Archive for Saturday, December 27, 2008

Weird weather rare, but not impossible

Showers, windy, with a high of 41 and a low of 37.

December 27, 2008

Advertisement

It’s almost January, and you know what that means.

Sixty-seven degrees, and a chance of tornadoes.

Chances are you weren’t the only one doing a double-take when you stepped outside Friday, nor the only one surprised to see much of eastern Kansas under a tornado watch Friday night.

6News meteorologist Matt Elwell said he was taken aback when he saw a National Weather Service tornado watch included Lawrence.

“I’ve watched this because the severe weather was more to our south,” he said. “I was a little surprised that they put the watch out directly overhead.”

Friday’s record high temperatures that melted snow, creating moisture in the air, helped create factors favorable to tornadic conditions, Elwell said.

“We’ve got a jet stream overhead, an abundance of moisture and a south wind,” he said, referencing warm temperatures fluttering up from the Gulf of Mexico. “We also have a storm cold front moving in from the northwest.”

“It just goes to show that you have to be prepared for events at any month, at any time,” Elwell said.

And even though the weather is quite unlike the norm, such unseasonable conditions are not unheard of.

Elwell pointed to a November 2005 tornado that drifted through the region.

“It’s rare, it’s not common,” he said. “We’ve had tornadoes every month of the year.”

In case you’re hoping the warm weather will last, Saturday’s forecast calls for the possibility of snow in the early morning.

Comments

Restaurant_Man 6 years, 4 months ago

I just woke up to the sound of my weather alert radio describing the severe thunderstorm warning for Lawrence and decided to take a look on line. The first on this “weird” weather was none other than our own Channel 6 Meteorologist Matt Elwell describing all this for the ten o’clock news. Way to go Matt! You described the nights events as if it were neatly placed in a wooden wine box and gift wrapped for us. For all you folks that say “weather men are never correct,” let’s see you predict something like this in late December!

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 4 months ago

"Weird weather rare, but not impossible"... tho' somewhat redundant.

Sharon Aikins 6 years, 4 months ago

I for one enjoyed the balmy weather yesterday and waking sometime in the early morning to the sound of thunder. Didn't realize we were under a tornado watch, just drifted back off to the comforting sound. Won't even get into the semantics of it all. This was a rare late December treat after all the cold temps.

David Rahija 6 years, 4 months ago

“Weird weather rare, but not impossible”Nothing like stating the obvious.

Curtis Lange 6 years, 4 months ago

Restaurant-Man, the warm up to 50 degrees plus was being talked about at least a week before yesterday...with the snow the next day also being forecast. The severe weather was a given for this situation.

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

"XD40 (Anonymous) says…What ever happened to global warming?http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=…"Global Warming, not "Lawrence or U.S. warming". Even Sarah Palin recognizes global warming, national review and you still deny it.... must have lower IQ than Sarah.... thanks but no thanks.

Curtis Lange 6 years, 4 months ago

livingstone, go ahead and accept it: Global Warming is a bunch of smoke up the general public's proverbial ass. The facts are out there to support this. Al Gore's Nobel Prize needs to be taken away. The sooner the better.

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

KUweatherman,First and foremost, goons like yourself think that Al Gore is the only one who got that Nobel Prize. He shared it with IPCC.Second, if you dispute it, you are also disputing Sarah Palin's admitting Global Warming, so directly, you're saying that she's lying for the sake of politics.Finally, you're acting like an scientific authority, using your bare knowledge to dispute something that the scientific community has established. If you want to prove them wrong, you gotta write something to prove them wrong. That's science. I read those who tried to prove IPCC wrong, and their works are also published. But they also need more evidents to continue their work. I'm speaking of science, not politics.If you don't know how to differentiate science from non-science, you should not discuss anything about climate change, because it's a scientific topic.Also, I don't think Al Gore deserve the Nobel Prize, because he ain't a scientist. His prize should be taken away, but the scientists have been talking about this for years...As a scientist, I also tried to prove that certain theories are wrong. But then, you gotta have the research to support your ideas. There are "facts" that you read on the web, some are made up.... you gotta be very careful about what you're reading.. particularly something from the National Review and Fox News.For example, Hannity interviewed Dick Morris about Obama's choice for Secretary for Energy.... he was saying that Obama should appoint an economist and not a scientist... clearly, if someone listened to Dick, clearly, one is a moron. This guy is not a scientist, and he doesn't know that our current technology is not up to the tasks.... he either mixed up science with politics or he obviously wants to bring down Obama. Clearly, many goons are trying to trick people like yourself...

gr 6 years, 4 months ago

Deader than a stone,Have you finished calculating how much you save by having a wind generator and solar panels?I expect not, because you can't, because you don't.While you are letting that freeze on your rock surface, which is worse: global warming or global cooling? What would it take for you to realize there is no global warming, but global cooling?Something tells me you will not answer that direct question as you don't want to. Because, either that will make you look foolish and/or you don't want to say, when the media tells you so.

