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 commentPaul,
I geared my post towards all the skeptics in general. I noticed a couple things you mentioned but mainly I was generally speaking. I would like to point out one issue I noticed you post:
"I never really believed it all along, especially since it came in a hand-basket full of profitable merchandise to go green for a nominal fee. "
Paul, if you never really believed it all along, then it's clear you aren't much interested in researching the topic. If you were, I am quite certain you would not consider the issue one where you believe or not. It's not like believing in a higher power. It's not like you're weighing a fantasy and saying "meh, I don't really see how I can believe in this notion."
Global warming is a fact. The earth is getting warmer. The scientific community is beyond certain of this. Even the question of whether man has contributed significantly, again, the scientific community on a global scale is in agreement on this. How significant is the only question. It's not whether you believe in global warming or not because it's a fact. Denying the fact is your right, but it has nothing to do with science.
@Lat, yet another addendum
Deleted
@everyone and answering cheesypoof
@ everyone: my long winded comments have been misunderstood and a quote has been taken out of context. To make it simple, I am not arguing about CO2 emission; they are bad, agreed. My only question is about the "World" temperature averages, and the method at which they came about obtaining the "fact" that the World average has risen 1/2 of one degree. I am not an anti-Global Warming skeptic. I am only curious and no one has addressed my only concern; and this whole time I have openly admitted that I could be concerned about nothing. This has gone on far too long in the comment section of an article about snow. For that reason I deleted my above posts, and made this simple statement above.
After Cheesypoof replies to the below I will delete that as well.
@Cheesypoof:
Sorry for being vain and thinking you had directed your post at myself.
About the snippet of my post that you quoted about me not believing it at the beginning: that was tied into the reason that I WAS interested in researching it to the fullest. So it was actually quite the opposite of your assumption that it meant I had no intention of hearing the other side. Have you ever looked into the data? The average "World" temperatures that they use to provide you with the "fact" that we rose a 1/2 of one degree? We are in agreement about everything else, I am not saying that we shouldn't control our emissions or anything, I am questioning the data adjustments. Which does not really warrant how much discussion we have had on this so far.
If you are really interested in discussing what I am actually talking about here is a simple example: have you ever noticed that the temperature is slightly different downtown, the Valley, and at the airport in Juneau? Okay, now imagine that we only measured downtown, and assumed that the Valley was the same; is that a fact that the Valley is the same, no. Well that is only the tip of the ice burg on the assumptions; so please don't think my point is that we need to measure every square inch of the planet. It is too in depth to go into it all here, but if you doubt me on this look into it. I do not care what the UN decided, or if the media says that climate scientists are in agreement. The fact is that they are basing facts on guesses based on guesses, based on guesses; which educated guesses or not, snowballs into more and more room for error. The data has not been collected steadily for as long as the media leads us to believe is another problem with the data; 20 years is how long the temperature has been steadily monitored in a manner to base facts about temperature rising or falling globally (and would you believe that there is not much data collected relative to representing the World?). You can look right on NOAA's site for starters to see that I am not just pulling this out of my magician's hat. Or just forget about it, and forgive me for my ignorance, but I do not want to argue the arguments that we see in mass media; they have agendas. I only have curiosity, please do not lump me in the box with those others. The media themselves are not scientists, and do not represent the voice of "the scientific community"; neither does the UN, they also have their own agendas.
And the next time we meet in a comment section try to not let our disagreement here reflect on our future discussions. I am fairly certain that I remember agreeing with you on many topics (I could be wrong, but I think we have).
Paul,
I agree with you on many things on here. More than anything I appreciate your respectful tone on these boards. I certainly don't mind disagreeing and I hope my tone doesn't come off negative, as I do not mean to.
As far as the scientific data goes, I'm not aware of these compounded guesses. Are you referring to the data collected at the tens of thousands of sites around the world by multiple unaffiliated organizations? Ocean temperatures are indeed rising and the affects are noticeable. For example, the explosion of jelly fish in the Sea of Japan. Warming temperatures have allowed these giant jelly fish to expand their territory, which has been a huge nuisance for Japanese fishermen in recent years.
These small increases in temperature prove to be causes of major changes, not just in weather patterns, but in marine habitats as well. As far as humans being the largest contributor, it has to be noted that while we have contributed large amounts of CO2, we have simultaneously removed the majority of CO2 absorbing plants. So while it may not be entirely attributed to us as sources of pollution, we have removed a large amount of the natural CO2 absorbing capabilities. Volcanoes have a larger impact on global warming due to the lack of CO2 absorption.
I also consider it worth noting that Koch Industries, which is known for global warming skepticism, has funded a global warming study by Richard Muller, of UC Berkely, which suggests human contributed greenhouse gases are the root cause of global warming. I don't consider this an undeniable fact in support of the man-made global warming argument, but I find it interesting when hardcore skeptics reverse their opinion completely on a matter.
At any rate, this weekend in Juneau does not indicate global warming to be real. Getting cold around here. Enjoy the sunshine this weekend.
@cheesypoof
Thank you for the reply, and no you did not come off as anything but good intentioned. I am going to look Koch Industries up; that is a good testament that a skeptic would come up with results that contradict their own.
