NASA predicts Megadroughts

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *
Well, I don't know if humans are to blame or if it is just a natural thing. We have had ice ages and warming trends in the past.

By golly! Yes! We HAVE had ice ages. And they came long BEFORE humankind crafted the first SUV

or factory.

Thus we might safely conclude that human industry has no established effect on global climate change BUT

global climate change can occur (and HAS occurred) WITHOUT any freaking human input or causation.

Calm the hell down, will you. This is just a discussion.

I have been and I remain quite calm. You urgently need to adhere to your own advice, dear.

The fact that it's just a discussion doesn't alter the FACT that the proponents of this AGW bullshit have been highly emotional and dishonest in the "discussion."

They whinny and bray about the lack of scientific acumen by the "deniers" even though THEY can't even be bothered with the importance of falsifiability. They even pretend that "consensus" has jack shit to do with scientific method.

What I see is that they REPEAT their bullshit and you read it (like a gullible shill) and lap it up. "From what you have read ..." means little since the important thing is to UNDERSTAND.

You don't.

I am being calm. You are the one using your caps and swearing and throwing about insults. Now, if you can't have a discussion without freaking out, then I'm not interesting in talking with you about this.

No no, dear. You directed me to calm down when I have been calm.

You seem agitated.

The use of caps (ZOMG!!) is not an indication of emotional turmoil, despite anything you may have "read."

And I use expletives in about 40 per cent of my posts. Learn to cope.

I don't care if you are interested in having this discussion with me or not. Don't or do. Either way, that's hardly my concern.

In fact, if you are going to wet your diapers like this, put me on ignore.

But if you are going to post about things you have "read," and think that will protect you from a response, then you aren't equipped to have the discussion in the first place.

I don't doubt that you have read much crap. That's not the hard part. The hard part is learning to reject the bullshit. HOWEVER (oh nosies, CAPS!) if you accept what you read without using logic, then you are just a gullible sheep.

LOGIC is not a dirty word. Not even in caps.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, from different things that I've read, they say that what happens during global warming is that the polar ice caps melt, which in turn plays havoc with the weather in general. That has always been my understanding of it anyway. This I gleaned from different articles by climatologists that I've read.

The correct answer is:

if it gets "hot," then it's obviously AGW!

but if it gets "Cold," then that's just a paradoxical effect of AGW.

And surely it will usually get hotter or colder and therefore --

AGW!!!!

No, that is not it at all. It is that the ice caps melt, which in turn cools the ocean, which in turn creates terrible storms, from hurricanes to blizzards. Hey, I'm not a scientist. These are just things that I've read about global warming.

There has never been a period in Earths history where these things have not happened. Google ANY year you wish and add storm to the search. You will find that nothing is different now than back in the past. Well, that's not exactly true. The worst storms that man has experienced were in the past. In 1862 there was a storm that lasted for 4 weeks and flooded California's central valley. That whole area in blue that you see on the map below was under water. Sacramento figured out the only way to deal with it was to raise the city. So that's what they did.

There has not been a storm like that in the US since. But there will be another.....and it won't have the slightest thing to do with man.

"The Pacific slope has been visited by the most disastrous flood that has occurred since its settlement by white men. From Sacramento northward to the Columbia River, in California, Nevada Territory, and Oregon, all the streams have risen to a great height, flooded the valleys, [inundated towns, swept away mills, dams, flumes, houses, fences, domestic animals, ruined fields and effected damage, estimated at $10,000,000. All Sacramento City, save a small part of one street, part of Marysville, part of Santa Rosa, part of Auburn, part of Sonora, part of Nevada, and part of Napa, not to speak of less important towns, were under water.

The rainy season commenced on the 8th of November, and for four weeks, with scarcely any intermission, the rain continued to fall very gently in San Francisco, but in heavy showers in the interior. According to the statement of a Grass Valley paper, nine inches of rain fell there in thirty-six hours on the 7th and 8th inst. Whether, it is possible that so much rain could fall in thirty-six hours I will not decide; but it is certain that, the amount was great, for the next day the river-beds were full almost to the hilltops. The North Fork of the American River at Auburn rose thirty-five feet, and in many other mountain streams the rise was almost as great. On the 9th the flood reached the low land of the Sacramento Valley. "
THE GREAT FLOOD IN CALIFORNIA. - Great Destruction of Property Damage 10 000 000. - NYTimes.com

Well, the one thing that causes me to doubt global warming is not really weather patterns, but would be the fact that volcanoes and other natural processes also contribute to green house gases. BUT, why would all of those climatologists lie? What would they have to gain by lying to us? This is the question. There is pretty much a consensus amongst them that global warming is real.

