stlweatherfanatic's Blog

This wed. at 6 and 8pm central time Glenn Beck is taking a look at the hysteria of global warming in the media. The truth is exposed, from scientists in the 70s saying the earth is going to freeze over to now where you are treated like a holocaust denier if you deny that global warming is human induced. IT looks very interesting and he will have lead climatologists exposing what Global Warming really is. Its worth watching, its about time someone from the good side set us straight. 

 

CLICK HERE

Exposing the truth about global warming. I've watched Gore's movie. Now its time to get a dose of reality. Its 75 minutes long so watch it in bits, but it is important that everyone watches it. It is a groundbreaking movie produced and shown in England. It has some of the best scientists proving human induced global warming is nothing more than a get rich quick scheme for liberals and global warming fanatics. Please do not comment or trash this till you have watched it in full. Go to the actual youtube page for more info and to maximize it.

Global Warming by Wm. Robert Johnston
last updated 31 May 2006

Greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a process by which certain gases in a planet's atmosphere give it a higher temperature than the planet would have otherwise:

Light is one form of electromagnetic (EM) radiation. From lower energy to higher energy, categories of EM radiation include: radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays. Blackbody radiation is EM radiation given off by all matter, as a function of the matter's temperature. Hotter objects give off more total EM radiation, and also give off a greater fraction of that radiation as higher energy radiation.

Since the Sun has a surface temperature of 5,700° C, about 42% of the blackbody radiation it radiates is visible light. (About 8% is ultraviolet and about 50% is infrared.) EM radiation from the Sun reaching the Earth is either reflected back into space or absorbed by the Earth, warming it. The Earth also radiates blackbody radiation but almost entirely as infrared light (since it is much cooler than the Sun).

Certain gases in the Earth's atmosphere are transparent to the Sun's visible light but tend to absorb the outgoing infrared light emitted by the Earth. These are called greenhouse gases and include primarily water vapor and carbon dioxide. (Other natural and manmade gases also contribute.) By absorbing some of this outgoing EM radiation, the atmosphere becomes warmer and also radiates more blackbody radiation. The atmosphere and the Earth itself becomes warmer than it would be without the greenhouse gases.

The Earth's atmosphere (by volume) is about 77.8% nitrogen, 20.9% oxygen, 0.9% argon, 0.4% water vapor, 0.037% carbon dioxide, and 0.003% other gases. The water vapor and carbon dioxide naturally occurring in the atmosphere produce a greenhouse effect which gives the Earth a temperature 30° C more than it would have without these gases, making life possible.

Carbon Dioxide. Natural sources of carbon dioxide include animals, natural fires, and releases of carbon dioxide stored in the ocean or in minerals. Plants also produce carbon dioxide, but they consume more than they produce. Manmade sources include the burning of wood or fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), clearing of forests, and cement production.

From 1750 to 2003 the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 35%. This correlates with carbon dioxide that has been released by manmade sources (primarily burning of fossil fuels), although only 53% of the carbon dioxide released from manmade sources since 1940 has remained in the atmosphere. It is generally assumed that the increased carbon dioxide is the result of human activities, and that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will continue to increase.

Global Warming Hypothesis. The global warming hypothesis states that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (caused by mankind) will increase the greenhouse effect, significantly raising global temperatures and having disastrous consequences. Supporters of this hypothesis argue:

• Ground-based measurements show that average global temperature is 0.5° C higher than a century ago.
• Computer models predict increases in global temperature between 1° and 8° C by 2100, resulting from assumed increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
• This is predicted to have various effects including sea level rise, more disease and famine in many areas, extinction of plant and animal species, and more adverse weather.

Some people go on to argue that we need to take drastic action to avoid these predicted consequences of catastrophic increases in temperature. Specifically, they propose drastic limits on energy consumption.

Problems with the Hypothesis. The global warming hypothesis is not scientifically verified. Critics of the hypothesis argue:

• About 60% of the temperature increase mentioned above occurred before 1940, but only 33% of the increase in carbon dioxide concentration had occurred by then. This indicates that increased carbon dioxide was not the cause of the temperature increase.
• The observed temperature rise is not accelerating: temperatures increased from 1880 to 1940, dropped slightly from 1940 to 1980, and have by some reports increased since then.
• The reported increase since 1980 is not confirmed by satellites or air-borne measurements and may result from weather stations being close to urban areas. In fact, there is specific evidence that the reports of higher temperatures since 1980 by some sources reflect dishonest science.
• Changes in global temperature are better correlated with changes in solar activity. Solar magnetic flux shows trends similar to that for temperatures from 1880 to the present.
• Observations contradict the computer model predictions, indicating that the computer models are significantly exaggerating any potential warming. Also, the computer models are predicting smaller temperature increases than they did ten years ago, as they have become more sophisticated.
• The various predicted disastrous results of a temperature increase are doubtful, with different studies often making opposite predictions. Historically, however, civilizations have prospered in times of warmer climate. Various studies also indicate that plant life is prospering from the increased carbon dioxide levels.

