Boston Is Having Their Driest Snow On Record

Climate expert Michael E Mann says that the deep snow in Boston is due to excess moisture in the air caused by global warming, but Boston is having their driest snow on record and fourth coldest start to a year on record. The ratio of snow/water is almost 10:1, more like what would be expected in the dry Rocky Mountains.

ScreenHunter_7252 Feb. 17 04.33

Precipitation at Boston is nowhere near a record.

ScreenHunter_7251 Feb. 17 04.32

By the end of the week, this may be their coldest start to a year on record.

ScreenHunter_7253 Feb. 17 04.33

 ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/all/USC00190736.dly

As is normally the case, Mikey has no idea what he is talking about. Being clueless makes him a hero of the left, and earns him $15,000 to speak to audiences of progressive useful idiots.

About stevengoddard

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

32 Responses to Boston Is Having Their Driest Snow On Record

  1. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Its mythical snow. Hot snow. Global warming means this snow doesn’t exist. If you just believe your SUV will emerge magically from under the 10″ of strange white stuff which the models say isn’t actually there.

    • emsnews says:

      So true.

      When it is below zero, the snow is ‘dry’. It is tiny ice crystals that sting like buckshot when the wind howls. The snow is piling up here on my mountain as well as in Boston because it isn’t MELTING between storms.

      And this is how Ice Ages work: less and less snow but it doesn’t melt.

  2. Eric Simpson says:

    Speaking of drying up.. it’s the sunspots.
    spaceweather.com

    I’ve been watching it for several days and now there are 44 spots but just days ago there were like over 100 spots or so, and not only have the spots been rotating out of the picture, they’ve just been disappearing. Poof! Kind of like a complexion that’s clearing up (drying out). Within a few days much of the remainders are going to rotate away, and the rest could dry out and disappear.. and if (a big if) nothing new shows up, we could have 0 spots. And we are still supposed to be essentially at solar maximum!

    So, within a few days could we have zero sunspots?
    I know it’s 44 now, but it’s just a feeling.
    Yes, disclaimer: it could go the other way.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      My link to spaceweather dot com got messed up.
      It’s: spaceweather.com

    • Gail Combs says:

      “The Monthly comparison graph showing the different counting methods. The NOAA method departing from the Wolfer method by not adjusting the raw count (NOAA do not multiply by 0.6). The SIDC using the Wolfer formula (along with the Waldmeier scale factor) which I believe is flawed during times of high speck ratio’

      One sunspot group is recorded with the overall sunspot area decreasing. Tomorrow has a strong chance of going sub 30 for the LSC monthly average.

      New Lockwood Papers Challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn and WUWT?

      A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima.</b. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Anthony Watts has refused to review this new paper along with mine, although F10.7 flux increasing….
      http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

      Not surprising that A.W. is refusing to review the paper. He also pretty much kicked Dr Nicola Scafetta of Duke University off WUWT for arguing with Leif Svalgaard who is now ‘Adjusting’ the historic sunspot record…. Sound familiar?

      An alternate look at the data is always interesting. I do not think barely visible specks should be counted the same as large sunspots. The F10.7 flux is a better method. Notice that Geoff handles the data correctly. He shows both the NOAA count and the SIDC, explains how they are determined and then shows his analysis and what he has done and why. I may not agree with the hypothesis of Dr Landscheidt and Geoff, but at least they are following good data handling practices and who knows their observations may lead to a new understanding of the universe.

