In The News

[osmposm]

...... http://climateprogre...sea-level-rise/

http://www.floatinghomes.ltd.uk/?gclid=CJz2jZKAz6YCFY4f4Qod_CNBIQ

http://www.premierhouseboats.co.uk/HouseboatsForSale.html

. Or maybe I mean :unsure: - I see the first one is only guaranteed 10 years!

Just like a standard home then....

http://www.nhbc.co.uk/Homeowners/

I'm glad to say my home has been standing for 127 years, and will certainly outlive me - though courtesy of the gentle hill the terrace is built on, and flexible lime mortar, it's got some interesting sections of brickwork!

I'm not too inspired by those cheap new-builds, with or without a ten-year guarantee. But on the whole they're at least sitting on (for the time being) solid-ish ground, and you can always patch and mend the cracks and holes - come the flood, though, I think I'd prefer my houseboat to serve me for a bit longer than a decade before starting to leak....by the time the builders (?plumbers) had arrived it could be on the bottom (however deep that is by then)! :winky:

[Alan Robinson]

I see MPs think it it time to move on from climategate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-12269493

They conclude that the science behind man-made global warming builds upon essentially sound ideas. Well, no serious objection to the interaction of the earth's infra-red radiation and atmospheric carbon dioxide has ever been put forward, so they can easily put that. What is disputed is the importance of the interaction. Anyway, most people can no longer be in doubt that the climate, weather and atmospheric processes are far more complex than just carbon dioxide and infra-red radiation.

Maybe the MPs are right; move on and get an altogether better understanding of not just the atmosphere in isolation, but our overall environment to the extent that we can investigate it. While we are at it, we can involve the other closely related problems facing Homo sapiens, such as energy and lifestyle, gross over-population, debt, and economic theory that supposes everything infinite.

[Alan Robinson]

"It is important not to make the mistake made by Lord Kelvin and argue that there can be no influence of solar variability on climate: indeed, its study is of scientific interest and may well further our understanding of climate behaviour. However, the popular idea (at least on the Internet and in some parts of the media) that solar changes are some kind of alternative to GHG forcing in explaining the rise in surface temperatures has no credibility with almost all climate scientists. "

Very strong words eh?

EDIT;EDIT; and this?

http://www.newscient....html?full=true

I know 'change' has to start somewhere but there is so much 'poo, poohing' of the influence that it appears to be more science fiction than science fact?

I am far from well informed about all this GW, yet from my vantage point, it seems to me that science is quite a long way from understanding this whole complex business. Furthermore, in their quest to add to our knowledge, various factions focus intently on small, specific areas of investigation, while I haven't yet come across a movement to unify the various theories of the climate and weather. This results in the quibbling we see in the media, witness all the links posted in this partuicular thread alone.

What I have noticed however, for example among the undoubtedly intelligent and well-meaning users of this forum, is that there seems to be a widespread interest in identifying patterns in natural phenomena, and making predictions on that foundation alone. Sunny starry skies puts it excellently above. There seems to me a considerable lack of explanation about what causes what, and how. There is too much belief, and not enough knowledge. Perhaps that is what you mean by science fiction, and I'd certainly agree.

Science works undoubtedly, though what counts for knoweldge at one point in time is usually expanded upon by future generations. It would be very refreshing if science was a little humbler.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Alan Robinson]

A bit of a strawman - lumping GM food skeptics in with climate skeptics. I happen to know some very credible individuals who promote AGW theory, but reject GM food as un-neccessary and damaging (e.g. ask most poor Indian farmers about Monsanto corporation).

The fact is that GM food has a lot in common with banks:

1) Some huge companies have created a market for something we don't need

2) Neither they themselves nor the regulating authorities fully understand where the proposals will take us

3) When it gets out of hand, we are all affected, most of us badly.