These critics point out that we have not scientifically verified that mankind is causing a measurable increase in global temperatures. They say we should therefore wait for more evidence before we take actions that will cause immediate harm to people.

Consequences. Despite scientific questions, the supporters of the global warming hypothesis have persuaded many national governments to take action. In 1992, most nations agreed in principle to limits on greenhouse gas production. In December 1997, most nations signed the Kyoto Treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The treaty as written would limit the U.S. to the levels of carbon dioxide production it had in 1990, but is less restrictive on developing countries. Critics argue that the U.S. government will have to impose taxes of about 50% on gas, electricity, and heating oil prices to meet these goals. They also argue that millions of jobs will be lost over the next decade if the treaty is implemented.

The Clinton administration signed the treaty in 1997, but the U.S. Senate soon overwhelmingly approved a resolution indicating that they would not ratify it. The Clinton administration never sent the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification, but they did quietly implement some minor provisions through executive orders. In November 1999, national representatives met in Bonn, Germany, to work out details of implementation, including restrictions on land use. By the second such meeting in 2000, negotiations were falling apart due to disagreements on how to credit removals of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In March 2001, President Bush indicated that he would not seek to implement the Kyoto protocol. Figure 1 Concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere vs. time. Concentration is given in parts per million (ppm). Note that the rate of increase was greater after 1960 than before. Figure 2 Global average annual temperature vs. time. Temperature is in ° Celsius. After 1979 the dashed line indicates data compiled from selected ground-based stations, the solid line indicates composite data from satellite and balloon-based measurements. Note that most of the temperature increase occurred from 1910 to 1940, before the greatest increase in atmospheric CO₂. Figure 3 Solar irradiance in watts per square meter. Values from 1978 forward are from satellite measurements, values before 1978 are reconstructed from proxy measures. Note the effect of the 11-year solar activity cycle. © 1999-2002, 2006 by Wm. Robert Johnston.

Chill out over global warming By David Harsanyi
Denver Post Staff Columnist Article Last Updated: 12/26/2006 12:31:50 PM MST

You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.

Why not give it a whirl?

Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.

Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.

"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."

So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.

Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.

David Harsanyi's column appears Monday and Thursday. He can be reached at 303-820-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.

Gorey Truths
25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.

By Iain Murray

With An Inconvenient Truth, the companion book to former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank, this is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely pictorial representation of the movie’s graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them.

 1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO₂), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO₂ added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO₂ shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO₂ in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.

2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”

3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.

4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”

5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn't the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.73). Here’s the satellite graph:

6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme wheather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”

7. Record Temperatures. Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that’s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)

8. Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”

9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).

10. European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.

11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.

12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”

13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”

14. Invasive Species. Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That’s how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”

15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).

16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO₂ concentrations than today.

17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.

18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.

19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)

20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century...It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore’s suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist.

21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”

22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO₂ emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.

23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

25. Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO₂ after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO₂ in the atmosphere would require, in Gore’s own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.

Finally, Gore quotes Winston Churchill (p. 100) — but he should read what Churchill said when he was asked what qualities a politician requires: “The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.”

—Iain Murray is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Severe weather is likely in our area.

 

A cold front is currently moving into portions of NWest missouri sparking very intense severe thunderstorms. As the front heads into our region it should stall out over Interstate 70. That means starting late tonight strong thunderstorms should develope and will continue through out the day tomorrow into tomorrow night. 

 

The radar should begin to light up with showers and strong storms after 2am tonight. Storms will grow and become widespread as the day progresses. The strongest storms should push in mid to late afternoon and will persist in the overnight hours tomorrow. And even continue into Friday. I don't think this will be a flooding situation. Considering todays weather dried out the ground. Rivers arent too high and we arent expecting that much rain. Area wide probably 1 to 2 inches of rain will fall from overnight tonight through early Saturday. The severity of these storms will include a good hail threat, and strong winds. Even a tornado is possible. But with this kind of set up I dont think that there will be many tornado issues. I expect the NWS to issue a severe thunderstorm watch probably mid to late morning tomorrow. So keep your guard up, severe weather is a good bet tomorrow and even Friday.

Areas of light snow with heavy bursts are now moving into the region, this will continue through out most of the day. Especially in the morning hours we could see a dusting of snow depending on intensity.

Today felt like a fall day. Temps in the 40s and overcast and breezy after a great heavy soaking rain last night. Near perfect air quality and the grass is green as could be. I'm not moving to Colorado till sometime in June now since my parents want to finish the school year here. Which is a good thing, I really dont want to switch schools in the april! So I'll get to go through some stormy spring weather. I think that we will get one last snow though, probably just a slushy inch or two late month. Really the last ten days of march will be wet and as a front pushes through one night we should kick some rain over to some sloppy wet snow. Dave is right that it will have to be a night time event. But we are about to go into a wet pattern and last nights rain really helped the area out. We really needed that rain! Well the weekend is almost here! I can't wait till spring break, I'm headed to Florida and Colorado! Have a good one.