They lie because their professional reputations and grant money funding stream are dependent on maintaining the fraud. The politicians are desperate to maintain the fraud because they wish to tax you for the very air you breath. Tell me a politician who isn't grasping for every possible revenue stream.

I agree about the politicians. I don't trust them. But, what if you are wrong? Are there no climatologists with integrity?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well, the one thing that causes me to doubt global warming is not really weather patterns, but would be the fact that volcanoes and other natural processes also contribute to green house gases. BUT, why would all of those climatologists lie? What would they have to gain by lying to us? This is the question. There is pretty much a consensus amongst them that global warming is real.

actually there is very little "consensus" and John Cook really did a massive disservice to those of us who do not agree with them. WE may believe the climate is changing but we disagree on its cause. Cook et al assumed that agreeing that climate has changed was the same as believing MMGW was real. The so called consensus is a lie..

As a meteorologist, there is huge pressures to toe the grant funding line and agenda. What you see on TV is greatly orchestrated by media who is up on the gravy train with the rest of those on government handouts..

 

[ChrisL]

* * * *
Well, I don't know if humans are to blame or if it is just a natural thing. We have had ice ages and warming trends in the past.

By golly! Yes! We HAVE had ice ages. And they came long BEFORE humankind crafted the first SUV

or factory.

Thus we might safely conclude that human industry has no established effect on global climate change BUT

global climate change can occur (and HAS occurred) WITHOUT any freaking human input or causation.

Calm the hell down, will you. This is just a discussion.

I have been and I remain quite calm. You urgently need to adhere to your own advice, dear.

The fact that it's just a discussion doesn't alter the FACT that the proponents of this AGW bullshit have been highly emotional and dishonest in the "discussion."

They whinny and bray about the lack of scientific acumen by the "deniers" even though THEY can't even be bothered with the importance of falsifiability. They even pretend that "consensus" has jack shit to do with scientific method.

What I see is that they REPEAT their bullshit and you read it (like a gullible shill) and lap it up. "From what you have read ..." means little since the important thing is to UNDERSTAND.

You don't.

I am being calm. You are the one using your caps and swearing and throwing about insults. Now, if you can't have a discussion without freaking out, then I'm not interesting in talking with you about this.

No no, dear. You directed me to calm down when I have been calm.

You seem agitated.

The use of caps (ZOMG!!) is not an indication of emotional turmoil, despite anything you may have "read."

And I use expletives in about 40 per cent of my posts. Learn to cope.

I don't care if you are interested in having this discussion with me or not. Don't or do. Either way, that's hardly my concern.

In fact, if you are going to wet your diapers like this, put me on ignore.

But if you are going to post about things you have "read," and think that will protect you from a response, then you aren't equipped to have the discussion in the first place.

I don't doubt that you have read much crap. That's not the hard part. The hard part is learning to reject the bullshit. HOWEVER (oh nosies, CAPS!) if you accept what you read without using logic, then you are just a gullible sheep.

LOGIC is not a dirty word. Not even in caps.

No, I don't think so. Now you can stop addressing my posts please. Thank you in advance. You are not a person I want to talk to. I find you very rude and angry person.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, the one thing that causes me to doubt global warming is not really weather patterns, but would be the fact that volcanoes and other natural processes also contribute to green house gases. BUT, why would all of those climatologists lie? What would they have to gain by lying to us? This is the question. There is pretty much a consensus amongst them that global warming is real.

actually there is very little "consensus" and John Cook really did a massive disservice to those of us who do not agree with them. WE may believe the climate is changing but we disagree on its cause. Cook et al assumed that agreeing that climate has changed was the same as believing MMGW was real. The so called consensus is a lie..

I really haven't seen much evidence of a lot of change in my local weather patterns until this winter. We have been literally dumped upon with snow. We probably have gotten 8 feet of snow this winter, all in about a month's time. That is a little concerning.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

By golly! Yes! We HAVE had ice ages. And they came long BEFORE humankind crafted the first SUV

or factory.

