The Coldest Winter Ever

It is currently -12 degrees with a windchill factor of -38 degrees. This is by far the coldest day of my life. I have not been outside and do not intend to go out. If anyone does not believe in climate change as a result of global warming, here is your proof. This is not normal weather, and I suspect we might have more of these this year.

This is probably an even bigger shock for Chicagoans considering last year’s mild winter and very hot summer. To go from extreme heat to extreme cold is difficult. It is also made worse by Chicago’s lack of true seasons. We have spring and fall for about two weeks a piece, and then it is either hot or cold. To rub more salt in the wound, last Tuesday it was almost 50 degrees outside.

About half the country in caught in this cold blitz. For any readers affected by it: please stay inside and stay warm. Do not go outside unless you absolutely have it to. Today is the day to use a sick day. It is cold enough that you can get frostbite in less than ten minutes. Do not mess around with this kind of weather.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “The Coldest Winter Ever

  1. It’s definitely cold outside baby. A balmy -9 here in Indy. Unfortunately, both of us will need to go to work tomorrow as travel restrictions are being lifted later today. I need to work outside to get the cars unburied and the snow cleared from the end of the driveway. That ten minutes outside is for people who don’t know how to deal with this weather. I spent an hour outside no problem. Wear layers, keep your back to the wind, and pace yourself. You do not want to get too warm as then you sweat. I wore a soft hat to cover the head and ears and a hoodie that I put up or down depending on how hot or cold I got. My face was not covered since I was working and all that those blood vessels near the surface kept my face warm enough.

    That said, keep inside unless you know how to deal with it. I am a geologist who has spent many a winter outside and learned how to deal with this weather. All it took was freezing my ass off for one long ten hour day when it was a lot warmer than this. Never thought I would warm up.

  2. >If anyone does not believe in climate change as a result of global warming, here is your proof.

    No, it isn’t. If anything, it’s anti-proof, because citing it as “proof” makes you look like a credulous dupe, and that makes people question your integrity on men’s issues.

    You’re pounding on the table because you can’t pound on the facts or the law — they’re both on the other side.

  3. No, it isn’t. If anything, it’s anti-proof, because citing it as “proof” makes you look like a credulous dupe, and that makes people question your integrity on men’s issues.

    Written like one who does not understand how weather works.

    You’re pounding on the table because you can’t pound on the facts or the law — they’re both on the other side.

    That statement makes no sense. The current weather is evidence of the impact of climate change, and climate change has nothing to do with the law. Or are you trying to attack my concern for men’s issues by making some bizarre comparison between the two issues?

  4. Men, in the winter around here, the word we use to describe those temps is ‘Tuesday’. But I get you’re not used to it. What you are experiencing happens every winter, its a counter rotating Arctic air mass, usually kept over Hudson’s bay by the jet stream. In December and January, the jet stream dips south, and this baby usually parks right over top of my province. For weeks.

    What’s different this year, is the jet stream dipped WAY south, allowing everyone’s favorite air mass to visit our southern neighbors. Its not AGW (which is propaganda bullshit designed to create an international tax base, not science), its just winter. A weird one for you, common as snow for me.

  5. Factory has got it right. It’s just the arctic air mass going lower this time. While it’s cold, it’s nothing unusual or the coldest. I still remember January, 1985 when it dipped to -27. Around the early 80’s we had a string of record setting cold snaps:
    January 1977, 1979, 1982: -19
    January 1984: -20
    December 1983: -21
    January 1984: -22
    January 1982: -23
    December 1983: -25
    January 1982: -26
    See the National Weather Service records:
    http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lot/?n=chi_temperature_records

    1979 was, um, entertaining. Over a couple day period in January, we got dumped on something like 18″ of snow and then the temp immediately plunged to that -19. At that temperature, regular rock salt becomes ineffective at melting snow. Coupled with the sluggish bureaucratic Streets and San response, the streets were a mess. The incumbent Daley machine mayor, Michael Bilandic, who had replaced Daley on his death, lost the primary that February to democratic upstart Jane Byrne. She made a big stink about the snow removal disaster. She went on to win the election and become Chicago’s one and only female mayor.