I'm moving to Colorado in a couple of weeks :) from St. Louis, MO. Last weekend I went out there for a visit with my family. I was looking forward to see some snow on the ground but it was all gone! I really noticed this visit that the front range and Denver area is like a desert. Alot of dirt and dead grass. On average longmont which we are probably moving to only gets about 13 inches of precip a year! Thats it! Here in st louis we get on average about 40 inches of liquid equivelant precip. But in Denver you only need a third of an inch of rain or even less to have a huge blizzard. So its going to be interesting weather to research and discover. It was also extremely windy but the mountains were just breathtaking and amazing as usual. I cant wait to start out there. I hope that the Denver area gets at least one good snowstorm or blizzard in April just to make me happy. So all the weather folks here what is the most extreme weather you have encountered while living just east of the mammoth Colorado Rocky mountains!?

OR has it? Either way we go into a warm weather pattern that will take us into this weekend. Expect high temps to be 5 to 10 degrees above normal. Now why does everyone flip out about how warm it is when we are just a little above average? Global warming freak outs! But no one says anything when we are 20 degrees below average, we just say this is how winter is suppose to be. hmmm. The 40 day pattern lives on and this weekend marks 40 days or so after the freezing rain and rain event that crippled missouri. That was our last monster storm that dump huge amounts of precip in three waves. 40 days before that we had our famous nov. 30th ice storm. So we are on track to yet again get some INTERESTING weather. We will see strong to severe thunderstorms on Saturday. IT is a great set up for st louis to see severe storms. There could be a fairly large wide scale tornado outbreak in and around the st louis area. So just keep that in mind!

 Today: 49 degrees with showers especially this afternoon.

 Tonight: Partly Cloudy 31 degrees.

Wed.: 62 degrees with sunny skies.

Wed. night: Clouds and clear patches with a low around 32 degrees.

 Thursday: 59 degrees with clouds and sun. night: Cloudy 40.

Friday: Sunny breezy 65 degrees. Night: Mild and clear 55 degrees.

Saturday: Strong to Severe thunderstorms will develope mainly after noon into the late evening even overnight hours. Storms may contain damaging winds, hail and tornados. Along with very heavy rainfall. High 70 degrees. Night: Continuation of strong to severe storms changing to a heavy rain after midnight. Temps falling through the 50s and 40s.

 Sunday: Temps falling, rain mixing with than changing to snow. Accumulations are possible. Temps falling to 32 degrees by 5pm. Night: Snow showers Accumulations possible 28 degrees.

Monday: Overcast and colder 35 degrees.

 

 

One of the worst storms to hit st louis. 

 

 

Rest of February: We have about 10 days left. We should see a big warm up this upcomming week. Expect high temps to push 65 degrees by late week. Also A huge storm system will be comming here next weekend. Right now it looks like a heavy rain ending as a bit of wet snow. Maybe a couple inches. Again not a big deal. There should be a little cold air behind it. But not alot. Maybe a day or two with highs in the 20s or 30s before we end the month on a warm note.

 

March: Expect the first 10 days of the month to be mild to even warm at times. Some of the flowers will pop out and it will be a nice break. Expect one severe weather outbreak during this ten day period. Overall very mild. By the 10th we should finally get that artic air to budge with one final front that will push through the region. This will lead to a good size ice/snow storm for the region on or around the 10th of March. Between March 10th and the 25th or so spring will be a distant memory. We wont be bitterly cold but think alot of days with highs in the 30s. We have two shots to pick up some wet snow. Think rain changing to snow type systems as we continue to be active. During this time period we remain below normal for temps day and night. Could possibly break some record cold temps mid month. But by the last few days of March it will be very warm back to normal. But overall the month of march will end slightly below normal in temps and above normal in precip.

 

The first two weeks of april will be very warm. We will make a few runs at 80+ degree temps in these first two weeks. 2 severe weather outbreaks will occur. Than the last two weeks of April will be chilly and below average. I think there will be a string of cloudy days keeping daytime high temps in the 50s or so. And a few all day cold rains. It will be alot like the weather in mid may last year. So overall April should end out being about normal for temperatures and about normal or slightly above normal in precip.

 

May: We get warm to hot! The month of may is going to be above average. Now the first two weeks of may we could see a couple of cold fronts bringing some chilly weather especially before may 10th. These cold fronts would only last a day or two and bring some high temps in the 50s. But there will be 5 to 6 severe weather outbreaks. From May 10th on we are warm to hot. We should get above 90 degrees 3 or 4 times in this month. Expect damaging severe weather. With a possibility of flooding. Overall in the month of may we end up above normal in temperatures and above normal in precip.

 

Some ideas on this summer:  I think we are going to see a very hot one. Maybe some record breaking temps. And two distinct heat waves in july and august.  Drought will once again become an issue (not a big one) by late June. Expect a fair share of severe thunderstorms also. Get ready Ameren!

 

 

A clipper which will come at us in two waves will occur overnight tonight and tomorrow morning. Near blizzard like conditions could occur. Please report your conditions! 

 Town

Conditions

 tem
p

snowfall amount

 

A fast shot at snow will come through the metro tomorrow evening and over night. It should come in two waves. One through the evening till midnight. Than another wave in the early morning hours. Here is my map of what I expect accumulations will be by noon Saturday.