Thus we might safely conclude that human industry has no established effect on global climate change BUT

global climate change can occur (and HAS occurred) WITHOUT any freaking human input or causation.

Calm the hell down, will you. This is just a discussion.

I have been and I remain quite calm. You urgently need to adhere to your own advice, dear.

The fact that it's just a discussion doesn't alter the FACT that the proponents of this AGW bullshit have been highly emotional and dishonest in the "discussion."

They whinny and bray about the lack of scientific acumen by the "deniers" even though THEY can't even be bothered with the importance of falsifiability. They even pretend that "consensus" has jack shit to do with scientific method.

What I see is that they REPEAT their bullshit and you read it (like a gullible shill) and lap it up. "From what you have read ..." means little since the important thing is to UNDERSTAND.

You don't.

I am being calm. You are the one using your caps and swearing and throwing about insults. Now, if you can't have a discussion without freaking out, then I'm not interesting in talking with you about this.

No no, dear. You directed me to calm down when I have been calm.

You seem agitated.

The use of caps (ZOMG!!) is not an indication of emotional turmoil, despite anything you may have "read."

And I use expletives in about 40 per cent of my posts. Learn to cope.

I don't care if you are interested in having this discussion with me or not. Don't or do. Either way, that's hardly my concern.

In fact, if you are going to wet your diapers like this, put me on ignore.

But if you are going to post about things you have "read," and think that will protect you from a response, then you aren't equipped to have the discussion in the first place.

I don't doubt that you have read much crap. That's not the hard part. The hard part is learning to reject the bullshit. HOWEVER (oh nosies, CAPS!) if you accept what you read without using logic, then you are just a gullible sheep.

LOGIC is not a dirty word. Not even in caps.

No, I don't think so. Now you can stop addressing my posts please. Thank you in advance. You are not a person I want to talk to. I find you very rude and angry person.

I will respond to any and all of your posts when I wish.

If this offends you, get over it.

OR, you can take my sage advice. Feel free to put me on ignore. That will show me.

In the meanwhile, you are a priss and I am not at all worried about what you "want." I find you quite silly.

 

[ChrisL]

Calm the hell down, will you. This is just a discussion.

I have been and I remain quite calm. You urgently need to adhere to your own advice, dear.

The fact that it's just a discussion doesn't alter the FACT that the proponents of this AGW bullshit have been highly emotional and dishonest in the "discussion."

They whinny and bray about the lack of scientific acumen by the "deniers" even though THEY can't even be bothered with the importance of falsifiability. They even pretend that "consensus" has jack shit to do with scientific method.

What I see is that they REPEAT their bullshit and you read it (like a gullible shill) and lap it up. "From what you have read ..." means little since the important thing is to UNDERSTAND.

You don't.

I am being calm. You are the one using your caps and swearing and throwing about insults. Now, if you can't have a discussion without freaking out, then I'm not interesting in talking with you about this.

No no, dear. You directed me to calm down when I have been calm.

You seem agitated.

The use of caps (ZOMG!!) is not an indication of emotional turmoil, despite anything you may have "read."

And I use expletives in about 40 per cent of my posts. Learn to cope.

I don't care if you are interested in having this discussion with me or not. Don't or do. Either way, that's hardly my concern.

In fact, if you are going to wet your diapers like this, put me on ignore.

But if you are going to post about things you have "read," and think that will protect you from a response, then you aren't equipped to have the discussion in the first place.

I don't doubt that you have read much crap. That's not the hard part. The hard part is learning to reject the bullshit. HOWEVER (oh nosies, CAPS!) if you accept what you read without using logic, then you are just a gullible sheep.

LOGIC is not a dirty word. Not even in caps.

No, I don't think so. Now you can stop addressing my posts please. Thank you in advance. You are not a person I want to talk to. I find you very rude and angry person.

I will respond to any and all of your posts when I wish.

If this offends you, get over it.

OR, you can take my sage advice. Feel free to put me on ignore. That will show me.

In the meanwhile, you are a priss and I am not at all worried about what you "want." I find you quite silly.

Okay, if you insist on being an ass, I will treat you like an ass. Lol.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I have been and I remain quite calm. You urgently need to adhere to your own advice, dear.

