Juneauites have been seeing fresh dustings of snow atop Mount McGinnis and other local peaks after particularly cold nights for a few weeks now.
But Mother Nature upped the ante Friday afternoon, when big, wet snowflakes mixed with rain fell across the city and borough.
“Some of the snow that’s falling aloft has made it down to the ground,” said Tim Steffen, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service’s Juneau Forecast Office.
While temperatures bottomed out in the mid- to high 30s at sea level, meaning that none of the snow falling at sea level stuck to the ground, the snow shower left Mount Jumbo and other mountains frosted with white.
By Monday, Steffen said, the fresh snow on the mountains will likely have melted. As of Friday, the NWS was expecting temperatures to rise over the weekend, raising the snow level back above the tops of most of the City and Borough of Juneau’s peaks.
“Down here at sea level, we’re not expecting temperatures to get much cooler than … mid-30s,” Steffen added. “So we shouldn’t see any accumulation on roadways. It should just remain wet.”
Juneau’s first snowfall of the season comes a little less than two weeks after its first frost (http://bit.ly/QisgIX).
But while the frost came at about the time of the month that forecasters have come to expect it, snowfall at sea level is a bit premature for the season.
“It’s usually around the last week in October,” Steffen said. “It is definitely a bit early.”
Daytime temperatures are forecast to fall back into the 30s late in the week after warming over the weekend. Steffen said more moisture and precipitation is expected as well, as Juneau returns to “a more normal fall pattern after all the dry weather that we’ve had.”
• Contact reporter Mark D. Miller at 523-2279 or at mark.d.miller@juneauempire.com.
Comments (37)
Add commentWe saw the snow down here at Petro
Deleted
I have always viewed it as a
I have always viewed it as a natural phenomenon that has occured for millenia. I must admit that all the pollution that we as a specie are spewing probably isn't helping anything, but it isnt the sole cause.
Right on, Paul! Get ready
Right on, Paul! Get ready for the wrath of pp and dust to rain down on you. How dare you question the "experts'" models!
@kpawsuh & Calypso
Deleted
@Paul Nowlin: I don't know
@Paul Nowlin: I don't know how much research you've actually done, but climate scientists most certainly do NOT use their models as proof that warming is occurring. Climate models are predictive instruments, which allow us to better understand climate interactions and predict future events.
The actual evidence for climate change comes from the fact that the climate is changing and our understanding of phsyics. Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas, and we've so far raised atmospheric CO2 levels a great deal over the last 150 years, which correlates with rising global temperatures. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what that means.
Your conflation of weather and climate doesn't help your case, either. Weather refers to specific events in specific areas. Climate refers to the trends in weather events over a period of time. One is erratic and hard to predict (although we've certainly gotten better at it over the years), the other is simply the sum total of weather observations. One massive heat wave does not support the idea that the climate is changing, but a series of heat waves increasing in frequency and/or intensity does.
And lastly, like so many, you make the mistaken argument that because climate has changed in the past, it's a "natural" thing and shouldn't be feared. Bubonic plague is "natural." Tsunamis and earthquakes are "natural." Just because something is irrelevant in geologic timescales doesn't mean it's not serious for humanity. And climate change is serious. Even moreso because it's occurring MUCH faster than in the past.
All of the food you eat grows from the ground. Guess what one of the main requirements for farming a crop is? A suitable climate. All plants have a specific range of temperatures, rainfall, and sunlight they need in order to grow. What do you think happens when those patterns shift? What do you think happens when pollinating insects die off? When pests, parasites, and diseases spread? Do you think this might be a little detrimental? What about fisheries we rely on? Or the countless other services ecosystems--global and local--provide us?
Or how about rising ocean levels? There are already villages up north and certain islands in the Pacific that are having to deal with this phenomenon. The range of human diseases and pests is spreading, too. I like not having to worry about ticks and Lyme disease here in Juneau, but maybe in 20 years I'll need to.
The fact is that it isn't climate scientists who show hubris. It's laypeople who think they know better than the people actually involved in the science because they read a a poorly written article about climate change on CNN.com. I've enjoyed your posts in the past, but this one is way off the mark.
agreed with 2p
Paul,
I respect the fact that, as a resident of Juneau who ran for public office, you're up front with your opinions. I, too, have enjoyed reading your posts in the past as you seem to be a very reasonable person that is open to dialogue and new ideas. However, your posts on climate change, as persnickety mentioned, are way off the mark.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and as P referenced, its abundance in the atmosphere has increased substantially in the past 150 years, effectively mirroring human activity since the industrial revolution. If that's not a direct correlation, what is it? Coincidence? Scientists use weather data to estimate trends, and true, weather stations have not been around for the past several thousand years. However, soil scientists, atmospheric scientists, and glaciologists have the tools to study patterns and trends in weather and atmosphere for periods of history much longer than our own human existence. That's useful information.
