Global warming

[Coach is Back!]

Rapid City sees earliest snowfall since 1888...


An early September winter storm in the Black Hills has dumped up to 8 inches of snow in the area, while Rapid City received its earliest snowfall in more than 120 years.

Jon Chamberlain, meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Rapid City, said almost 1 inch of snow had fallen in downtown Rapid City by 8:30 a.m. while 2 inches was measured in higher elevations in town.

The snowfall in downtown Rapid City is the earliest in the city since 1888, the NWS said. The previous early snowfall mark was seven-tenths of an inch on Sept. 13, 1970.

Chamberlain said while it is unusual for Rapid City to see snowfall this early, it isn't for the Black Hills.

"It's a little on the high side, though," he said.

Downtown Custer reported 8 inches of snow, while 7 inches was reported at Mount Rushmore. Other snowfall totals: 6 inches five miles south of Hill City; 4,5 inches in HIll City and 4 inches in Sundance, Wyo.

See the radar and hourly forecast at ArgusLeader.com/weather.

Chamberlain said roads in the Black Hills are staying relatively snow-free because the snow is melting once it hits the pavement and ground.

A winter storm warning is in effect until noon Mountain time Thursday for the northern and central Black Hills including the cities of Lead, Deadwood, Hill City and Mount Rushmore.

The NWS says many areas across far western South Dakota might experience a hard freeze by Friday morning as temperatures are expected to dip into the 20s and even teens in the Black Hills.

The high will be 51 Friday, 60 on Saturday, 62 on Sunday and 67 on Monday.

For road conditions call 511 or visit www.safetravelusa.com/sd/.

Share your snow photos by adding #SnowDak on any Instagram pic or email argus-multimedia@argusleader.com.

Sioux Falls forecast from NWS

The forecast is much more mild in eastern South Dakota.

Today: A chance of rain, mainly between 2 and 5 p.m. Cloudy, with a high near 53. North northeast wind 5 to 10 mph. Chance of precipitation is 30%.

Tonight: A slight chance of rain before 7 p.m., then a chance of rain after 2 a.m. Cloudy, with a low around 40. North wind 5 to 10 mph. Chance of precipitation is 30%.

Friday: A chance of rain before 8 a.m. Partly sunny, with a high near 56. North northwest wind 5 to 10 mph. Chance of precipitation is 30%.

Friday night: Mostly clear, with a low around 36. North northwest wind around 5 mph becoming calm in the evening.

Saturday: Sunny, with a high near 61. South wind 5 to 10 mph increasing to 10 to 15 mph in the afternoon.

Saturday night: Partly cloudy, with a low around 44.

Sunday: Sunny, with a high near 66.

Sunday night: A chance of showers. Partly cloudy, with a low around 46. Chance of precipitation is 30%.

Monday: A chance of showers. Mostly sunny, with a high near 66. Chance of precipitation is 30%.

Monday night: Mostly clear, with a low around 47.

Tuesday: Mostly sunny, with a high near 70.

Tuesday night: Partly cloudy, with a low around 52.

Wednesday: A slight chance of showers and thunderstorms. Partly sunny, with a high near 69. Chance of precipitation is 20%.

[_aj_]

Paging Necrosis...

#Science!

[MONSTER_TRICEPS]

Yes early snowfall in Rapid City. Now it has been proven that global warming is a lie.  

[SF1900]

Yes early snowfall in Rapid City. Now it has been proven that global warming is a lie.  

I am not saying global warming is real or not. However, what I do know is this: Providing one example of cold weather or early snow somewhere does not disprove global warming either. This idea has been debunked many times over. Even people who disagree with global warming do not use this as an argument. Because they know how stupid it is.

[dr.chimps]

Anti-intellectuals assemble!

[timfogarty]

weather is different than climate.

[_aj_]

I am not saying global warming is real or not. However, what I do know is this: Providing one example of cold weather or early snow somewhere does not disprove global warming either. This idea has been debunked many times over. Even people who disagree with global warming do not use this as an argument. Because they know how stupid it is.

Hebrew, please. Every time that there is a heatwave or a tornado or a hurricane, the Global Warming™ bullshitters are out in force claiming or inferring that this "proves" AGW. Then they conveniently say anything that disproves their theory is "weather, not climate"

Global Warming is bullshit designed from the beginning to rob western civilization blind and transfer wealth to poor nations while lining the pockets of a few progressive privileged few. Period. Nothing more.

If you believe in AGW, you are blind, ignorant or malicious. Pick one.

[_aj_]

weather is different than climate.

Bullshit.

[SF1900]

Hebrew, please. Every time that there is a heatwave or a tornado or a hurricane, the Global Warming™ bullshitters are out in force claiming or inferring that this "proves" AGW. Then they conveniently say anything that disproves their theory is "weather, not climate"

Global Warming is bullshit designed from the beginning to rob western civilization blind and transfer wealth to poor nations while lining the pockets of a few progressive privileged few. Period. Nothing more.

If you believe in AGW, you are blind, ignorant or malicious. Pick one.

I never said that one weather incident proves global warming exists, either. Either argument is dumb.

Youre more than welcome to provide evidence of this conspiracy theory.

[_aj_]

I never said that one weather incident proves global warming exists, either. Either argument is dumb.

Youre more than welcome to provide evidence of this conspiracy theory.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/10/un-ipcc-chief-pachauri-under-fire-in-india-for-conflicts-of-interest/

[_aj_]

Awesome rebuttal. Solid evidence against global warming. The word "bullshit" just destroys global warming. You should be debating the top geologists at Harvard.

Epic missing the graph, but that's OK. Your eyesight is in doubt.

