On Saturday, 23 January 2016 19:34:05 UTC, John Hall wrote:
In message ,
xmetman writes
Deepest Depth of Snow
1800 UTC on Saturday, 23 January 2016 In WMO Blocks 72 & 74

[01] 72403 Washington 51 [20.1"]
[02] 72406 Baltimore 46 [18.1"]
[03] 72502 Newark 43 [16.9"]
72414 Charleston 43 [16.9"]
[04] 72503 Hempstead 41 [16.1"]
[05] 74486 New York City 36 [14.2"]
[06] 72519 Syracuse 33 [13.0"]
72405 Washington 33 [13.0"]

Interesting that two stations both in Washington should have such
divergent totals. I suppose that with so much drifting of the snow it's
more or less impossible to get an accurate figure. In fact you could
argue that "accurate" is pretty much meaningless when there's severe
drifting, and the best you can hope for is a representative figure.

Drifting across a warm songline over to where in the heat of winter we are also enjoying precipitate activities of one sort or another. Just how much carbon dioxide can the average climatologist be capable of imagining to have caused all this, bearing in mind the rain that has already fallen from California to the Mississippi.

What is the conductive ability in the molecules that imparts an ability to transfer heat at such inordinate rates through atmosphere.
The last I heard it was 300 parts per million. Is it more or is 300 a lot?

The last argument I read on the subject that wasn't my own is that the net effect increase ratio is that of the carbon content of a match released to a living room.

This in a world where trees have enough light to keep growing but reach a limit due to the lack of nutriment. All the while the oceans (sumps that can naturally absorb volume for volume co2 gas to water) are flooded with inert, long carbon chains.