  6. The climate is constantly changing and always has. The false premise is that the changes this time are man made to which there is no valid evidence at all to support that premise. If you want to really point to the cause for this look at that big bright glowing thing in the sky, I think it’s called the “sun”. It naturally goes through a solar cycle of around 11 years and we currently are at a solar minimum which may just account for the cold temperatures. Try using your brain rather than parroting what comes out of the main stream media which is just agenda driven propaganda.

  7. The climate is constantly changing and always has. The false premise is that the changes this time are man made to which there is no valid evidence at all to support that premise.

    That is not entirely true. There is plenty of evidence supporting climate change as a result of man-made global warming. People can choose to ignore or dismiss it, yet the evidence is there. It is also supported by natural disasters that caused similar conditions.

    Try using your brain rather than parroting what comes out of the main stream media which is just agenda driven propaganda.

    I do use my brain, which is the reason why I accept the scientific evidence supporting the positions on climate change and ignore those parroting the agenda-driven propaganda claiming that humans could not possibly impact the planet’s weather conditions.

  8. I would merely point out that where weather is concerned it has great similarities to politics in that people tend to have short memories.

  9. >>No, it isn’t. If anything, it’s anti-proof, because citing it as “proof” makes you look like a credulous dupe, and that makes people question your integrity on men’s issues.

    >Written like one who does not understand how weather works.

    Thank you for the tacit admission that you cannot successfully invalidate my point, and therefore concede that I am right.

    Anytime you want to actually address my– or for that matter, those of almost anyone else — actual points as actually presented, you go right ahead and do so.

    Ad Hominem — “Written like one who does not understand how weather works” — is a fallacy, not a sensible argument.

    That’s how it is for the feminists and male-bashers when they do what you just did.

    That’s how it is for you, too.

    >>You’re pounding on the table because you can’t pound on the facts or the law — they’re both on the other side.

    >That statement makes no sense.

    [sigh]

    No, it makes a lot of sense. You just don’t recognize the aphorism involved and/or don’t understand the analogy being made. It’s an old legal saying; ‘When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. When the law is on your side, pound on the law. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound on the table.’

    You have neither the law — of nature, or more specifically science, or most specifically, in this case, replicability — on your side, nor the facts.

    >The current weather is evidence of the impact of climate change,

    Again. . .*prove* it. Replicably.

    >Or are you trying to attack my concern for men’s issues by making some bizarre comparison between the two issues?

    LOL

    First, nobody can “attack” a nominalization. Your “concern for men’s issues” is completely inside your head and not available to my, or anyone else’s actual manipuation.

    But then, that’s not what you actually meant, is it? You actually meant “decrease”, not “attack”, “other people’s opinion of my concern for men’s issues”, not ‘my concern for men’s issues”.

    So AFAICT, what you’re actually asking here is whether I’m *pointing out* how the “proofs” you cite are consistently lowering other people’s opinions of your concern for men’s issues *because* I’m trying to. . .lower other people’s opinions of your concern for men’s issues.

    Er. . .no. Kind of the opposite if anything; I’m pointing out how the “proofs” you cite are lowering other people’s opinions of your *credibility in general* because I’m trying to *prevent* other people from lowering their opinions of your credibility *on* men’s issues.

    In short, if that’s the level of non-skeptical credulity and reliable replicability you require to not only believe but promote any of the C/A/GW models, nobody should expect more and better skepticism and replicability out of you on men’s issues.

    That’s what I’m against.

    >That is not

    >entirely true

    Same link? Same response.

    Somehow I doubt you would take an article by one of Time’s ‘Gender’ correspondents at face value as much as you do the above, by an *openly “Green”-identifying* one.

    Again, if anything, that’s anti-proof, because citing it as “proof” makes you look like a credulous dupe, and that makes people question your integrity on men’s issues.

    Because it makes them question your integrity on *everything*. If that’s all you need for “proof”, you clearly don’t even know what “proof” really is, and that goes for all your claims about men’s issues as well.