Curtis Lange 6 years, 4 months ago

livingstone, it is people like you that keep this misguided hype in full force. Good job. Keep it up. Someone may actually care soon. Or not.

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

gr, you know there's always something call the internet and google search engine. To get more academic research information, try to become a KU student, and do a library search engine on academic journal publications.KU Weatherman, honest, in your mind, there are only two groups of academics, one who dispute climate change, and one who supports climate change. I'm the third party, who dispute some information from the supporters of climate change, and support some research from those who disputed climate change. But the needle points towards the true climate change. Keep up the good job of disputing without reading what have been published. I.e. attacking Al Gore, and forgetting about IPCC efforts.

gr 6 years, 4 months ago

"gr, you know there's always something call the internet "I'm not sure anyone would consider that even a feeble attempt at evasion.Where do you suppose one would find on the internet what YOU are saving by YOUR solar collectors and wind generator?

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

KUweatherman (Curtis Lange) says… "livingstone, it is people like you that keep this misguided hype in full force. Good job. Keep it up. Someone may acltually care soon. Or not."You realize that thus far, you have offered nothing to the conversation except personal attacks and simple assertions that these things aren't true, with nothing to back them, right? It just seems silly to do that and then accuse others of promoting misguided hype.

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

"What would it take for you to realize there is no global warming, but global cooling?"Facts or sources would help, gr. Do you have any to offer?

Flap Doodle 6 years, 4 months ago

Remove the first letter from Gore's name, substitute "wh". I rest my case.

gr 6 years, 4 months ago

"Facts or sources would help, gr. Do you have any to offer?"Prove that the spaghetti monster doesn't exist. Facts or sources would help. Do you see the nonsense of that?Besides, you missed the question. I'm asking what type or kinds of facts or sources would prove there is no global warming. In other words, if a glacier was setting north of the river, would that be enough? What would it take?I suspect a response, if given, would be "nothing, it is an established fact!"

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

Guess I missed this. Here's a link to NASA showing the mean temperatures over the last 130 years. Going up.

Curtis Lange 6 years, 4 months ago

jonas, didnt look at your link...but is it that same one they are accused of fabricating data for? Copying temps straight over from the month before causing that next month to be the 'warmest on record?' As for your examples from me in this topic, I don't need to provide them. Go through my comment history and you'll find them.Temperatures have actually been going DOWN globally over the past two years. So much so, in fact, that it wiped out the 100 years of warming the global warming fanatics like to use to support their case.

gr 6 years, 4 months ago

jonas: "Guess I missed this. Here's a link to NASA showing the mean temperatures over the last 130 years."Since I can't find anywhere on your link where it says anything about what facts would be presented to prove there is no global warming, I am concluding you are effectively saying, 'nothing would disprove it'.KUweatherman said for the last two years the temperatures are going down.You imply two years is not enough, but that 130 years is.Does that seem reasonable to you considering how long the earth has existed?Why 130 but not 2? What basis do you have in establishing a cutoff point? Based on what "sounds good"?I assume you would present a link that gives as much evidence in support of global warming as possible so you won't have to say, see here, see there.... Why was the link from 2005? Isn't there more recent data?Interesting that your implication that the temperatures have been rising for 130 years isn't "exactly" specified in the article with data. But I do read things in the article such as,"Last year was the fourth warmest year on average for our planet since the late 1800s""1998, 2002 and 2003 were the only years warmer since the 1890s."Does this mean that it was warmer before then? It doesn't really say, does it.Did you also notice it says, "These average temperatures are then calculated for spots all over the Earth, over an entire year.""For spots"? Is that all "spots" or just select spots? Wouldn't you think that all possible spots that are currently being measured would be necessary to be included and if they weren't, any conclusion would be weak? Also, are the current spots being measured the correct spots? Should there be more at the poles or more at the equator or more inbetween? Or should they be equally spaced? How high up, how far down should the measurements be taken? How does one go about in deciding what are the right spots for measurements? Do you think those things should be considered before making any conclusions?"the average temperature from 1951 to 1980."Not quite 130 years for that chart.Why did they stop at 1980 and not 2008 on the left hand graph? Why did they start at 1950 on the right hand graph? I mean, some new measurements may not have been made before 1950, but why not use an equal comparison?Why are the scales different?Don't you think they have all the data in and analyzed at least up to 2007?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.