No offense to the good people of the Empire when I cast doubt upon the media in any of my posts, as I do not find the Empire to be one of the problems. More about Nationwide media. In fact thank you Empire for reporting without bias, of course I am probably going to get stoned by the comment-eers, because I see them saying otherwise at times. Good job anyway.
I had not previously heard of it, but things like the warming water area enlarging, which allow jelly fish to spread out, and thus, interfere with the fishermen, I question as proof of anything. This is why I wonder, and maybe there is more information. If they have not been observing the warm water area of this region, and the jelly fish migration for a given amount of time (and maybe they have) then how do they know it does not cycle like this every _____ amount of years?
And that is really the base of a lot of my skepticism, I just would like to see data attached to the reports. If a report says that most scientists agree about a topic, that could mean 51%; I would feel much better if they said 51%, if that is the number, and leave out their adjective that best suits their position; and maybe it is 99%, so most would not be as powerful as the number itself. Also, when they say that scientists agree about this or that, they are surely not asking every known scientist (which would leave out unknown) as this would be rather impossible, or at least improbable. So that leaves them to asking a sample group of scientists, hopefully from diverse locations and fields, and then using that percentage to represent the entire population of scientists. I know that most people are not so nerdy and do not care about the math, so I understand why the media does not spew out raw data; but that is also why I try not to intake their givings either. To me it is not facts, just stories about facts.
I really only question the facts, but I do not really think that it is not true at all; just to what degree.
Another problem with Global Warming in the media is the fear they pump into the general public. At no point in our lives will we not have something to fear in the media; because today's fear fades, is replaced, and we forget about the last one. Can you remember the panic over killer bees, the Hanta virus, mad cow disease, anthrax, the hole in the ozone, acid rain, the Soviets during the Cold War, or Y2K? All that panic and stress about relatively minor, or only potentially life threatening, things blown out of proportion. It bothers me that they get everyone so wound up all the time, it is unhealthy for the individuals. Maybe it is just me, as I am in the minority as far as the way I think about things; that is why I do not purport to be the correct one...um...my wife might disagree about that last bit...shhh!!!....don't tell her I said that.
Paul
Let me repeat: EVERY national academy of sciences is unanimous, EVERY major university is unanimous, EVERY national and international scientific organization is unanimous: global warming is happening, it's largely the result of human activity, and it's a serious problem.
It simply doesn't get any more definitive than that in the scientific world. If you want to know how MIT or the American Geophysical Union or other scientific bodies develop their positions, I suggest you research them. I'm pretty certain they wouldn't be making such strong statements if only 51% of their members felt that way.
By dismissing these institutions, you're being obtuse. If you could find a significant number of scientific organizations of comparable stature that held a contrary position, then your skepticism might be warranted...but you can't.
Regarding the reporting in the media, well, the media generally sucks at reporting serious subjects. Do you find that surprising? But regarding climate change, they REALLY suck, because they keep providing 'balanced' reporting on a scientific subject that's already settled. Why not have balanced reporting on the theory of gravity? That would make as much sense.
Some of the issues you raised, such as the ozone hole...well, it actually was a major deal. And that's why there was an international ban on CFC's, which are the refrigerants and propellants that were chemically destroying the ozone in the atmosphere. It was a real serious deal, and humanity responded, avoiding disaster. Now we need to do the same with GHG's.
And are you saying that the Cold War, with thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at us on hair-trigger alert was NOT a serious issue? How do you reach that conclusion? Because we didn't annihilate each other? Golly Paul, not sure where you're coming at with that one.
@Lat
Ozone = no it was not a serious issue, it turned out that the hole was always there and grows and shrinks on cycles; and still does. They admitted that afterwards, but the afterwards are always downplayed in the media, and we were already onto the next fear. No doubt that it was good to do away with CFCs, and I think we should do away with all poisonous emissions.
Cold War= not saying that it was not a potential threat at all, you must think me a fool. I am saying that there was no reason to panic, and live in fear. If we live in fear the terrorists win, their weapon is terror. We are only free if we feel safe. We have more nukes than anyone else, should the World live in fear of the U.S.?
I was NOT suggesting that only 51% of the scientists were on board, only that "most" could mean anywhere from 51% - 99%; and that the word most was not a good way to present data. The example could have been "most" anything.
I am not suggesting that global warming is not real, only that I cannot find reasonable data; and I would love to talk to the people at MIT and pick their brains. All I am saying is that I do not understand how they justify basing so much fact on data that has so much room for error. "I do not understand" does not equal me thinking it is not real, I just like to understand; so I am skeptical. And again skeptical is only questioning, even if it is used to describe nut ball conspiracy theory individuals.
Obviously, I am not going to get my temperature data question answered in this forum, so I am wasting your time. I am going to seriously try and contact somebody to explain it to me and I will then share what I learn with you if you want; although, I understand that you are not curious, but just thought you might like to hear me say: "You know Lat, you were right all along, I had nothing to doubt, I just misunderstood". :) Smile friend.
And no I am not surprised by the media, I just was tired of arguing about things people clearly gleaned from a news article.