      Also see: A History of Solar Activity over Millennia by Ilya G. Usoskin

      A review of “A History of Solar Activity over Millennia” by Ilya G. Usoskin
      Grand maxima of solar activity:
      http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2008-3&page=articlesu16.html

      Keeping possible uncertainties in mind, let us consider a list of the largest grand maxima (the 50 year smoothed sunspot number stably exceeding 50), identified for the last 11,400 years using 14C data, as shown in Table 2 (after Usoskin et al., 2007). A total of 19 grand maxima have been identified with a total duration of around 1030 years, suggesting that the sun spends around 10% of its time in an active state. A statistical analysis of grand-maxima–occurrence time suggests that they do not follow long-term cyclic variations, but like grand minima, are defined by stochastic/chaotic processes. The distribution of the waiting time between consecutive grand maxima is not as clear as that for grand minima, but also hints at a deviation from exponential law. The duration of grand maxima has a smooth distribution, which nearly exponentially decreases towards longer intervals. Most of the reconstructed grand maxima (about 75%) were not longer than 50 years, and only four grand minima (including the modern one) have been longer than 70 years. This suggest that the probability of the modern active-sun episode continuing is low5 (cf. Solanki et al., 2004; Abreu et al., 2008)

      A review by CO2 Science: A 3,000-Year Record of Solar Activity

      According to Usoskin et al. (2014), the Sun “shows strong variability in its magnetic activity, from Grand minima to Grand maxima, but the nature of the variability is not fully understood, mostly because of the insufficient length of the directly observed solar activity records and of uncertainties related to long-term reconstructions.”
      Now, however, in an attempt to overcome such uncertainties, Usoskin et al. “present the first fully adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity” covering the past 3,000 years, which record allowed them “to study different modes of solar activity at an unprecedented level of detail.”

      As a “unique” and “rare” event in terms of both magnitude and duration, one would think a lot more time and effort would be spent by the IPCC and others in answering that question.
      Instead, IPCC scientists have conducted relatively few studies of the Sun’s influence on modern warming, assuming that the temperature influence of this rare and unique Grand maximum of solar activity, which has occurred only once in the past 3,000 years, is far inferior to the radiative power provided by the rising CO2 concentration of the Earth’s atmosphere….

      • Eric Simpson says:

        I do not think barely visible specks should be counted the same as large sunspots.

        Iceagenow got upset about spaceweather counting every speck, so he went to landscheit or whatever. But I still use spaceweather. And we know one thing, if spaceweather says there is zero spots, then there. is. zero. spots.Triple zero!

        And I’m looking at the current image of the sun, and “spot” # 2284 is certainly barely visible NOT visible. So that’s another reason to think that we might go to zero spots, because when those spots to the right rotate away, #2284 is .. what? A phantom spot.

        But I’m going to try to insert an image here for the first time (of the current sun & it’s spots). If I don’t get it right someone tell me how to insert images here. And here’s the image link if I fail to get the image to appear: http://spaceweather.com/images2015/17feb15/hmi1898.gif?PHPSESSID=m7j2qn07agri64irben7vnr5b3

        So I’ll try to get this image in with img src =. Look at “spot” 2284:

      • Eric Simpson says:

        Nope. Didn’t work. My image didn’t show. Maybe there’s something wrong the image file. I used an IMG SRC = “url” in brackets , but the image is not there. At least I don’t see it.

      • Figaro says:

        Gail, I iam not defending AW in any particular way, but he has a longstanding policy of not entertaining papers or discusions on barycentrism on his site. At the limit, he is being consistent with it. A totally different case is the “sunspot war”, his stance on temp records tainting, as reported here for example, and many other cases that has drawn old readers elesewhere. Regards. Figaro

      • emsnews says:

        HOLY COW.

        My father, Dr. Aden Meinel, was one of the founders of Kitt Peak’s observatories and his prize one was founding the huge solar observatory there and I used to play in that big white building as a child and watched the sun spots on the big Table there.

        Well…NASA and NOAA basically told him to go to hell when he warned them the sun was going into a Maunder Minimum cycle just before he died two years ago.

        And now they are destroying his research. Counting tiny sun spots we couldn’t detect in the past is insane. They don’t matter. A hot sun has lots of big sun spots and a cooler sun has few to no big sun spots. Simple. Has been understood for the last 100 years and my grandpa, Edison Pettit worked on this thing with Dr. Hubble way back before WWI.