The fact that it's just a discussion doesn't alter the FACT that the proponents of this AGW bullshit have been highly emotional and dishonest in the "discussion."

They whinny and bray about the lack of scientific acumen by the "deniers" even though THEY can't even be bothered with the importance of falsifiability. They even pretend that "consensus" has jack shit to do with scientific method.

What I see is that they REPEAT their bullshit and you read it (like a gullible shill) and lap it up. "From what you have read ..." means little since the important thing is to UNDERSTAND.

You don't.

I am being calm. You are the one using your caps and swearing and throwing about insults. Now, if you can't have a discussion without freaking out, then I'm not interesting in talking with you about this.

No no, dear. You directed me to calm down when I have been calm.

You seem agitated.

The use of caps (ZOMG!!) is not an indication of emotional turmoil, despite anything you may have "read."

And I use expletives in about 40 per cent of my posts. Learn to cope.

I don't care if you are interested in having this discussion with me or not. Don't or do. Either way, that's hardly my concern.

In fact, if you are going to wet your diapers like this, put me on ignore.

But if you are going to post about things you have "read," and think that will protect you from a response, then you aren't equipped to have the discussion in the first place.

I don't doubt that you have read much crap. That's not the hard part. The hard part is learning to reject the bullshit. HOWEVER (oh nosies, CAPS!) if you accept what you read without using logic, then you are just a gullible sheep.

LOGIC is not a dirty word. Not even in caps.

No, I don't think so. Now you can stop addressing my posts please. Thank you in advance. You are not a person I want to talk to. I find you very rude and angry person.

I will respond to any and all of your posts when I wish.

If this offends you, get over it.

OR, you can take my sage advice. Feel free to put me on ignore. That will show me.

In the meanwhile, you are a priss and I am not at all worried about what you "want." I find you quite silly.

Okay, if you insist on being an ass, I will treat you like an ass. Lol.

Since you ARE an ass, I will treat you for what you are.

There.

Now that this matter is resolved, go change your diapers.

 

[ChrisL]

Good Lord, it is so difficult to have an adult discussion about anything here with all the loony birds.

 

[Vigilante]

Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA

Daily Caller ^ |
Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering. @caerbannog666 expect there to be congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data to falsely indicate warming & sea rise — Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 20, 2015 Rohrabacher serves as the vice chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over NASA and other agencies that monitor the Earth’s climate. Rohrabacher has long been critical of the theory of man-made global warming. Lately, the California Republican has...

 

[ChrisL]

Let's not allow the ass to disrupt our discussion. I find this topic very interesting.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Good Lord, it is so difficult to have an adult discussion about anything here with all the loony birds.

Then refrain from being so lame and looney.

Seems simple enough.

 

[westwall]

The correct answer is:

if it gets "hot," then it's obviously AGW!

but if it gets "Cold," then that's just a paradoxical effect of AGW.

And surely it will usually get hotter or colder and therefore --

AGW!!!!

No, that is not it at all. It is that the ice caps melt, which in turn cools the ocean, which in turn creates terrible storms, from hurricanes to blizzards. Hey, I'm not a scientist. These are just things that I've read about global warming.

There has never been a period in Earths history where these things have not happened. Google ANY year you wish and add storm to the search. You will find that nothing is different now than back in the past. Well, that's not exactly true. The worst storms that man has experienced were in the past. In 1862 there was a storm that lasted for 4 weeks and flooded California's central valley. That whole area in blue that you see on the map below was under water. Sacramento figured out the only way to deal with it was to raise the city. So that's what they did.

There has not been a storm like that in the US since. But there will be another.....and it won't have the slightest thing to do with man.

"The Pacific slope has been visited by the most disastrous flood that has occurred since its settlement by white men. From Sacramento northward to the Columbia River, in California, Nevada Territory, and Oregon, all the streams have risen to a great height, flooded the valleys, [inundated towns, swept away mills, dams, flumes, houses, fences, domestic animals, ruined fields and effected damage, estimated at $10,000,000. All Sacramento City, save a small part of one street, part of Marysville, part of Santa Rosa, part of Auburn, part of Sonora, part of Nevada, and part of Napa, not to speak of less important towns, were under water.

