought out the “how can this be”, rather than assuming there is a motive and intent. My experience with the actual old school weather persons, who record and measure and are actually out in the weather daily, is that many of them are passionate, they really care, and they really really care about accuracy.

        So instead of assuming there is a lie, a deception involved, but also knowing something is actually wrong with the figures, I searched until I found an answer. With me still? It seems to be the ASOS at fault. Further checking confirmed this, there is a real chance it is the automated systems at fault. (as well as other possible factors due to the stations being at major airports)

        This is actually a known problem, mentioned here

        Click to access ASOSandClimateObservations__What_Is_ASOS.pdf

        And spelled out clearly here http://www.nws.noaa.gov/asos/obs.htm

        “The system is not designed to report clouds above 12,000 feet, virga, tornadoes, funnel clouds, ice crystals, snow pellets, ice pellets, drizzle, freezing drizzle, blowing obstructions such as snow, dust, or sand, snow fall and snow depth. ”

        And here’s the real thing. The “agency” running the ASOS doesn’t give a rats behind about accurate snow measurements. And they control the ASOS and supplemental personal needed to measure snow (and other things ASOS can’t)
        https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/weather/asos/

        (I am avoiding using the actual acronym for a reason)

        And it cost money, and the NWS takes data from the “agency” run stations, and they are most often the official site for an area.

        So the problem is one of money, automated equipment,, the “agency” not caring about being a climate data source, and lack of trained people. All of which can explain most of the problems.

        It’s why I try to avoid emotional words and attacking the integrity and motives of anyone. If they are just a victim of the system itself , and reporting what the ASOS records show, even if they know it might not be accurate, they can’t say that. The “agency” doesn’t take kindly to criticism of any kind.

        There is some old saying about not attributing to malice what can be explained by stupidity. In this case, money and not caring about being a climate station might be a better reason than planned deception or some sinister motive.

        In any case, calling somebody a liar is a serious charge, and it will always make them hostile to you from now and forever more. If it turns out there is a reason that explains it better than “you big liar”, it is going to make me look bad. Credibility is always something to guard carefully. If you lose it, you seldom will ever get it back.

        If you claim you don’t care about your credibility, you will have none at all.

        I hope you can see why I hesitate to say anything. It’s usually not worth the hassle, since I tend to antagonize almost everyone speaking like this.

        Seriously.

  7. emsnews says:

    They don’t want to know the real weather, they want their computer programs with its virtual weather which is why the disconnect grows worse and worse as key areas of the planet cool off.

    And they do not want to fix this, either, which makes this inability to track and report the weather and misunderstanding the weather criminal, not accidental.

  8. Gail Combs says:

    fx2020 says:
    “….In any case, calling somebody a liar is a serious charge, and it will always make them hostile to you from now and forever more. If it turns out there is a reason that explains it better than “you big liar”, it is going to make me look bad. Credibility is always something to guard carefully. If you lose it, you seldom will ever get it back.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I understand where you are coming from but this occasion is not a one-off.
    It is just more of the continuous adjustment of the data. After years of lying by the bureaucrats and their bootlickers I am getting really sick and tired of pussy footing around and giving these people the benefit of the doubt. These are people who have blood on their hands and are using manufactured data as an excuse to kill my country from within.

    …..

    First the weather station near me is state of the art and went on line in April of 2001. Since we farm I usually have an Opera window open to the weather station. Over the years I notice that the temperatures for yesterday had changed. And even more interesting the data from the year before changed AGAIN.

    Here are a couple of examples from last year (2014):
    January 30 2014:
    Min Temperature 1 °F 32 °F Record: 7 °F (1977)
    That now is
    Min Temperature 1 °F 37 °F

    ……
    April 28 2014 5:35 AM 54.5 °F
    That now is
    Min Temperature 57 °F

    …………
    Max Temperature was 68 °F (Cold front with rainy weather came through)
    That now is Max Temperature 81 °F</b

    The table from last year showed:
    July 27 Min 67°F — Max 88°F
    July 28 Min 69 °F — Max 87°F
    July 29 Min 60°F — Max 82°F

    July 30 Min 59°F — Max 68°F

    And for August it showed:
    Aug 1. –Min 65°F — Max 75
    °F
    Aug 2. –Min 65°F — Max 70
    °F
    Aug 3. –Min 66°F — Max 78
    °F
    Aug 4. –Min 66°F — Max 83
    °F
    Aug 5. –Min 69°F — Max 86°F

    The current August table shows:
    1 65 Rain 75
    2 65 Rain 70
    3 66 Fog 78
    3 66 Fog 83
    5 65 Fog 86
    6 69 —— 89

    In other words there was NO GOOD REASON
    to adjust that 68 °F ===> 81 °F

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    This is what I had posted a year ago. I did not call Masters a liar without ample cause!

    I mentioned earlier that Wunderground (Jeff Masters) wiped out freezing temperatures and 6 inches of snow in my area that happened in the beginning of February and replaced it with temperatures just above freezing and rain with a trace of snow.

    I just caught more “Fudging” of the data at my nearby weather station. This is a central North Carolina station and I am looking at Monthly temps 90°F and over for years, 2004 & 2010 & 2013.

    First I was keeping track of the days with highs 90°F and above last summer. There was one day at 95°F and 4 days at 91°F as I mentioned several times last fall at WUWT.

    I just looked at the data and low and behold there are now FIFTEEN DAYS instead of FIVE!!! Ten of those days occurred by the end of July so I would not have missed them. (see below)

    As a Lab manager of a Quality lab for decades I learned the tricks for spotting ‘Flinching’ and other telltales of data fraud. (I got fired for catching the upper levels pet lab tech who was ‘Adjusting’ numbers so batches would pass and ship.)