Temperatures in the Lower 48 have been warmer than average for 331 consecutive months; global ocean temperatures have been warmer than average for 432 consecutive months. What does this mean? Does it mean we're all going to be sad because the spotted owl will lose habitat? Maybe some feel that way. But more pragmatically, this is significant because increasing alterations in climate (temperature, humidity, precipitation, etc.) will have impacts on food security, both agrarian and fish-based. Guess what happens when food sources are insecure? Can anyone say conflict?
I'm not suggesting that everybody go out and buy junk that's labeled "Green." I, too, think that's a fairly cheesey marketing ploy for the same old marketeers to make a buck, and it doesn't really do much to address the reality of the issue. What I am suggesting is that people start getting real about what's happening, and being open to having discussions on how we're going to adapt. Finding sustainable and renewable sources of energy and removing ourselves from our fossil fuel stranglehold is a good start. Focusing on food security in a changing environment is a good start. Focusing on water conservation is a good start. Focusing on the talking points of a few talking head ideologues who don't have strong backgrounds in atmospheric or soil science but do have strong backgrounds in inciting crowds is probably not the best place to start.
And keep in mind that the
And keep in mind that the models show that the warming predated the industrial revolution. Yes we are likely having an impact, No we cant ignore it and pollute to our hearts content, but it is not solely caused by us. Killing all the humans will not likely have much impact on it. Unles the Kittyhawk whad an awfully inefficient engine!
@persnickety
Deleted
sorry for typing your ears off
That was a long one now that I look at it posted.
@southeastfood
Deleted
Believe it or not, what about this...
Deleted
I am always amused when
I am always amused when politicians claim to be tough on environmental issues. The push for a 3 mpg increase within 20 yrs! Ooooh! Aaaah! What happened to the president who said we would put a man on the moon in a very short order and we had no idea how to do it, yet it was placed as an expectation and we as a nation rose to meet that expectation. If this were so critical, why arent they converting all federal buildings to geothermal? Why dont we see hybrid tanks or bombers? So the consumer is the only one who needs to worry about it? Seems a little like snake oil to me...
Huh KP?
New federal standards have average mileage doubling in 13 years, to 54.5 mpg. What "3 mpg increase within 20 years" are you talking about?
Paul, the idea with carbon credits comes from the program that was used for sulfur credits with coal power plants in the Midwest. Sulfur emissions cause acid rain. All the power plants were issued a certain number of credits based on their past emissions. If you wanted to ramp up production, you had two choices: You could install pollution control technology to allow you to burn more coal while not increasing pollution; or you could buy someone else's credits. You could also sell your credits to someone else - and use the sales proceeds to install pollution controls, or go to Vegas, or whatever.
Under this scheme, the net total of sulfur would never increase. In fact, the credits gradually tightened. So your credits became more valuable over time. Kind of like halibut IFQs. The end result was that it worked like a champ. Sulfur emissions went down dramatically, and businesses had the option of how they wanted to respond - buying more credits or reducing their emissions. 'Cap and Trade' is the same type of plan for carbon. But as long as republicans keep their blinders on, you needn't worry about it becoming a political reality.
Regarding your 'hubris' on this subject, I wouldn't call it that. The accurate term is 'ignorance'. You obviously are doing your 'research' on right-wing websites, based on the responses you're giving. I've enjoyed your earlier postings here, but based on this response, I'm quite relieved that you weren't elected. Next thing we know you'll be sharing your opinion on evolution with us...
Leaders need to make honest attempts at understanding complex subjects. You clearly have not. That is dangerous for our community.
@Paul: first of all,
@Paul: first of all, AKJustice's article is... Flawed, to say the least. If you look at the chart, it starts on an El Nino year (a warm ocean current that results in higher global temperatures), and ends on a La Nina year (an ocean current with the opposite effect). You can't decry media stories that sensationalize scientific findings that you don't agree with, and then turn to ones that do the same thing with topics you do agree. I agree that the media does a terrible job of science reporting, but it does a terrible job in general, not just with certain subjects.