[SF1900]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/10/un-ipcc-chief-pachauri-under-fire-in-india-for-conflicts-of-interest/

So, every single scientist, in all major universities and colleges, is manipulating their data to prove global warming exists? Wow, thousands of scientists are putting their academic career on the line. Do you think they all get together in a room and discuss how to manipulate their data?

[Necrosis]

So, every single scientist, in all major universities and colleges, is manipulating their data to prove global warming exists? Wow, thousands of scientists are putting their academic career on the line. Do you think they all get together in a room and discuss how to manipulate their data?

It's not like you can't verify the data either, that peer reviewed, so people not in on it would have to be incompetant to allow this to continue.

[SF1900]

Epic missing the graph, but that's OK. Your eyesight is in doubt.

First, I just noticed the graph and I can barely make it out.

Two, posting a random graph means absolutely shit. Post up peer-reviewed journals that dispute global warming.

[SF1900]

It's not like you can't verify the data either, that peer reviewed, so people not in on it would have to be incompetant to allow this to continue.

Its a mass conspiracy. Thousands and thousand of academics must be in on it. That is the only logical explanation.

[_aj_]

First, I just noticed the graph and I can barely make it out.

Two, posting a random graph means absolutely shit. Post up peer-reviewed journals that dispute global warming.

I was responding to the other "random graphs"

How is "peer review" a gold standard when academia has banished all dissenting voices as heresy?

[Necrosis]

I was responding to the other "random graphs"

How is "peer review" a gold standard when academia has banished all dissenting voices as heresy?

Peer review is the gold standard, dissenting papers have been published.

[SF1900]

I was responding to the other "random graphs"

How is "peer review" a gold standard when academia has banished all dissenting voices as heresy?

haha, I KNEW you were going to say this. I knew it. I said this to myself in my head, "He is going to find a way to bash the peer review process instead of posting actual peer-reviewed journal articles." I KNEW it. Too funny.

Is the peer-review process absolutely perfect? No. Nothing is perfect. However, its the best process and measure of ensuring that people are adhering to the scientific method. There have been steps over the years to improve the peer-reviewed process. And many journal articles have taken active steps to ensure that dissenting voices are not regarded as "heresy." In fact, many journals now post articles where one author "bashes" another authors article. There was one issue of a peer-reviewed journal that had three authors basing each others theories. It went back and forth, back and forth. Like I said, its not perfect, but its the gold standard and up until now, has proven to be effective.

And yes, peer review is the gold standard. Unless you have another method of reviewing journal articles for publications, this is the best process we have. Overall, it has done a good job, as there have been many articles that have made astounding breakthroughs in all different fields of study.

So, if you can't provide peer-reviewed journals, then what evidence can you provide? Youre going to need to provide A LOT of reputable evidence to suggest that global warming is a MAJOR conspiracy and thousands of scientists across the nation are in on this mass conspiracy.

[MONSTER_TRICEPS]

I am not saying global warming is real or not. However, what I do know is this: Providing one example of cold weather or early snow somewhere does not disprove global warming either. This idea has been debunked many times over. Even people who disagree with global warming do not use this as an argument. Because they know how stupid it is.

Well ofcourse. This was the earliest snowfall in 120 years. I do not associate snow with heat, do you? 

[SF1900]

Well ofcourse. This was the earliest snowfall in 120 years. I do not associate snow with heat, do you? 

Unfortunately, some people do. 

By the way, love Danzig!

[dr.chimps]

haha, I KNEW you were going to say this. I knew it. I said this to myself in my head, "He is going to find a way to bash the peer review process instead of posting actual peer-reviewed journal articles." I KNEW it. Too funny.

Is the peer-review process absolutely perfect? No. Nothing is perfect. However, its the best process and measure of ensuring that people are adhering to the scientific method. There have been steps over the years to improve the peer-reviewed process. And many journal articles have taken active steps to ensure that dissenting voices are not regarded as "heresy." In fact, many journals now post articles where one author "bashes" another authors article. There was one issue of a peer-reviewed journal that had three authors basing each others theories. It went back and forth, back and forth. Like I said, its not perfect, but its the gold standard and up until now, has proven to be effective.

And yes, peer review is the gold standard. Unless you have another method of reviewing journal articles for publications, this is the best process we have. Overall, it has done a good job, as there have been many articles that have made astounding breakthroughs in all different fields of study.

So, if you can't provide peer-reviewed journals, then what evidence can you provide? One, random graph? Do you think this is enough evidence to suggest that global warming is a MAJOR conspiracy and thousands of scientists across the nation are in on this mass conspiracy? One graph or article is enough for that? Hmmm.

x2  Used to see my Da getting articles to review, prior to publication, in the mail all the time. Used a red pen. It's as serious as it gets, so to hear people off-handedly dismissing the process is ludicrous. They are truly clueless.   

[SF1900]

x2  Used to see my Da getting articles to review, prior to publication, in the mail all the time. Used a red pen. It's as serious as it gets, so to hear people off-handedly dismissing the process is ludicrous. They are truly clueless.   

I knew many professors who reviewed articles for publications. And yes, it's as serious as it gets. Only "tinfoil" hat people disagree. They are too paranoid Big Brother is always watching them.

[timfogarty]

Well ofcourse. This was the earliest snowfall in 120 years. I do not associate snow with heat, do you? 

The more energy in the atmosphere and oceans, the more extremes the weather.  That means you can have bigger storms, bigger hurricanes, bigger tornadoes, bigger blizzards, and bigger heat waves.

[MONSTER_TRICEPS]

Unfortunately, some people do. 

By the way, love Danzig!

Hoping you would type a 500 word essay to prove I was wrong. 

[SF1900]

Hoping you would type a 500 word essay to prove I was wrong. 

I was agreeing with that that one snowfall does not prove global warming is wrong.

Unless you were being sarcastic.