    One method for catching fraud is to look at the last digit and determine the count. If the data set is large enough the numbers should be equal. Since this is high temperature you would expect either equal numbers or a tapering off with more numbers at 0,1,2 3 than at 7,8,9

    There were 105 days 90 and above for the three years I looked at so that is enough data to see a trend. The data is in °F but looked funny so I also included °C.

    Temperature ———- COUNT
    (32.2 °C) 90 °F..——..6 ALL in 2013
    (32.8 °C) 91 °F..——..41
    (33.3 °C) 92 °F..——..4 ALL in 2013
    (33.9 °C) 93 °F..—–..10
    (34.4 °C) 94 °F..——..0
    (35.0 °C) 95 °F..—–..17
    (35.55 °C) 96 °F..—..10
    (36.1 °C) 97 °F..——..0
    (36.67 °C) 98 °F..—..16
    (37.2 °C) 99 °F..-..0
    (37.77 °C) 100.°F-..1

    Now that distribution is weirder than snake shoes. ALL the data for 90 °F and 92 °F is in 2013 and it just so happens to add up to the extra 10 above 90 °F that wasn’t in the same data set last year.

    If you discount the 90 °F and 92 °F from 2013 (since they just mysteriously appeared) you get
    (32.8 °C) 91 °F
    (33.9 °C) 93 °F
    (35.0 °C) 95 °F
    (35.55 °C) 96 °F
    (36.67 °C) 98 °F
    (37.77 °C) 100.°F
    32.2 °C is 90 °F where as 89 °F is 31.67 °C so that might explain the promotion of 89°F to 90°F as numbers got changed back and forth from °C to °F to °C. But it does not explain all the 96 °Fs instead of 97 °F which is 36.11 °C. As I said weird.

    As a lab manager I would be asking some very pointy little questions of anyone who reported these type of numbers over a sixth month interval.

    THIS IS THE DATA:
    April 2004 (6)…April 2010 (1)…April 2013 (0)
    2 days – 91F……..1day – 91F………(high 86F)
    4 days – 93F……………………………………..

    May 2004 (17)…May 2010 (4)….May 2013 (0)
    6 days – 91F…….4day……. – 91….. (2 days 88)
    6 days – 93F…………………………………….
    2 days – 95F…………………………………….
    1 days – 96F……………………………………
    2 days – 98F…………………………………….

    June 2004 (11)…June 2010 (18)…June 2013 (3)
    1 days – 91F…….5 day – 91F………90F – 2
    7 days – 93F……..5 days – 93F……………
    none ……………….2 days – 95F………..95 F – 1
    2 days – 96………2 days – 96F…………….
    1 days – 98F……..4 days – 98F…………….

    Jul 2004 (24)….Jul 2010 (15)…..Jul 2013 (7)
    ……………………………………………….90F – 3
    4 day – 91F 91F – 4…………91F – 1
    11 days – 93F 93F – 4………..92F – 3
    1 days – 95F. 95F – 2
    days – 96F 96F – 2
    7days – 98F 98F – 2
    ………………………….100F – 1

    Aug 2004 (12)…Aug 2010 (13)…Aug 2013 (4)
    ……………………………………………….90F – 1
    1 day – 91F 91F – 4………….91F – 2
    8 days – 93F 93F – 3………….92F – 1
    3 days – 95F 95F – 5
    0days – 96F 96F – 1

    Sept 2004 (0)…Sept 2010 (11)..Sept 2013 (1)
    0 days – 91F 91F – 5…………91F – 1
    0 days – 93F 93F – 3………..
    0 days – 95F 95F – 1
    0 days – 96F 96F – 2

  9. Gail Combs says:

    I also mention on the morning after the night it ‘officially’ was just above freezing last February, I had to use a sledge hammer to break though the 2 inch thick ice that had formed overnight on my stock tanks.

    Please note that I have goats and you can not let them drink water close to freezing without risking them dying. So we either add hot ===> boiling water or refill the tank with fresh water. There is no way that water would form two inches of ice if the temperature was near the freezing point of water. Normally we get a skim of ice to about a 1/2 inch.

    It is now 21°F @ 7:30 AM and we have 5/8 of an inch of ice on my goat water tank. As I said THEY LIED the physical evidence makes it very very plain THEY LIED.

    This is why only 8% of farmers believe in Gore Bull Warbling.

    If you want some other example of the US government working against the best interest of her citizens and FOR the interests of the international Ag Cartel read these four links.

    SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy

    HACCP’S Disconnect From Public Health Concerns

    Five Minutes With John Munsell & A Trip To The Woodshed With The USDA

    History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job

    The international Ag Cartel was the driving force behind the Agreement on Agriculture, HACCP and the doubling of Food Borne illnesses. This was used to drive the law regulating farming and the final demise of US independent farmers through the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act. Again the USDA and the FDA LIED. They stated there had been no up date to our food safety system AFTER they had already implemented HACCP allowing the Ag cartel to inspect themselves.
    (wwwDOT)publiceyeonscience.ch/resources/the_wto_and_the_politics_of_gmo.pdf

    The Grain Trader Dan Amstutz originally worked in the department of Ag under Reagan but his draft Agreement on Ag and Draft farm bill was passed under Clinton.
    stevengoddard(DOT)wordpress.com/2014/03/18/bryan-walsh-hoping-to-be-the-next-paul-ehrlich/#comment-328523

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s