It is simply wrong to claim that plant for plant, GM gives bigger crops. A normal plant can put 100% of the light it receives into making tissue, while a GM plant must use some of that energy to create toxins, which by the way, we would have to eat. That is what GM does, makes the plant create toxins so we don't have to spray with pesticides. This way, we cannot even wash the filthy stuff off before eating it. :wacko:

[laserguy]

It is simply wrong to claim that plant for plant, GM gives bigger crops. A normal plant can put 100% of the light it receives into making tissue, while a GM plant must use some of that energy to create toxins, which by the way, we would have to eat. That is what GM does, makes the plant create toxins so we don't have to spray with pesticides. This way, we cannot even wash the filthy stuff off before eating it. :wacko:

That's never occured to me before,but makes so much sense I've got to believe you. Makes me wonder though - tomatoes belong to the same family as tobacco (Nicotiana) and contain tiny amounts of nicotine. Does this mean that GM tomatoes have more nicotine to stave off insects,but might actually be good to smoke? Shh,don't tell HM Customs .

[Hiya]

The fact is that GM food has a lot in common with banks:

1) Some huge companies have created a market for something we don't need

2) Neither they themselves nor the regulating authorities fully understand where the proposals will take us

3) When it gets out of hand, we are all affected, most of us badly.

It is simply wrong to claim that plant for plant, GM gives bigger crops. A normal plant can put 100% of the light it receives into making tissue, while a GM plant must use some of that energy to create toxins, which by the way, we would have to eat. That is what GM does, makes the plant create toxins so we don't have to spray with pesticides. This way, we cannot even wash the filthy stuff off before eating it. :wacko:

*off topic but either his post gets deleted or I am allowed to say my piece*

See that isn't really true. I bet you don't understand genetic modification. Now you've gone and said that and laserguy believes you, now he will tell his friends and family, and so the misinformation spreads.

To take the example of last night’s television show, potatoes resistant to blight do not "produce toxins" ie the fungicides which we spray on them. (I know this seems logical to the general public.) What actually happens is that you take a few genes from another member of the potato family which is naturally resistant to the blight and put them in the ordinary eating potato. This potato is now resistant to blight also. Therefore you don't need to spray it with these nasty toxins anymore.

[laserguy]

So who's right?! Doesn't the naturally resistant (for eg) potato have more toxins or whatever, which then become increased in the one it's been "fused" with? Something has to make the new strain more tolerant,right ? Maybe you're both right,in a roundabout sorta way? Probably a different mechanism which incurs immunity specifically to blight,but you know what I mean !

[Hiya]

So who's right?! Doesn't the naturally resistant (for eg) potato have more toxins or whatever, which then become increased in the one it's been "fused" with? Something has to make the new strain more tolerant,right ? Maybe you're both right,in a roundabout sorta way? Probably a different mechanism which incurs immunity specifically to blight,but you know what I mean !

Maybe someone could make a new thread and move these posts across?

There are two different ways to get rid of potato blight, either we poison it with fungicides or the potato kills it with its immune system.

There aren't any "toxins" involved in the potato blight example I gave. The new strain of potato has a gene (from the resistant potato) which makes a protein which will recognise the potato blight fungus, stick to it and alert the plants immune system that it is being attacked and it will then fight the blight off in the same way we fight a cold off.

When you eat the GM potato you eat this new gene and protein, however it cannot harm you. Your body just digests it like any other of the millions of protein's you eat.

Which potato would you rather eat? The one sprayed with fungicides or the one which naturally fought off the blight?

[jethro]

Thank you Hiya, well explained and completely accurate. The only thing which should be fearful of the blight resistant gene, is the blight fungus.

Haven't got time to respond to the posts directed at me yesterday, will get back to you when time permits. In the meantime, here's a story on media bias at the BBC:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html

Is this due to climate change?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350064/4-people-killed-US-east-coast-shivers-temperatures-low-50F.html

[Gray-Wolf]

I believe we have been seeing this type of 'extreme' winter weather becoming more and more 'pronounced' over the past 8 years? The First death due to 'snow' in Somalia made my ears 'prick up' and that must be 7 years ago. Since then most Med. areas have suffered cold plunges that have hurt their palm tree promenades (and are about to suffer another blast in the coming 10 days?). We have central Europe Stadia roof collapses (due to weight of snow) and shopping malls in eastern Germany suffering a similar fate.

We have Japanese cold events,indian cold events, Chinese cold events with only one thing in common....the rapid 'spill out' of polar air with WAA into the Arctic basin filling the void.

Of course the global temps, over the same period, have continued to rise and Arctic ice cover continues to plummet. So what do we have? Climate Chaos? A more dynamic circulation system across the northern hemisphere perhaps?