As for greenhouse gases, we don't have a water vapor footprint. Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas, but we only contribute significant amounts of the number two gas, CO2, and a few other gases, like methane and N2O (and we know what CO2 levels looked like in the past mostly due to ice core samples, which contain pockets of air that are essentially "snapshots" of what our atmosphere was like in the given time period). When you look at the raw numbers, it does appear that our contribution is miniscule. But over time it's not so miniscule. The Earth is an open system: we are constantly receiving energy from the outside (the sun).
Our planet has an atmospheric system that traps a certain amount of this energy and lets the rest go. We are responsible for something like .1% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which roughly corresponds to the amount of the greenhouse effect our emissions cause. This doesn't sound like a lot, but we are talking about truly enormous amounts of energy here. A rate of about 174 petawatts. A .1% change equals an extra 174 terawatts of energy, which is more energy than the entire human race uses in a year (142.3 terawatt hours in 2008).
Now add up this extra energy over several years (and for kicks, let's add waste heat from our OWN energy generation to the tune of several terawatts annually). Then take into account positive feedback loops, such as increased evaporation, leading to more water vapor exerting a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. Over a decade or a century, you end up with a very significant change in the planet's energy balance. When this energy imbalance shifts, so do weather patterns. It rains more in some areas, less in others. Polar air currents are routed in different directions. Storms severity increases (due to having more energy). My point is that proportionately small changes in very large systems can still result in very large changes from our point of view.
Also, evolution doesn't work that way. Populations evolve, not individuals, and the "strong" don't survive; the most fit for the current environment do. Evolution also takes place over thousands or millions of years, not decades or centuries (usually). One of the main problems with climate change is that many species--particularly plants, because they can't move, and arctic organisms, because they can't move farther north--will see their habitable range shift northward too far for them to adapt before going extinct. It's already happening, and will only get worse.
If you really want to peruse some scientific papers, there's a bibliography below. But I don't expect you to--I certainly haven't read all or even most of them. Maybe dust will be able to give you his links--he seems more involved in the climate science side of things than I am (I'm more familiar with the potential consequences because of my biology work).
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm
At this point, I don't think we can do anything other than prepare for the consequences and limit future damage. But even then, we don't really see the effects of CO2 emissions for several decades--right now, we're experiencing the climatic consequences of the 80's. If we were to stop producing CO2 entirely at this very moment, climatic changes wouldn't stop accelerating until the 2030s or 2040s. We are, essentially, screwed.
Paul
I have two questions for you that might seem off topic, but they are related to the discussion of our actions/inaction on climate change:
1. As human beings, what is our relationship with the land?
2. Do you think the U.S. economic structure of exponential growth in a world of finite resources is problematic?
Lat, for years they were
Lat, for years they were merely causing a bump in the average. I quit paying attention to it as it was pointless. Apparently someone must have put out a bigger number, but still, in 13 years? Come on man. All that says is that the person who said that will no longer be in office to be held accountable. Make that in five years. Now we are talking! Essentially, it sounds good if you dont really listen, but it achieves nothing.
@PP SEfood Lat58
@PP: Thank you for the information, and as I said before I am all for lowering our emissions; it is truly the temperature information that I really have a problem with. In that, there was no problem at first, then they made numerous adjustments; based on educated guesses, but guesses none-the-less. To then make educated guesses on adjusted data opens more room for error, and this effect snowballs as the guesses based on guesses based on guesses grows. I do not know if that makes sense the way I am presenting this, but thank you for the data link; I have been sick so I have not been on here for days, but I will check it out.
@ SEfood: (1) As human beings it is our responsibility to be good stewards of our land; we should take care of it, because it takes care of us. That is the way I was raised, and it is doubtful my mind can be swayed on that topic. (2) Yes, I do think it is problematic, and probably would take a many paged paper to put a dent in the answer. But, yes if we keep using up the resources faster and faster we start taking longer and longer strides towards the endgame. Not much arguing about that, because the bigger pieces of cake you take, the quicker the cake is gone.
@Lat: Thank you for your information about credits; that makes more sense if they are reducing the total amount over time.
I am only saying that I cannot find concrete information in a non-media source; and that I am willing to look at any data anyone has on global warming, etc. I would say that is open-minded. You say I must be reading right-wing Republican media to get my information, because you do not agree with what I am saying...you are the closed-minded one here friend. I only got my information from scholarly sources, no media, as it was for a 12-page school paper. Also, I am non-partisan, as I see both sides presenting good and bad cases; and for that reason you will not see me running for anything beyond municipal; only the two parties ever win, right?