  3. omanuel says:

    One of these days your sense of humor is going to get you in trouble.

  4. richard says:

    WMO- Urban observations.

    “At the same time, Meteorological Services have difficulty in making urban observations that are not severely compromised. This is because most developed sites make it impossible to conform to the standard guidelines for site selection and
    instrument exposure given in Part I of this Guide owing to obstruction of air-flow and radiation exchange by buildings and trees, unnatural surface cover and waste heat and water vapour from human activities”

    at least they admit the problems and give them a “0” for quality.

  5. richard says:

    “All instruments of our AWS are equipped with calibration certification, but factory calibration should be performed at least every two years in a calibration laboratory. Till then, it is really essential to check the accuracy of our AWS by field checks with suitable travelling reference instruments regularly. As professional reference instruments of known high accuracy are too expensive, this check could be done by comparing the station’s data with that from other reference station in the locality, if the two stations have similar microclimates”

    same microclimate, oh dear that could be a problem if you are estimating up to 1200 kilometres from a weather station.

    • Gail Combs says:

      ” ….As professional reference instruments of known high accuracy are too expensive, this check could be done by comparing the station’s data with that from other reference station in the locality, if the two stations have similar microclimates”

      Now that is a HUGH pile of pig feces!

      I ran quality labs (chemical analysis) for years. We ALWAYS brought in an outside testing lab to calibrate our thermometers on a yearly basis and had an NIST (formerly NBS) reference thermometer in house for monthly spot checks.

      Are these Donkey’s rearends are telling me they don’t have the MONEY when the US government is spending billions on CAGW? Are they telling me based on their shoddy work, work that would get them tossed in jail by the FDA, the US Government is aiming to radically change our economy?

      Heck all they have to do is hire a calibration service like we did.
      http://www.thomasnet.com/north-carolina/thermometer-calibrating-services-84971662-1.html

      OR
      For $1,805.00 buy a few Fluke Calibration 1523 / 1524 Reference Thermometer

      These idiots are telling me the US government is incapable of buying some of these and having personnel deticated to checking themometers once a year in a region?

      DESCRIPTION:
      The Fluke Calibration 1523 / 1524 Reference Thermometers have the ability to measure, graph, and record PRTs, thermocouples, and thermistors. These precision thermometers deliver high accuracy, ±0.002 °C, wide measurement range, logging, and trending, all in a handheld tool you can take anywhere.

      The 1523 is a versatile single-channel thermometer that measures, graphs, and records three sensor types with one tool. Support for PRTs / RTDs, thermocouples, and thermistors provide flexibility to choose the right probe for the job.

      The 1524 help you do twice the work in half the time. Two channels, three sensor types, and high-speed measurement make you more productive and make the Model 1524 the one reference thermometer you need to own. The 1524 has all the features of the 1523, along with data logging capabilities. A real-time clock and memory for 15,000 time and date stamped measurements mean everything you are going to need is in this package. Log up to three times per second, or once every hour or other options in between. Download the data to a PC for analysis when you need it.

      The bundles include:

      The 1523-P1 includes the 1523 with 5616 PRT [-328 to 788°F (-200 to 420°C), NIST traceable calibration, 100 ohm, 6.35 mm x 305 mm (1/4 in x 12 in)], universal TC INFO-CON connector, TPAK, and case.
      The 1523-P2 includes the 1523 Bundled with 5628 PRT [-328 to 1220°F (–200 to 660°C), accredited calibration, 25 ohm, 6.35 mm x 305 mm (1/4 in x 12 in)], universal TC INFO-CON connector, TPAK, and case.
      The 1523-P3 includes the 1253 with 5627A PRT [-328 to 788°F (–200 to 420°C), accredited calibration, 100 ohm, 6.35 mm x 305 mm (1/4 in x 12 in)], universal TC INFO-CON connector, TPAK, and case.
      The 1524-P1 includes the 1524 bundled with 5616 PRT, universal TC INFO-CON connector, TPAK, and case.
      The 1524-P2 includes the 1524 bundled with 5628 PRT, universal TC INFO-CON connector, TPAK, and case.
      The 1524-P3 includes the 1524 bundled with 5627A PRT, universal TC INFO-CON connector, TPAK, and case.