Would this just be 'natural variation' (i.e. we can pull up the news reports from the last time we entered an 8 year period of snow, ice, floods,wildfires and droughts.That is unless you believe the world less evolved 80yrs ago (the long 'Arctic cycle' timespan) to the point that such 'extremes' were not noticed/reported and that we only notice them today because we have the 'luxury' of having the news within 6hrs of the event......

Edited January 25, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[PersianPaladin]

I believe we have been seeing this type of 'extreme' winter weather becoming more and more 'pronounced' over the past 8 years? The First death due to 'snow' in Somalia made my ears 'prick up' and that must be 7 years ago. Since then most Med. areas have suffered cold plunges that have hurt their palm tree promenades (and are about to suffer another blast in the coming 10 days?). We have central Europe Stadia roof collapses (due to weight of snow) and shopping malls in eastern Germany suffering a similar fate.

We have Japanese cold events,indian cold events, Chinese cold events with only one thing in common....the rapid 'spill out' of polar air with WAA into the Arctic basin filling the void.

Of course the global temps, over the same period, have continued to rise and Arctic ice cover continues to plummet. So what do we have? Climate Chaos? A more dynamic circulation system across the northern hemisphere perhaps?

Would this just be 'natural variation' (i.e. we can pull up the news reports from the last time we entered an 8 year period of snow, ice, floods,wildfires and droughts.That is unless you believe the world less evolved 80yrs ago (the long 'Arctic cycle' timespan) to the point that such 'extremes' were not noticed/reported and that we only notice them today because we have the 'luxury' of having the news within 6hrs of the event......

Most of the warming is occuring in the polar regions; a lot of the heat has been absorbed by the oceans and we're seeing a lot more instability worldwide (whether it's hot or cold) as a result of the extra moisture and energy in the system.

*off topic but either his post gets deleted or I am allowed to say my piece*

See that isn't really true. I bet you don't understand genetic modification. Now you've gone and said that and laserguy believes you, now he will tell his friends and family, and so the misinformation spreads.

To take the example of last night’s television show, potatoes resistant to blight do not "produce toxins" ie the fungicides which we spray on them. (I know this seems logical to the general public.) What actually happens is that you take a few genes from another member of the potato family which is naturally resistant to the blight and put them in the ordinary eating potato. This potato is now resistant to blight also. Therefore you don't need to spray it with these nasty toxins anymore.

GMO's = Big agribusiness, fossil-fuel dependency, big pesticide business (go read up on Monsanto in India), and industrial degradation of the soil.

We would be far better off with permaculture and de-centralized solutions.

Edited January 25, 2011 by PersianPaladin

[sunny starry skies]

Thank you Hiya, well explained and completely accurate. The only thing which should be fearful of the blight resistant gene, is the blight fungus.

Haven't got time to respond to the posts directed at me yesterday, will get back to you when time permits. In the meantime, here's a story on media bias at the BBC:

http://www.dailymail...er-Sissons.html

Is this due to climate change?

http://www.dailymail...es-low-50F.html

Newsflash, the Daily Mail doesn't like the BBC or accurate science about climate change, who knew .

Getting past the Mail's political advocacy (it's certainly not a source for balanced reporting), if you read the links I posted to Stu Ostro's articles, you'll find a very reasonable mechanism for creating increased high latitude blocking in a warmer world. I presume, Jethro that you don't fall into the traps of the fools who say "look, it's cold outside so the world must be cooling". Global temperatures are unequivocally on the rise, with 2010 coming in as hottest or 2nd hottest depending on the dataset you use, despite the strong La Nina for the second half of the year.

Stu Ostro's hypothesis (actually it isn't his, and has been in the scientific literature for a few years, but he's supporting it with some interesting data), is that the thickening of the troposphere (directly attributable to CO2) has manifest itself in an observed increase in 500mb anomalies. Now this is where my weather knowledge is a tad weaker, but when people on the models thread go nuts about a Greenland or Scandinavian high, they tend to be most interested in the strength of the blocking induced by 500mb height rises. So the strong rising trend in 500mb height anomalies provides the ingredients for strong blocking systems. Depending on where you are in relation to that block you can be subjected to more exceptional weather - Stu Ostro has documented a link between this and many of the big floods, heatwaves and snowstorms that have occurred in recent years (his powerpoint presentation runs to over 700 slides). It certainly seems a reasonable hypothesis with a good causal chain to me...

