Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleSnow, again? Vegas sets another record this morning
Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2008 | 8:47 a.m.
Snow fell in the Las Vegas Valley this morning for the first time ever on Dec. 23, the National Weather Service reported.
Snow flakes were reported at McCarran International Airport about 6 a.m. today. Then, meteorologists at the weather service office on Dean Martin Road, about two miles southwest of the airport, observed flurries at 6:40 a.m.
This is the first time since official weather records have been kept in Las Vegas that snow has been recorded on Dec. 23.
Last Wednesday, the Las Vegas Valley officially recorded 3.6 inches of snow at the weather service office, with up to 8 inches in some locations.
Two more storms will affect Las Vegas through the week, one arriving on Christmas Eve on Wednesday and into Christmas Day on Thursday. The second could arrive Friday and linger into Saturday. They are expected to bring rain and winds to the valley, but no snow.
Temperatures in the daytime should range from the mid-40s to the lower 50s as the storms sweep through Las Vegas. Nighttime lows are expected to drop to the lower 40s and into the 30s.
Las Vegas has a 20 to 30 percent chance of rain on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, then a gradual warming trend with drier conditions should build into Southern Nevada from Sunday through early next week.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- UNLV can move forward without the burden of losing streak to San Diego State
- A wife’s wisdom shows birth control issue needn’t be divisive
- Motorcycle accident claims life of man in northeast valley
- Surprise links, negotiated deals addressed by commissioners
- Hope and change and … what’s missing?
- New York mayor has the right idea
- We don’t need a CEO in charge
- Paying our own way
- Country has ‘given’ citizens a lot
- Jerry Tarkanian: Mike Moser impresses yet again on a day to remember former Rebel greats
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Hey it's pretty and 'snow in Las Vegas' is drawing a lot of free attention world-wide.
ESPN coverage of The Las Vegas Bowl did a nice job on the snow and weather in Las Vegas. Cameras did a nice panorama of the River Mountains east of Henderson early in the game pre-game show.
Global warming is dooming us to snow and cold. I wonder how the PC police are going to spin this one.
Oh My God!!!!!! The sky is falling!!!!
Oh....it is just snow.
According to the man who has increased his net worth to over $100 million because of hyping global warming.....of course...snow is caused by global warming.
If the temp goes up....global warming. If the temp goes down...global warming. If the temp stays the same...global warming.
Katrina...global warming. Record low number of hurricanes this season...global warming. Artic cap decreasing...global warming....antarctica cap increasing to record size...global warming.....Your tummy hurts...global warming....you bet on black and it lands on red...global warming.....your girlfriend cheats on you....global warming.
Shhhhhh....little secret.....sun spots have been trending down for a decade and are at an all time low...we are entering into a cooling trend.....GLOBAL WARMING warms Gore's bank account.
"Shhhhhh....little secret.....sun spots have been trending down for a decade and are at an all time low..."
November 1998: 74 sunspots
November 1999: 133.2 sunspots
Trending down for a decade? Nope. They went up from 98-99.
An all-time low?
November 2008: 4.1 sunspots
January 1754: 0.0 sunspots
May 1755: 0.0 sunspots
June 1755: 0.0 sunspots
Feb 1775: 0.0 sunspots
Not a monthly low.
How about annual low?
Dec 2007 - Nov 2008: 43.4 sunspots
Oct 1809 - Aug 1810: 0 sunspots
Shhhh... little secret. Nance lies.
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY
Shhh...theBS.....your little voices in your head are shouting too loud.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/...
"Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. "We're experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle."
"Sept. 30, 2008: Astronomers who count sunspots have announced that 2008 is now the "blankest year" of the Space Age."
Well that's not what you said, there Nance.
You said "all-time" low. Which, it wasn't.
You said "trending down for a decade." Which, it wasn't.
Everything I wrote was factually accurate.
Everything you wrote was factually erroneous.
Nice try, though!
LOL, sunspots haven't been trending down for a decade, and they aren't at an all-time low.
Honestly, jfnance32, where on Earth do you get this stuff?
NASA
LOL! Maybe you are having problems reading, but NASA didn't provide any facts to back up your statements. NOAA, on the other hand, proved you were lying.
Yeah, someone's reading comprehension skills need some help.
A 50-year low is NOT an all-time low... unless Nance thinks the world began 50 years ago.
The "blankest year of the Space Age" is NOT "all-time" low. The Space Age is a fairly recent frame of reference, if you weren't aware.
Or do you think "space age" refers to when space, itself was created? HA!
NASA has said that ""Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low," and ""We're experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle."
theBS wants to use number from 1990 to 2000 to describe the current decade....hmmm I think the year is 2008.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
Here is a NOAA chart that clearly shows that sunspot activity has been declining since 2000.
I guess that makes you the liar, theBS.
"As of Sept. 27, 2008, the sun had been blank, i.e., had no visible sunspots, on 200 days of the year"
For many months this year, we had zero sunspots.
I believe zero sunspots ties previous records lows for a month.
I guess again you are the liar theBS.
"For many months this year, we had zero sunspots."
WRONG.
2008
Jan 3.3
Feb 2.1
Mar 9.3
Apr 2.9
May 3.2
Jun 3.4
Jul 0.5
Aug 0.5
Sep 1.1
Oct 2.9
Nov 4.1
At least .5 sunspots, per month, in 2008. Not ZERO, as you incorrectly and erroneously asserted. And certainly not "many" months.
So, to recap, you said:
"All-time low?" No.
"Trending down for a decade?" No.
"Zero sunspots for many months?" No.
You're 0 for 3, big guy!
Keep digging your hole, Nance.