As far as your insults: "I am glad you were not elected". Please do not throw insults at me while you hide behind your moniker. Cyber-bullying is a serious problem with our youth, and I am suspecting that you are beyond your high school days; please act accordingly. Luckily for you, I am not easily offended by anonymous slander, so I am not going to file a formal complaint. Also, I like to debate with you, but I will not do so again if this continues. Thank you.
@LAT
Global Warming/Climate Change is truly not a political matter; even if both sides use it for their causes/agendas. It does not matter what the parties think, they cannot change the science of how the world works.
Settle down, Paul
I'm not slandering you when I find fault with your opinion posted here. But I also wasn't trying to pick a fight with you over it, so I apologize. Let's move on.
Regarding your comment about global warming not being political, you are fundamentally correct about that. It's not politics, it's physics.
Here are some things to consider regarding 'scholarly sources':
1. The National Academy of Sciences was established by Abraham Lincoln to act as an independent and authoritative advisory body for our nation's leaders on scientific matters. Other major countries around the world have followed our lead and established their own academies.
Here's their joint statement regarding fossil fuels and climate change: http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/leadership/president/statement-climat... Are you claiming that your analysis is superior to theirs?
2. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees that human activities are having a significant effect on our climate.
3. No major university is disagreeing likewise.
In the scientific community, you can't get a stronger consensus than that. So if you're claiming that your research indicates that there's still a controversy surrounding the basic science behind those claims, you clearly are going to fringe sources. And those sources are typically funded by the fossil fuel industry or kook political groups.
I'm pretty sure if I looked hard enough I could find a source that claimed that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer. But that doesn't make me right.
@Lat
I did not find slander in your finding fault in my opinion; plus, I was not saying that Global Warming wasn't real, only that I cannot find absolute proof of it. I thought it was inappropriate to make it a personal attack by saying that you were glad I was not elected. Either way, if you did not mean anything by it, and I am not easily offended, I agree to move past it; because I truly do like to correspond with you. I find you to be knowledgeable and you like to debate; which is an efficient way of getting to the solution in my book, put everything on the table, and knock off the wrong bits. Being that we disagree from time to time, we can get two different viewpoints together to make a better single viewpoint (or we can think that guy is way off).
I feel I am truly open-minded, because I do try and look into the opposite of what I think is more likely. And I do so to a greater degree than looking for data that supports my view. 90% of the data that I used for my paper was suggesting global warming was true; however, when I would further research into the techniques, etc., that they were using, it was there that I found fault. There is a great lack of the scientific method (which by definition, it's use is what classifies someone as a scientist). That was over a year ago, and I still seek data supporting global warming.
It is too early to campaign for 2013, but since we are likely the only ones still reading this blog: I guarantee that I would not let my personal opinion affect my decisions on the Assembly; the Assembly(wo)men represent the public (or should) not themselves. If I saw flaw in what the public wanted, I might share what I see, and if they still saw it different then I would vote on their behalf. Enough about that, because that was a long month and a half.
@Lat addendum
Just saw your title again: Settle Down. I really wasn't heated about it, but it is hard to tell in type. I am a pretty relaxed individual.
Maybe I'll change my name to Longitude134, and we can go at it every day on here. :)
Have a good weekend, Lat.
Oh heck, Paul, you couldn't
Oh heck, Paul, you couldn't find "absolute proof" of anything in science. Science is about establishing a hypothesis and then proving (or disproving) it through experiments and data collection. And submitting that proof to peer review by the scientific community.
You're not a scientist, and you lack the credentials to evaluate the methods that were used to collect data and experiments. But the members of the National Academy of Sciences, major universities, and national scientific organizations are. And they are in solid agreement that the science that's been conducted is sound.
Ever looked into the theories about gravity or relativity? Climate change is far more straight-forward. If global warming hasn't been adequately proven to your standards, then you must be disputing that the Earth rotates around the Sun, and that there even is such a thing as a speed of light.
Regarding your name change to Longitude134, I like it, but you still need to convince me that you aren't a flat-earther :)
Oh, and we may not be the only ones still on this thread. There's a 'Recent Comments' section near the top of this page, which is how I noticed your response to me. Oftentimes others see those comments which leads them back to earlier stories like this one. You could have the peanut gallery chiming back in.
I do not claim to be a scientist, but...