1: The radiative forcing from increased CO2 raises the height of the tropopause, allowing greater 500mb heights

2: Stronger and longer-lasting blocking patterns in the atmosphere can occur

3: the increased water vapour in the atmosphere is then concentrated onto specific areas, depending on the positioning of the block.

4: Suitable block positioning can provide an excellent conduit for cold air to exit the Arctic in winter, affecting localities in the mid-latitudes.

BTW, excellent debunk on the GM, Hiya. Any issues with GM certainly don't include increased ingestion of toxins!

[PersianPaladin]

On accelerating feedback mechanisms:-

Edited January 25, 2011 by PersianPaladin

[PersianPaladin]

Newsflash, the Daily Mail doesn't like the BBC or accurate science about climate change, who knew .

Getting past the Mail's political advocacy (it's certainly not a source for balanced reporting), if you read the links I posted to Stu Ostro's articles, you'll find a very reasonable mechanism for creating increased high latitude blocking in a warmer world. I presume, Jethro that you don't fall into the traps of the fools who say "look, it's cold outside so the world must be cooling". Global temperatures are unequivocally on the rise, with 2010 coming in as hottest or 2nd hottest depending on the dataset you use, despite the strong La Nina for the second half of the year.

Stu Ostro's hypothesis (actually it isn't his, and has been in the scientific literature for a few years, but he's supporting it with some interesting data), is that the thickening of the troposphere (directly attributable to CO2) has manifest itself in an observed increase in 500mb anomalies. Now this is where my weather knowledge is a tad weaker, but when people on the models thread go nuts about a Greenland or Scandinavian high, they tend to be most interested in the strength of the blocking induced by 500mb height rises. So the strong rising trend in 500mb height anomalies provides the ingredients for strong blocking systems. Depending on where you are in relation to that block you can be subjected to more exceptional weather - Stu Ostro has documented a link between this and many of the big floods, heatwaves and snowstorms that have occurred in recent years (his powerpoint presentation runs to over 700 slides). It certainly seems a reasonable hypothesis with a good causal chain to me...

1: The radiative forcing from increased CO2 raises the height of the tropopause, allowing greater 500mb heights

2: Stronger and longer-lasting blocking patterns in the atmosphere can occur

3: the increased water vapour in the atmosphere is then concentrated onto specific areas, depending on the positioning of the block.

4: Suitable block positioning can provide an excellent conduit for cold air to exit the Arctic in winter, affecting localities in the mid-latitudes.

BTW, excellent debunk on the GM, Hiya. Any issues with GM certainly don't include increased ingestion of toxins!

Regarding the high-pressure anamolies, check this from the Climate-Progress blog:-

The extremes have been just as impressive when you look high in the atmosphere above these areas. Typically the midpoint of the atmosphere’s mass—the 500-millibar (500 hPa) level—rests around 5 kilometers (3 miles) above sea level during the Arctic midwinter. In mid-December, a vast bubble of high pressure formed in the vicinity of Greenland. At the center of this high, the 500-mb surface rose to more than 5.8 kilometers, a sign of remarkably mild air below. Stu Ostro (The Weather Channel) found that this was the most extreme 500-mb anomaly anywhere on the planet in weather analyses dating back to 1948. Details are at the conclusion of Ostro’s year-end blog post.

Farther west, a separate monster high developed over Alaska last week. According to Richard Thoman (National Weather Service, Fairbanks), the 500-mb height over both Nome and Kotzebue rose to 582 decameters (5.82 km). That’s not only a January record: those are the highest values ever observed at those points outside of June, July, and August.

http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/23/canada-mildness-high-presure-record-ostro-global-warming/

[jethro]

Newsflash, the Daily Mail doesn't like the BBC or accurate science about climate change, who knew .

Getting past the Mail's political advocacy (it's certainly not a source for balanced reporting), if you read the links I posted to Stu Ostro's articles, you'll find a very reasonable mechanism for creating increased high latitude blocking in a warmer world. I presume, Jethro that you don't fall into the traps of the fools who say "look, it's cold outside so the world must be cooling". Global temperatures are unequivocally on the rise, with 2010 coming in as hottest or 2nd hottest depending on the dataset you use, despite the strong La Nina for the second half of the year.