"sun spots have been trending down for a decade"
A decade is 10 years.
For the mathematically-challenged (Jfnance32, that's YOU!) that means from 1998-2008.
The number of sunspots INCREASED from 1998 to 1999.
You said they were declining for a decade. A decade is 10 years. 10 years from now was 1998. They did not DECLINE from 1998 to 1999, they INCREASED.
Man, this is toooooo funny!
Yeah, I'm glad you caught that.
He embarassingly tried to redefine what "a decade" means.
I guess a decade now means eight years. Nance has spoken!
theBS has spoken...a decade equals 2 years..1998 and 1999.
From 2000 to 2008 the NASA clearly shows a year to year decline and 2000 until now ...the numbers are lower than 1998 and 1999.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
Or in the other math genius's post....a decline is not a decline over a 10 year period if the 2nd year is higher than the 1st year but lower then next 8 years.
So if you made $100 in 1998 and $110 in 1999 and each year there after down to near $0....in you guys book your income would have increased over the past decade and not a decline trend over the decade.
Math genius.....right.............
Sunspots? Oh geez, I dare not mention I'm an amateur radio operator. Jim will get all uppity because I know something about something.
Shhh! They're near the end (lowpoint) of an 11 year cycle. A cycle of which there has been nothing unusual about. Again, shhh!
CO2 is the problem. Not sunspots. There is 50% more of it in the atmosphere now than any time known for the last 100,000 years, so far as we know. That is the overwhelming reason why the planet is heating up, which it is.
Oh stop trying to redefine what you said.
You said it declined for a decade. You said it declined for 10 years. It did not. It declined for 8. This is simple, and you still can't grasp it.
Your hole gets deeper and deeper, every time you post.
"All-time low?" No.
"Trending down for a decade?" No.
"Zero sunspots for many months?" No.
You're still 0 for 3, big guy!
Now let's get to the next thing: you keep writing the word "cycle." Why do you think that is? What is a solar cycle? Could it be that the sun goes into a multi-year cycle, where sunspots grow more frequent, then less frequent, then more frequent again?
Yes.
A deep minimum of the solar cycle has an inverse... which would be the deep maximum, which we experienced between 2000-2001, based on NOAA data.
It's a naturally occurring cycle, and your hyperbolic screeching about it proves you have no idea what you're talking about.
Thank you agreeing with me that sunspot activity has been trending downward over the past 10 years.
theBS has decided now to make up stuff.
He said that I said: " declined for a decade"
When I actually said: "sun spots have been trending down for a decade "
Perhaps in your crazy world if for the past 8 years have been year to year declines and the past 8 years are lower than the first 2 years does not equal "downward trend".
Perhaps you live in your own crazy world bubble.
But here in the common sense world that would be "sun spots have been trending down for a decade ".
Perhaps you struggle with the word "trending".
No, they did not follow a direct trend downward for 10 years.
The trend line increased for the first two years, then declined.
The number of sunspots have been trending down since 2000.
In either rate, you still don't understand what your own source is telling you, that it's part of a natural cycle.
LOL, you just don't get it!
Hmmm. I wonder what jfnance32's definition of "all-time low" is? "All-time" is apparently "the space age." LOL!
I wonder if he thinks 0.5 is less than 0. LOL!
ksand99 is making up stuff.
I did not say "direct trend downward".
I said "sun spots have been trending down for a decade "
Well, Nance has never been very good with language or math, so I'll try to put this into context.
He brought up sunspots as a challenge argument to "global warming." I guess sunspots have some sort of correlation, at least to Nance. (He's yet to substantiate WHY the number of sunspots matter.)
So I'll accept that sunspots have an effect. I'll accept that his argument is that a downward overall trend in sunspots disproves global warming. I don't subscribe to this yahoo idea, but for the time being, I'll accept it.
He seems to be very concerned that a graph of sunspots from 2000-2008 would be sloping down. That's good news for him.
Unfortunately for him, if you graph from January of 1754 (0) to November of 2008 (4.1), the number have INCREASED. In fact, it's grown exponentially.
Without context, this is an absurd and meaningless argument. Not a surprise such an argument originates with Nance.
What he also fails to understand, which I've tried to explain yet he seems willingly unable to grasp, is that this is a part of the solar cycle. There's more than 250 years of data at the NOAA site I linked. The solar cycle is very obvious and apparent to anyone with the powers of observation of a toddler.
For Nance to be concerned about the lack of sunspots would be akin to worrying about the sun disappearing out of the sky. And we would all be worried by Nance's hysteria, if we weren't aware that the Earth would spin it's way around and tomorrow morning we'll have light again.
It's a cycle. Like the solar cycle. And Nance is afraid of it. I guess ignorance isn't bliss, then, Nance?
And no, the trend line did not directly dive for the past decade. It leapt up for a bit, then declined.
And no, 0.5 is still not the all-time low.
Nor is it even a monthly low.
And no, there have not been "many months this year" with "zero sunspots." There have been NO months this year with zero sunspots.
Nance fails even a rudimentary fact check.
Thanks for agreeing with me that it was a downward trend and that you were lying about the facts about it.
LOL, it was jfnance32 who failed the fact check. Hard.
He's ignoring all that.
It must be nice to live in a world where you can call someone a liar when you've been proven wrong so many times on one page.
Facts don't lie, jfnance32.
Fact prove you wrong.
You lied about it being an all-time low.
You lied about it being only a trend downward these past ten years.
You lied about there being many months of zero sunspots.
3 strikes, you're out!!!
You all are a constant source of amusement for me. Thanks for the smiles. Keep it up.
Wow, what fun it is to read the comical comments this morning. <grin>