Deleted
@Lat addendum
Oh yeah, I agree about the absolute proof; not sure why I used that term.
global warming,
as al gore once said, is an inconvenient truth. It's not surprising that so many have reacted in a defiant manner towards it. It doesn't change the fact that our experts, those who we've trusted for centuries to steer us unbiased toward a better understanding of the things around us. These experts once believed the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth. These experts can be wrong, but in all honesty, to buck the effective scientific consensus, with no research to back it up, is not how we forge ahead.
Questioning science is one thing... disregarding it is an entirely different thing altogether. Global warming skeptics disregard science because it doesn't jive. It's like the 9 out of 10 dentists who tell their patients to floss. Ya, there's one that doesn't. Just like there's one scientist out there who doesn't believe in evolution. It's not about taking scientist's word for it, because we do it everyday. We all take the advice of experts willingly every day. We haven't each proven the earth is round. We haven't each proven the earth revolves around the sun. It doesn't wrinkle our panties so we don't think about it. As soon as global warming became a prime time issue, all of a sudden we have huge anti-science, anti-expert colonies taking hold. Why? Because global warming doesn't jive with our daily lives like the earth revolving around the sun.
So, if you disregard scientific consensus on global warming, you should first take your computer outside and smash it to smithereens. Then, you should take all the non-fiction books in your house and burn them. Unless you have specifically proven each and every fact in these books or on the internet, you can't believe them, right?
Proof
Paul,
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is very easy to prove in a laboratory setting. It's measurable and repeatable. No satellites or computer models required. It's been known by scientists for over a century.
And it's a pretty basic calculation to determine the amount of added energy the Earth will retain as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases.
How that affects the climate becomes more complicated, and requires computers to help calculate the effects. When you speak dismissively about "man-made models", you do understand that pretty much every other instrument used to take scientific measurements is also "man-made", right?
Computer models are used in thousands of ways, and no one is proposing that they be tossed out because humans created them. Obviously they can always be improved, and the climate models are no exception.
Please provide a few specifics where the 'scientific method' has not been used in the exploration of climate change. And explain why you feel that the National Academy of Sciences, major universities, and major scientific organizations are all failing to recognize the flaw that you have identified. Are they all ignorant or corrupt? You'll need to cough up some good evidence of that.
Regarding Darwinism, to my knowledge, he laid out the fundamental mechanisms of evolution in his book On the Origin of Species in 1859. Those general mechanisms are still largely accepted today. Obviously a lot has advanced in that field - Darwin had no knowledge of DNA, and did not have access to advanced statistical methods and, yes, computer models, to help refine his theories. But his original theories are still the foundation of modern evolutionary biology. Where are you getting the idea that they're not? Only fringe fundamental religious types are disputing the basic tenets of Darwin's theories these days.
PP
I suspect global warming science is encountering so much resistance because it poses an existential threat to some very wealthy interests: namely the fossil fuel industries, and all those that rely on fossil fuels.
If the more dire predictions of the climate models are accepted as fact, there will be a massive push against fossil fuel energy. Can't have that.
Remember the church's reaction to Copernicus and Galileo and Darwin and...? Entrenched interests never want to crawl out of their ditch.
@cheesypoof
Deleted
@Lat
I agree CO2 is bad; well excess CO2, or course the plants need to breath, but no argument about one Carbon and 2 Oxygen getting together and causing a ruckus. I am talking about the facts of an actual 1/2 degree average World temperature increase. I see why we have been going back and forth so much.
Darwin's theory included the very beginning of life on the planet, modern evolution does not support this part of his theory. Nothing against Darwin, the man was beyond his era, and he could not have known about some other things that differ in the two theories, i.e. DNA, etc. The modern version does not speak of a beginning or an end. All I am saying, if the above statements are correct, is that creationists and evolutionists should not argue. And evolution should not be treated as taboo, as it is real and proven. I was suggesting that Bill Nye was making religious parents uncomfortable with their kids learning science. It does not matter if you and I believe in supreme beings or not, I only care about the need for education for those kids.
Arguing about religion, war, abortion, or politics is pointless, because you are not (likely) going to convince people to change their minds about any of them; and will likely be tempted into stress and anger, because the other is not seeing eye to eye with yourself. Somethings are best left to the confines of the home. So Nye should not have waged war on religion in the name of science, as no good can come of that.
I am growing tired of the topics in this comment section, you too? I think we should move on.
@Lat another addendum
I am not disputing that Darwin's core ideas are not accepted as facts today. There are claims that he made the facts popular, but was not the original observer; but I do not have an opinion about that. Either way the man contributed a great deal to our understanding of biology, and likely even spurred the search for DNA. Nothing against Darwin here.