Er Peter Sisson's take on it, not a critique by the mail - he does afteralll have first hand experience of the BBC.

Less of the fools comments SSS, there's no need to be rude in order to get attention.

I have neither the time nor inclination to go through the whole "my take on AGW" stuff, it's in the archive for all to see.

I continue to be amused that extreme weather events such as floods and heat are taken as gospel evidence of AGW but cold ones are just weather, I find it more amusing still that all weather events are now considered to be evidence of climate change. I guess we just don't get plain old weather any more. I wonder what extreme weather events of old used to be blamed on - demons, gods, bad spirits; the name has changed but the devout, unshakeable belief hasn't.

As far as I can tell the most important thing in all this AGW theory is seek and ye shall find - anything and everything can be attributed to climate change, the one proviso being it has to be in support of the theory.

[PersianPaladin]

Er Peter Sisson's take on it, not a critique by the mail - he does afteralll have first hand experience of the BBC.

Less of the fools comments SSS, there's no need to be rude in order to get attention.

I have neither the time nor inclination to go through the whole "my take on AGW" stuff, it's in the archive for all to see.

I continue to be amused that extreme weather events such as floods and heat are taken as gospel evidence of AGW but cold ones are just weather, I find it more amusing still that all weather events are now considered to be evidence of climate change. I guess we just don't get plain old weather any more. I wonder what extreme weather events of old used to be blamed on - demons, gods, bad spirits; the name has changed but the devout, unshakeable belief hasn't.

As far as I can tell the most important thing in all this AGW theory is seek and ye shall find - anything and everything can be attributed to climate change, the one proviso being it has to be in support of the theory.

And your point is?

He went to Daily Snail for a reason. And the reason is to simply distract people from the science - and the fact that the evidence for AGW and highly dangerous potential of feedback-sensitivity (as demonstrated by David Wasdell in the video I posted) is overwhelming.

[noggin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350272/Genghis-Khan-killed-people-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html

Just thought I'd chuck this one into the mix. :o

Not that anyone is advocating his methods, of course. :huh:

Well, not yet, anyway............

PS In case no-one reads the link, I will point out that it is about Genghis Khan and his contribution to reducing levels of CO2.

Edited January 25, 2011 by noggin

[Alan Robinson]

I bet you don't understand genetic modification.

Well not entirely, I am a retired naval architect. But this guy studied the topic at Cambridge, and he convinced me.

http://www.realseeds..._is_a_scam.html

By the way. His seeds far surpass anything else I have bought. i particularly recommend his beetroot, Sanguina.

Oh, and by the way, I live on an intensely farmed island, where about 25 years ago, the local water company was the first in Denmark to be ordered to install exceptional purification facilities because of the excessive levels of pesticides that had accumulated in the groundwater. Today, I read on Danish media a complaint from the water company that supplies Copenhagen, that the Ministry of Agriculture has quite simply not acted on warnings, and now no less than 40% of all Danish wells must be exceptionally treated. A good number of wells have been closed as they are no longer drinkable no matter the treatment, and it is looking worse for the future. Glyophosphate is the new scoundrel, if we do not mention farmers that spray their rape with it, the consultants who recommend it, and the manufacturers. And regarding the consultants who recommend this poison, my best friend's brother, an agricultural consultant, died recently with horrendously scarred and disfigured legs, which the doctors suggested was a result of wandering for year after year through crops sprayed with this stuff. At least, in my profession, all I got was piles from sitting on cold steel plates. Perhaps some will say this has nothing directly to do with GM, but I disagree. The authorities go along with big business, at least until it is time to fine them, as with BP in the Gulf of Mexico.

Jeez. When will people wake up Probably not before it is too late.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[sunny starry skies]

Er Peter Sisson's take on it, not a critique by the mail - he does afteralll have first hand experience of the BBC.

Less of the fools comments SSS, there's no need to be rude in order to get attention.

I have neither the time nor inclination to go through the whole "my take on AGW" stuff, it's in the archive for all to see.