      • richard says:

        I hope stations sited in these areas are not expected to estimate temps up to 1200 kilometers away,

        “The representativeness and homogeneity of climatological records are closely related to the location of the observing site. A station sited on or near a steep slope, ridge, cliff, hollow, building, wall or other obstruction is likely to provide data that are
        more representative of the site alone and not of a wider area”

      • richard says:

        hell Gail , it gets worse-

        “The representativeness and homogeneity of climatological records are closely related to the location of the observing site. A station sited on or near a steep slope, ridge, cliff, hollow, building, wall or other obstruction is likely to provide data that are more representative of the site alone and not of a wider area. A station that is or will be affected by the growth of vegetation, including even limited tree growth near the sensor, growth of tall crops or woodland nearby, erection of buildings on adjacent land, or increases (or decreases) in road or air traffic (including those due to changes in the use of runways or taxiways) will provide neither broadly representative nor homogeneous data”

  6. richard says:

    it’s a mess,

    oh dear even in rural areas-

    “These changes can also occur to weather stations that are still in rural locations and are often harder to detect. For instance, the growth of trees around a farmstead that maintains a weather station alters the local wind flow and temperature patterns, and so reduces extreme wind speeds and the incidence of frosts (where they occur). The trend in the observations reflects the changes in the microclimate of the farmstead while the general climate may not have changed. Heat Island effect (Image: NASA )”

  7. ed k says:

    Blue hill temperature data is great because it has not been altered and there is over 130 years of it. Last years temp was below thirty year mean and close to 130 year mean. Lower than 1940s

  8. richard says:

    sorry for hogging but you have to laugh-

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/statistical_depictions_of_climate.php

    “The trend in the observations reflects the changes in the microclimate of the farmstead while the general climate may not have changed”

  9. gator69 says:

    Just send Skeeter in with a straw.

  10. markstoval says:

    Enough already! It is Fat Tuesday and Lent starts tomorrow with Ash Wednesday —- and we are getting more cold here in central Florida. Enough! Lent may be about suffering, but not being cold. I don’t want any more cold this year. Why is it so hard for progressives to see that the whole “global warming” is pure bull droppings?

    On the other hand, without “global warming” think about how cold it would be! 🙂

  11. emsnews says:

    The Crucifixion was done at the peak of the Roman Warm Period. The Easter celebration is a pagan affair which is all about ‘spring time’ which became much delayed over the eons due to cooling.

  12. Hrm, 1919 1:1, 1938 1:2. I guess those were very cold Winters where almost all of the precipitation fell as a cold, dense solid, instead of a warm, light liquid (this is also why there are large mounds of ice littering the sea-floors of the world in cold times).

  13. Andy DC says:

    It is interesting to note that there is normally a huge snowfall gradient across the greater Boston area from southeast to northwest. The northwest suburbs usually far out do the city and places south and east like Plymouth. Not so this year, Plymouth is doing as well as anyone. Obviously, when the snowfall gradient moves southeast, it is a clear sign of cooling, not warming!

  14. resistance says:

    Please blast the progressives in the upper left corner next. The Cascades are almost devoid of snow in the sea level to 5500′ range, which is pretty much most of the ski areas. 80″ of cold smoke is just what we need!

    • rah says:

      Well come and get some of mine. Because “cold smoke” is exactly what it looks like here looking across the farm fields. A good strong WNW is making those fields look smoky even when the suns out and it’s not snowing.

      Just fixed my flags on my 30′ pole and their going to fold up again if this keeps up. They’re held by friction and that’s what protects them. When the winds get too high they fold down together and it helps prevent them from tattering. Not worried about the pole. It’s guaranteed to take 80 mph sustained flying a 4′ x 6′.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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