U.S. Northeast May Have Coldest Winter in a Decade (Update2)

[Desertdog]

The cold weather will, of course, be caused by Global Warming.  Tt least they GWers said the cool spring and summer was the result of GW./

U.S. Northeast May Have Coldest Winter in a Decade (Update2)
By Todd Zeranski and Erik Schatzker
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amm7GJfWypJE


Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Northeast may have the coldest winter in a decade because of a weak El Nino, a warming current in the Pacific Ocean, according to Matt Rogers, a forecaster at Commodity Weather Group.

“Weak El Ninos are notorious for cold and snowy weather on the Eastern seaboard,” Rogers said in a Bloomberg Television interview from Washington. “About 70 percent to 75 percent of the time a weak El Nino will deliver the goods in terms of above-normal heating demand and cold weather. It’s pretty good odds.”

Warming in the Pacific often means fewer Atlantic hurricanes and higher temperatures in the U.S. Northeast during January, February and March, according to the National Weather Service. El Nino occurs every two to five years, on average, and lasts about 12 months, according to the service.

Hedge-fund managers and other large speculators increased their net-long positions, or bets prices will rise, in New York heating oil futures in the week ended Sep. 22, according to U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission data Sept. 25.

“It could be one of the coldest winters, or the coldest, winter of the decade,” Rogers said.

U.S. inventories of distillate fuels, which include heating oil, are at their highest since January 1983, the U.S. Energy Department said Sept. 23. Stockpiles of 170.8 million barrels in the week ended Sept. 18 are 28 percent above the five-year average.

Heating oil for October delivery rose 1.38 cents, or 0.8 percent, to settle at $1.6909 a gallon on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

To contact the reporter on this story: Todd Zeranski in New York at tzeranski@bloomberg.net; Erik Schatzker in New York at eschatzker@bloomberg.net

[HankB]

COLD WEATHER IN WINTER?!?!?!

Couple this with the HUGE numbers of hurricanes we've had (Nobel-Prize winner Algore said Katrina was only the start of a massive cycle of numerous and powerful hurricanes that were going to devastate the USA) and who can doubt Global Warming Is Real?

The only cure is an immediate and massive tax hike.

[Perd Hapley]

Can we get a credible source on this, like World Net Daily? 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Can't tell if you're joking or serious.  Bloomberg is a credible news source.

[Perd Hapley]

Sorry.  Here is my belated 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Ok, nevermind.

 

[Desertdog]

Can't tell if you're joking or serious.  Bloomberg is a credible news source.

I think that e is showing his disappointment that it wasn't a WND URL so he could ridicule the source.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't recall ever ridiculing WND. 

[Standing Wolf]

The only cure is an immediate and massive tax hike.

Well, yeah, that and disarming the commoners for the sake of the children.

[Desertdog]

I don't recall ever ridiculing WND. 

I hope you will accept my apology. 

[French G.]

Warming in the Pacific often means fewer Atlantic hurricanes and higher temperatures in the U.S. Northeast during January, February and March, according to the National Weather Service. El Nino occurs every two to five years, on average, and lasts about 12 months, according to the service.

Okay, but now we have a weak el nino and the atlantic hurricane season has been a joke. I understand how nino/nina influences our continental climate, you just think they could be consistent over  a couple of paragraphs. Off to wax my skis, cold winter yay!

[Perd Hapley]

I hope you will accept my apology. 

JUST KIDDING

[sarcasm]   Never!    [/sarcasm]

JUST KIDDING

[coppertales]

The Farmer's Almenac says the same thing and they include the great lakes area.  I read it every year so I can tease the Yoopers......chris3

[De Selby]

Yessiree, global warming means the air temperature must always be higher in all places.  Uh huh yah....it's done been disproved by this here weather-ologists predictions!

[MechAg94]

Yessiree, global warming means the air temperature must always be higher in all places.  Uh huh yah....it's done been disproved by this here weather-ologists predictions!

Yes, AGW nuts always fall back on that.  None of their predictions have come true so they always fall back on BS like that.  It only underscores the fact that they have no idea what is going to happen.  The whole idea is just a big political stunt.

[De Selby]

Yes, AGW nuts always fall back on that.  None of their predictions have come true so they always fall back on BS like that.  It only underscores the fact that they have no idea what is going to happen.  The whole idea is just a big political stunt.

Do you see the irony in saying this on a thread that purports to discredit the global-warming scientists with an article about cold winters a'coming?

I'm not sure about the whole of global warming science, but I am 100 percent certain that this article contributes zero to the scientific debate.

[MechAg94]

Do you see the irony in saying this on a thread that purports to discredit the global-warming scientists with an article about cold winters a'coming?