I continue to be amused that extreme weather events such as floods and heat are taken as gospel evidence of AGW but cold ones are just weather, I find it more amusing still that all weather events are now considered to be evidence of climate change. I guess we just don't get plain old weather any more. I wonder what extreme weather events of old used to be blamed on - demons, gods, bad spirits; the name has changed but the devout, unshakeable belief hasn't.

As far as I can tell the most important thing in all this AGW theory is seek and ye shall find - anything and everything can be attributed to climate change, the one proviso being it has to be in support of the theory.

You're very touchy on the subject! I was presuming that you didn't fall into the trap of assuming local or regional weather equalled global weather, despite your posting of a provocative article on cold weather in the US. I followed up with a description of an hypothesis as to why weather extremes might be on the rise as a result of a warming world through increased blocking - a description which I thought would be of interest to those who follow weather patterns. Do you think that such an hypothesis is workable, and do you think Ostro's data contributes positively to the science?

By definition, if we expect to see more droughts, floods, heatwaves and winter snowstorms globally as a direct consequence of our warming world, I would expect to see fewer of these disruptive events in a world not experiencing these changes. Such weather might be globally a little cooler, with fewer extreme temperature and precipitation events. Anecdotal observation from the past 12 months, supported by further observations from the past decade do not appear to support this view, whether you live in the UK or whether you take a global view. Confirmation of AGW does not come from the weather, it comes from observations of radiation imbalances and the specific wavelengths at which they occur, along with other 'fingerprint' evidence. Alongside this, we expected to see the types of unusual weather we are observing - coincidence?

EDIT: Noggin, it sounds a lot like Bill Ruddiman's Early Anthropocene hypothesis - where he links mass deaths in the Medieval and Middle Ages (plagues, wars etc) to drops in CO2 and cooler climate, as well as our climate modification starting 8,000 years ago with the dawn of agriculture nudging CO2 levels up a bit. Still an hypothesis, but certainly an interesting one! Kudos to the Mail for printing that one, given the necessary corollary!

Edited January 25, 2011 by sunny starry skies

[jethro]

You're very touchy on the subject!

No, just bored.

Bored to tears that after more than four years on here the situation is still you're either pro AGW or anti AGW. Bored to tears that only a tiny, tiny minority can discuss both natural climate variation and manmade contributions without going down the antagonistic route. It's all so tiresome.

This place should be an area where folk can learn, swap ideas, discuss all aspects of climate change and variation but it isn't and I rapidly lose the will to live on an almost daily basis.

[pottyprof]

And your point is?

He went to Daily Snail for a reason. And the reason is to simply distract people from the science

So money wouldn't have any part to play in it? I know that if I was heading for retirement and I had a book to sell, I'd milk it for all it's worth.............

[Gowon]

No, just bored.

Bored to tears that after more than four years on here the situation is still you're either pro AGW or anti AGW. Bored to tears that only a tiny, tiny minority can discuss both natural climate variation and manmade contributions without going down the antagonistic route. It's all so tiresome.

This place should be an area where folk can learn, swap ideas, discuss all aspects of climate change and variation but it isn't and I rapidly lose the will to live on an almost daily basis.

You can't because their minds are closed, or they're too busy with their doom mongering.

[blitzen]

A tad chilly in Maine?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350064/4-people-killed-US-east-coast-shivers-temperatures-low-50F.h

Sorry, link appears dead. Article was referring to temperatures of -50F in new York, Maine etc on Monday and laminate floori commenting that he expects the cold to continue in the east at least until the middle of February. Public being advised about the dangers of frostbite apparently.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Blitzen

[PersianPaladin]

A tad chilly in Maine?

http://www.dailymail...tures-low-50F.h

Sorry, link appears dead. Article was referring to temperatures of -50F in new York, Maine etc on Monday and laminate floori commenting that he expects the cold to continue in the east at least until the middle of February. Public being advised about the dangers of frostbite apparently.

And you ignore the very large warming anamolies in the Arctic region of Canada (in my previous post).

Edited January 25, 2011 by PersianPaladin

[knocker]

A tad chilly in Maine?

http://www.dailymail...tures-low-50F.h

Sorry, link appears dead. Article was referring to temperatures of -50F in new York, Maine etc on Monday and laminate floori commenting that he expects the cold to continue in the east at least until the middle of February. Public being advised about the dangers of frostbite apparently.

Interesting considering the surface chart for the NE US at 1800z