"I know lots of people will point to this as "proof" that global warming is a hoax. But it is such an astonishing image - all of England, Wales and Scotland covered in snow - that I just had to post it. " Why in the world would you not post a photo because of fear someone may say it is proof! This is why so many people are skeptical right now, They feel information is sensored and they are being lied to! Scientist should release all data ,photos ect. I think most people have the intelligence to make up there own minds! That is the problem, I know I would not be so skeptic myself if I did not feel scientist were spoon feeding just the warming data! And if the data truly points to warming, I would gladly change my mind. Thank you for posting the wonderful photo!

FR: Precisely. Which is why NASA DID post the image, and so did I. Nobody is hiding anything. All reputable scientific work is published and peer reviewed. My comment referred simply to the work time (and personal time) I knew I would have to divert from other responsibilities to read and post more reader comments on global warming, which is not what this blog is supposed to be about. But I elected to do it anyway because it's such a cool photo. Thanks for your comment.

Here's a amazing picture from last winter:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/07/lake-superior-is-freezing-over/

And here's an astonishing chart:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/satellite-confirms-that-global-temps-continue-decline-trend-a-minus-151f-per-century-rate.html

I wonder if these pictures and chart tell the real story about the climate - it's called global cooling.

Very cool, thanks for posting.

"My comment referred simply to the work time (and personal time) I knew I would have to divert from other responsibilities to read and post more reader comments on global warming, which is not what this blog is supposed to be about" Maybe you should have posted this at the top of the article also. Just for future reference. Thank you for taking the time to respond!

Puh-lease. It is a fallacy to claim that global warming is real because "all reputable scientific work is published and peer reviewed."

Accepting a work to be published is left up to the discretion of the publishing committee, and peer review does not prove the validity of the data, only the process and conclusions. A few years ago, a scientific wunderkind was shown to be a fraud because he reused the same data graphs one time to many, and someone finally noticed.

FR: I never claimed any such thing. I simply said, on being accused of wanted to withhold a photo (that is available to anyone on a NASA website), that all reputable scientific research is peer reviewed and published, where anyone can read it and challenge it. You're correct. That doesn't prove the paper's conclusions are valid. But the findings are not concealed as the commenter suggested. If they're wrong, or faked, the work will be challenged and eventually shown to be incorrect, as was the case in the example you cite. That's how the scientific process works.

So in other circunstances you show to able to autocensor youself inconvenient things... if the image was not so extraordinary...or maybe the first paragraph was just to maintain "connections" and "respectability" in social circle: Hey i am still with the "Team" i didn't turned erectic and certainly in next 10 posts i will compensate and find many "news" about warming...

Maybe start asking where is the heating CO2...

FR: I promise not to turn erectic.

@A_Ford: I followed your link, and I followed the link that person made to the climatologist, and from a quick 15 minute perusal of the site, boy is your link dealing with some pretty erroneous interpretations of the climatologist. First, your link picks the last ten years to post into a graph which suggests that temperature is going down 1.15 F - and somehow extrapolates that to an average downward temperature decrease averaging 1.15 F PER CENTURY. I can't find anything on the climatologists site that suggests that. Furthermore, your link claims that this is based on satellite data; fair enough - but prior to ~50 years ago, there wasn't any satellite data, so how can you trend for centuries? What the climatologist does show is satellite data going back to 1979 which instead seems to indicate a trend upwards in temperature.... Even this is not sufficient to establish any sort of large trend. Further, what the climatologist seems to actually be arguing against is not global warming itself, but against man-made global warming. To wit: "Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation." [http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/]

He further makes the point in a couple of places that the observed satellite data has little to do with SURFACE temperatures, i.e., the temperatures most influencing local weather.

And this is what gets me, every time there's a bad snowstorm all the people come out and say that it's proof there's "no such thing as global warming" and it's "scientific bunk" and latch on to anyone who - scientifically - argues not against global warming but against human agency in global warming, and turn that into "there's no such thing as global warming." In brief, have any of you actually read the people you're citing? I mean you cite someone who cites someone as evidence of "global cooling" and that original author is saying no such thing.

I say this as I sip my morning ice water, in which I have taken roughly room temperature water and melted a good deal of ice in it. Ahhh, pretty COLD and refreshing.....

I wish everyone could just enjoy and appreciate this blog for what it is--interesting insight for weather geeks, backyard astronomers and people who simply want to know what the weather is doing--and stop dragging it down into the negativity that seems to be blanketing our society these days. I'm all for a debate, but it's sad to see the writer, as he said, spending so much time addressing conspiracy theories when all this blog is trying to do is show us the natural wonder and geeky excitement of the world of weather!

To get back to the main idea of FR's post, yes it is a pretty cool photo of the snowfall.

Why so cold this year Frank? Jet stream - El nino? Any indication that it will continue? Wasn't planning a break but with these temps may break up the winter with a trip to the Keys.

FR: It's the North Atlantic Oscillation. See post above.

That site A-Ford mentioned has a newer chart (as of today, I think) that is based on U.S. temperature data. Kind of eye-opening, to say the least.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/as-of-december-31-2009-12-year-cooling-trend-is-now-1103f-per-century.html

Does anyone know if a Maryland temperature chart for the same period is available?

Jazonie-

That U.S. temperature chart is from the U.S. NCDC web site. Go here to create your own national or state chart:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

BTW, that NCDC site says Maryland temperatures have declined at a minus 0.92 degree (-0.92) rate per decade since 1998. That translates to a trend of minus 9.20 degrees per century. Remember, that's only a trend, not a prediction.

FR: Thanks for that link. I have been fascinated by that tool for years. I recommend punching in the annual temps for Maryland from the beginning of the data base in 1895 for a clear look at long-term trend. It's pretty impressive.

Simply as a function of the typical reversion to the mean, we're gonna pay for all this cold weather! Probably in August :(