I'm not sure about the whole of global warming science, but I am 100 percent certain that this article contributes zero to the scientific debate.

No. No irony here.  Predicting a cold winter means nothing to me personally except to make sure my pipes aren't going to freeze.  Now if they tried to pass bad legislation that directly affects me and tried to use their weather predictions as the basis, I would have a problem with that. 

If you are not sure about the GW science, why do you try to so hard to defend it? 

[De Selby]

No. No irony here.  Predicting a cold winter means nothing to me personally except to make sure my pipes aren't going to freeze.  Now if they tried to pass bad legislation that directly affects me and tried to use their weather predictions as the basis, I would have a problem with that. 

If you are not sure about the GW science, why do you try to so hard to defend it? 

What I'm defending is the idea that for scientific questions, it would be best to rely on scientific information for an answer - not on news articles about how cold it is in some-such part of the world today that purport to lampoon the actual science behind the claim of global warming.

You don't need to believe that the scientists who came up with global warming theories are right in order to see that much of the attacks on the theory are entirely political and, sometimes, preposterously unscientific.

[roo_ster]

You don't need to believe that the scientists who came up with global warming theories are right in order to see that much of the attacks on the theory are entirely political and, sometimes, preposterously unscientific.

Well, that is somewhat appropriate because the AGW argument is itself unscientific.  Oh, some folks have draped the trappings of science on it, but it is no more scientific than Louis Farrakhan's numerology is because he wraps his irrationality up with the number system.

Specifically, the AGW-promoters rely on data that they will not share with others and readily admit that the reason they don't share it is because they do not want their peers to review it for soundness of data or methodology.  I posted on this a while back.  There are other problems, too, but this one is at the heart of the issue.

As an analyst my own self, I can not take such people seriously and give their utterances no credit.

[Desertdog]

You don't need to believe that the scientists who came up with global warming theories are right in order to see that much of the attacks on the theory are entirely political and, sometimes, preposterously unscientific

As I see it, the leading scientist in the GW debate is Al Gore, Sean Penn, and other such notable scientist.

[HankB]

. . . much of the attacks on the theory are entirely political and, sometimes, preposterously unscientific.

Much of the support for the theory itself falls into the same category. Just as an example, here in Austin, TX, we've had a hotter than normal summer, and less rain than usual for the past two years . . . a situation that appears to be on the verge of changing, possibly due to a strengthening El Nino.

But, sure as clockwork, various "climate researchers" have been trotted out by the media to knowingly pontificate that this hot, dry weather may well be a symptom of (drum roll please) . . . GLOBAL WARMING.

And of course, the solution is . . . HIGHER TAXES!!!

One thing to keep in mind . . . when your money is taxed away, even though you get nothing tangible for it, it doesn't actually disappear; it only seems to. Someone, somewhere, winds up with it in their pocket.

With public support for global warming action (HIGHER TAXES!) eroding, just listen to the increasingly-shrill global warming alarmists and you'll get a sense of whose pockets are gaping open, ready to be filled with your money.

[Scout26]

I have 12 face cords or firewood laid in.  Cap and Trade that.....

[MechAg94]

What I'm defending is the idea that for scientific questions, it would be best to rely on scientific information for an answer - not on news articles about how cold it is in some-such part of the world today that purport to lampoon the actual science behind the claim of global warming.

You don't need to believe that the scientists who came up with global warming theories are right in order to see that much of the attacks on the theory are entirely political and, sometimes, preposterously unscientific.

I have in the past reviewed the "science" behind it and seen interviews that were separate from the politics.  I never saw anything that made me think those guys had proved anything.  Since then, I have only seen more evidence that they are wrong. 

Because of that, I simply use articles like this as an opportunity to joke about what I consider a failed theory that currently is 100% political hot air.  I never claimed this article had any hard scientific data (I skimmed it anyway). 

[coppertales]

It is all Bush's fault.  If he had done something about global warming this coming cold winter would not have happened.  Seeing BO isn't doing anything either, we will have an ice age by 2012.  But we will be saved when the sun solar flares and melts the ice, which will save us so the end of the world will not happen as predicted......12 face cords isn't so much.......chris3

[Scout26]

Sorry, but I'm not a "believer" is AGW/CC or whatever their currently calling the OMGwe'vegottotaxeveryonetodeathtosavetheplanet hokem they're currently pedaling.

Climate change is mostly caused by extraterrestial events (sunspots, comets, asteroids, etc) and Natural events on earth (vulcanism, change in the magnetic poles, change in the tilt of the earth) then any puny attempt mankind can do to influence it either positively or negatively.