The rainy season commenced on the 8th of November, and for four weeks, with scarcely any intermission, the rain continued to fall very gently in San Francisco, but in heavy showers in the interior. According to the statement of a Grass Valley paper, nine inches of rain fell there in thirty-six hours on the 7th and 8th inst. Whether, it is possible that so much rain could fall in thirty-six hours I will not decide; but it is certain that, the amount was great, for the next day the river-beds were full almost to the hilltops. The North Fork of the American River at Auburn rose thirty-five feet, and in many other mountain streams the rise was almost as great. On the 9th the flood reached the low land of the Sacramento Valley. "
THE GREAT FLOOD IN CALIFORNIA. - Great Destruction of Property Damage 10 000 000. - NYTimes.com

Well, the one thing that causes me to doubt global warming is not really weather patterns, but would be the fact that volcanoes and other natural processes also contribute to green house gases. BUT, why would all of those climatologists lie? What would they have to gain by lying to us? This is the question. There is pretty much a consensus amongst them that global warming is real.

They lie because their professional reputations and grant money funding stream are dependent on maintaining the fraud. The politicians are desperate to maintain the fraud because they wish to tax you for the very air you breath. Tell me a politician who isn't grasping for every possible revenue stream.

I agree about the politicians. I don't trust them. But, what if you are wrong? Are there no climatologists with integrity?

Yes, there are. Dr. Tim Ball and Dr. Judith Curry are among the best. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. is also ethical. Of course the climatologists who are running the fraud call these people all sorts of names but their CV's are just as good as the others.

 

[ChrisL]

So, does anyone have an explanation for this horrible winter weather pattern we've been experiencing? It was 2 degrees here this morning when I awoke, not including wind chill, and I was talking to another poster who lives in Alaska who tells me it has been unseasonably warm and hardly no snow at all.

 

[Shrimpbox]

With all these mega rich techno kids in cal why can't they focus their attention on converting sea water to fresh water. C'mon Google. Problem solved.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well, the one thing that causes me to doubt global warming is not really weather patterns, but would be the fact that volcanoes and other natural processes also contribute to green house gases. BUT, why would all of those climatologists lie? What would they have to gain by lying to us? This is the question. There is pretty much a consensus amongst them that global warming is real.

actually there is very little "consensus" and John Cook really did a massive disservice to those of us who do not agree with them. WE may believe the climate is changing but we disagree on its cause. Cook et al assumed that agreeing that climate has changed was the same as believing MMGW was real. The so called consensus is a lie..

I really haven't seen much evidence of a lot of change in my local weather patterns until this winter. We have been literally dumped upon with snow. We probably have gotten 8 feet of snow this winter, all in about a month's time. That is a little concerning.

When you consider that the cycles of the earth and solar variance are 60, 120, 240, 480 years one persons life span does not allow us to see the full cyclical pattern of even one cycle of solar influence which is 240+ years. we have just crested the top of one of those cycles which has taken 20 years. The next 60-120 years will be cooling as we descend through the lower solar output phase of the current cycle.

Given this long term information you will most likely see many more of these snow filled winters just like the early 1800's

 

[ChrisL]

No, that is not it at all. It is that the ice caps melt, which in turn cools the ocean, which in turn creates terrible storms, from hurricanes to blizzards. Hey, I'm not a scientist. These are just things that I've read about global warming.

There has never been a period in Earths history where these things have not happened. Google ANY year you wish and add storm to the search. You will find that nothing is different now than back in the past. Well, that's not exactly true. The worst storms that man has experienced were in the past. In 1862 there was a storm that lasted for 4 weeks and flooded California's central valley. That whole area in blue that you see on the map below was under water. Sacramento figured out the only way to deal with it was to raise the city. So that's what they did.

There has not been a storm like that in the US since. But there will be another.....and it won't have the slightest thing to do with man.

"The Pacific slope has been visited by the most disastrous flood that has occurred since its settlement by white men. From Sacramento northward to the Columbia River, in California, Nevada Territory, and Oregon, all the streams have risen to a great height, flooded the valleys, [inundated towns, swept away mills, dams, flumes, houses, fences, domestic animals, ruined fields and effected damage, estimated at $10,000,000. All Sacramento City, save a small part of one street, part of Marysville, part of Santa Rosa, part of Auburn, part of Sonora, part of Nevada, and part of Napa, not to speak of less important towns, were under water.