  10. Acksiom

    Youre really arguing about weather on a site for troubled men and boys? You really must have had it bad as a kid. 😉

  11. Acksiom:

    Thank you for the tacit admission that you cannot successfully invalidate my point, and therefore concede that I am right.

    That is not a concession, only an observation. It appears that you do not understand how weather works. While one event does not prove that there is a global pattern of changing weather conditions, when the event is seen together with other unusual weather occurrences that happened in recent years, one can build a case for said pattern of changing weather conditions.

    We have witnessed numerous severe weather events in the last five years that normally do not happen. Yet these not only happened, but they happen with increasing frequency. Much of what occurs appears to result from an increase in the temperature of the planet and the impact that increase has on the environment.

    Ad Hominem — “Written like one who does not understand how weather works” — is a fallacy, not a sensible argument.

    “Written like one who does not understand how weather works” is not an ad hominem. Here is a link to a good source that can explain why.

    You have neither the law — of nature, or more specifically science, or most specifically, in this case, replicability — on your side, nor the facts.

    I do have the law of nature and science on my side. Replicaiblity is a trickier issue since no one has a planet they can play around with. However, scientists can and do create computer models to test their theories, and these models overwhelmingly support the scientists’ conclusion that people have affected the way the weather works on this planet. Likewise, scientists can compare today’s situation with previous situations on Earth that featured similar conditions to understand the potential cause and impact of them.

    But then, that’s not what you actually meant, is it? You actually meant “decrease”, not “attack”, “other people’s opinion of my concern for men’s issues”, not ‘my concern for men’s issues”.

    No, I meant concern. You stated, “that makes people question your integrity on men’s issues,” which implies not only that I am uniformed about men’s issues but that I am also unconcerned with them. Men’s issues and climate change are unrelated, so even if I am wrong about climate change (I am not), that should have no bearing on my knowledge or “integrity” on men’s issues.

    So AFAICT, what you’re actually asking here is whether I’m *pointing out* how the “proofs” you cite are consistently lowering other people’s opinions of your concern for men’s issues *because* I’m trying to. . .lower other people’s opinions of your concern for men’s issues.

    It may be unclear, so allow me to explain it: if I want to know something I will ask. Why would I dance around it? Better yet, why would I be concerned about your line of questioning? You are not the only person I have ever disagreed with. What difference would it make if we disagreed on this issue?

    Er. . .no. Kind of the opposite if anything; I’m pointing out how the “proofs” you cite are lowering other people’s opinions of your *credibility in general* because I’m trying to *prevent* other people from lowering their opinions of your credibility *on* men’s issues.

    That makes no logical sense either. Your first comment was, “No, it isn’t. If anything, it’s anti-proof, because citing it as ‘proof’ makes you look like a credulous dupe, and that makes people question your integrity on men’s issues.” Simply stating that I am wrong does not lower people’s opinion of my credibility.

    It is understandable that some people may not agree with scientists about climate change. I can present information supporting my position, yet I suspect most people who refute the claim already know about that information. The chances of me changing their minds are slim. However, a disagree on that issue is unrelated to men’s issues, and it would make no sense to assume a connection.

    As for your links, they actually support my position. They show that when scientists see that their previous theories and models are wrong they change them. They do not hold onto inaccurate information. They correct themselves and form new theories based on the more accurate information. It also does not help your argument when the articles in question are 40 years apart.

    Somehow I doubt you would take an article by one of Time’s ‘Gender’ correspondents at face value as much as you do the above, by an *openly “Green”-identifying* one.

    It depends on what the correspondent reports and the evidence used to support that report.

    Because it makes them question your integrity on *everything*. If that’s all you need for “proof”, you clearly don’t even know what “proof” really is, and that goes for all your claims about men’s issues as well.

    I do appreciate the effort you put into this, however, your argument still makes no sense. If I agree with a particular scientific position supported by evidence and you disagree that position, that has no relation to my concern or claims about men’s issues. You can dismiss or ignore the evidence, but to act as if I have nothing to support my positions or that I am towing some party-line is incredible, particularly given the lack of any partisan positions on this blog.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s