The rainy season commenced on the 8th of November, and for four weeks, with scarcely any intermission, the rain continued to fall very gently in San Francisco, but in heavy showers in the interior. According to the statement of a Grass Valley paper, nine inches of rain fell there in thirty-six hours on the 7th and 8th inst. Whether, it is possible that so much rain could fall in thirty-six hours I will not decide; but it is certain that, the amount was great, for the next day the river-beds were full almost to the hilltops. The North Fork of the American River at Auburn rose thirty-five feet, and in many other mountain streams the rise was almost as great. On the 9th the flood reached the low land of the Sacramento Valley. "
THE GREAT FLOOD IN CALIFORNIA. - Great Destruction of Property Damage 10 000 000. - NYTimes.com

Well, the one thing that causes me to doubt global warming is not really weather patterns, but would be the fact that volcanoes and other natural processes also contribute to green house gases. BUT, why would all of those climatologists lie? What would they have to gain by lying to us? This is the question. There is pretty much a consensus amongst them that global warming is real.

They lie because their professional reputations and grant money funding stream are dependent on maintaining the fraud. The politicians are desperate to maintain the fraud because they wish to tax you for the very air you breath. Tell me a politician who isn't grasping for every possible revenue stream.

I agree about the politicians. I don't trust them. But, what if you are wrong? Are there no climatologists with integrity?

Yes, there are. Dr. Tim Ball and Dr. Judith Curry are among the best. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. is also ethical. Of course the climatologists who are running the fraud all these people all sorts of names but their CV's are just as good as the others.

Interesting. I will have to google them and read. Thanks.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, the one thing that causes me to doubt global warming is not really weather patterns, but would be the fact that volcanoes and other natural processes also contribute to green house gases. BUT, why would all of those climatologists lie? What would they have to gain by lying to us? This is the question. There is pretty much a consensus amongst them that global warming is real.

actually there is very little "consensus" and John Cook really did a massive disservice to those of us who do not agree with them. WE may believe the climate is changing but we disagree on its cause. Cook et al assumed that agreeing that climate has changed was the same as believing MMGW was real. The so called consensus is a lie..

I really haven't seen much evidence of a lot of change in my local weather patterns until this winter. We have been literally dumped upon with snow. We probably have gotten 8 feet of snow this winter, all in about a month's time. That is a little concerning.

When you consider that the cycles of the earth and solar variance are 60, 120, 240, 480 years one persons life span does not allow us to see the full cyclical pattern of even one cycle of solar influence which is 240+ years. we have just crested the top of one of those cycles which has taken 20 years. The next 60-120 years will be cooling as we descend through the lower solar output phase of the current cycle.

Given this long term information you will most likely see many more of these snow filled winters just like the early 1800's

You must be referring to the mini ice age? I've read about that too, and that also causes me to question the validity of global warming. I know the earth must go through cycles, so if there was global warming, it could definitely be a natural occurrence, but that doesn't mean we won't suffer with these changes.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It turns out that weather is highly complex. Climate and "climate change" even more so.

Simple explanations are often just a bunch of hogwash.

But here are some things we DO know and these things MIGHT very well inform us if we put our minds to it.

CLIMATE CHANGE preceded humanity. Therefore, possibly, humans and human activity are not actually valid (or even likely) "causes" of climate change.

NYC is experiencing some MASSIVE weather records of the COLD variety. We have not seen crap like this for maybe 65 years! BUT ...

In terms of history and climate (and weather) 65 years doesn't amount to much of anything. Pfft. Weather and remarkable weather anomalies come and go. Accordingly, it might make sense to at least HESITATE before ascribing "blame" to human industry or the use of carbon fuels.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So, does anyone have an explanation for this horrible winter weather pattern we've been experiencing? It was 2 degrees here this morning when I awoke, not including wind chill, and I was talking to another poster who lives in Alaska who tells me it has been unseasonably warm and hardly no snow at all.

You are experiencing the effects of the Ocean cold phases of both the ADO and PDO coupled with the change to global cooling. The polar low is so massive it is now dominating the hemispheres weather and the polar jet is so massive it intrudes on the equator. these wild swings are a result of heat loss in the arctic, which you are now experiencing.

Get used to them.. there are many more to come as the ADO (Atlantic Decadle Oscillation) and PDO (Pacific Decadle Oscillations) will now remain cold for another 10-20 years.