Updated date:

Extreme Weather from the Past


Jack is a volunteer at the CCNY Archives. Before retiring, he worked at IBM for over 28 years. His articles have over 120,000 views.



Are you a climate change believer? Do you think our weather in recent years are extreme? Do you buy into the notion that we humans are responsible for most of these events? You are in for a surprise. Extreme weather for the last 300 years. Long before the theory of AGW and Al Gore...

- Mar. 2017

What is the main driver of our weather?

Down through the ages, man have always had to deal with extreme weather. It is a natural phenomenon. We had volcanos, earthquakes, tsunami and meteorites...all part of the daily challenges around the globe. In recent years, last 25 years, we have a new theory. The AGW theory claims man and the use of fossil fuels has contributed greatly to the changing weather and climate. Is that true? An examination of the past 300 years of recorded weather in the US may shed some light on this topic. Thanks to the archives of the Old Farmer's Almanac.


© 2017 Jack Lee


Doc Snow from Camden, South Carolina on June 22, 2018:

"Doc, if global warming leads to the canceling of the next ice age...wouldn’t that be a good thing?"

Of course. But to enjoy the benefit, we have first to survive the interim. I'm optimistic that we'll survive, but the biosphere in general may well be seriously impoverished, and ditto for human culture.

"Doc. Don't you mean averted?"

Well, one definition of "avoid" is:

"v. 1. keep away from or stop oneself from doing (something)..."

So I think "avoided" is fine. Arguably, "averted" is more elegant, though.

Ivan Hernandez on June 20, 2018:

Doc. Don't you mean averted? And Jack, No, Ice ages are not a good thing, especially 45 degrees either side of the polar regions. At least Humans survived the last ice age, but will we survive climate change? Probably about 50% of the human population will survive the next 50 years if we pass the critical 2.0-degree Celsius point. That's 8.2 billion people. Half will die. The other 60% will suffer climate-related PTSD or go completely insane! Only the strongest will survive.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 20, 2018:

Doc, if global warming leads to the canceling of the next ice age...wouldn’t that be a good thing?

Doc Snow from Camden, South Carolina on June 20, 2018:

A couple of comments on Eric's 'prognostication' of future temperature, which reads as follows:

"Over a longer time period, the climate will shift back to an ice age after warming to 9 degrees hotter than average within 20,000 years."

First, we can't know how warm Earth will get as a result of greenhouse warming, because we can't tell yet how effective carbon mitigation efforts will be. Granted, things could be a whole lot more encouraging on that score than they are, but it is still possible that we'll avoid 2 C warming, which would be 3.6 F. (I'm assuming from the '9 degrees' part that Eric is talking Fahrenheit.)

Second, unless we devise a way to actively draw down CO2 from the atmosphere, it'll be a whole lot longer than 20,000 years before we are ready for another ice age. That's because it will take longer than that for the complete extinction of the 'carbon slug' we've already injected into the atmosphere. See this article on the topic:


The time scale is more like 100,000 years. Some researchers believe that the next ice age is already 'avoided' now, based on the relative climate forcings involved--though I don't think this is certain.

Doc Snow from Camden, South Carolina on June 20, 2018:

Eric, yes, of course there can be a danger to shipping as you describe. However, damage will be limited, and especially so with modern communications methods, which allow ships to avoid storms (for the most part). But that is not the sort of damage that we are most focused on, in general.

As for Hurricane Joaquin, you misstated things a bit. Yes, the sinking of El Faro is a good example of the sort of thing that you mentioned, showing that while ships often *can* avoid hurricanes in theory, they don't always manage to do so in practice. (I can also think of at least one shipwreck due to Superstorm Sandy, as well--in fact, I wrote about it: https://hubpages.com/education/Sandy-Once-In-A-Gen...

But the mis-statement is this: "the storm proved fatal for millions of people along the Carolinas." Luckily not; while millions were affected in one way or another--the state of South Carolina is still working on replacing some of the destroyed homes, for example; a new tranche of funding affording grants to help rebuild was just announced a couple of months back--the death toll was only 19. (Thank goodness! "Millions" would have gone a long way toward total depopulation of the region.)

Ivan Hernandez on June 19, 2018:

A recent study by scientists show that hurricanes have slightly decreased in speed over the last 50 years, Meaning more extreme rainfall events like Harvey. Jack, you're right. The amount of damages is not an indicator of the severity of these storms. Take Hurricane Patricia, for example. She strengthened into a monster 215 mph storm with a central pressure of 872 millibars. Luckily, she did so while open water. Then, she made landfall in a sparsely populated location in Southwestern Mexico as a Category 4 hurricane. This hurricane produced millions of dollars in damage. However, Doc's case is that if you have a Category 5 hurricane that never makes landfall, then there's no damage, right? Wrong!! If a ship happens to pass underneath one of those monster hurricanes, then there can be deaths reported if the captain doesn't steer the ship away from the storm.

Take Hurricane Joaquin, for example. It made landfall in the Bahamas, flooded South Carolina with 30 inches of rain, and sunk El Faro. All 33 crew members died when the storm unexpectedly strengthened from a Tropical Storm to a Category 4 hurricane. Even though the storm did millions in damage before skirting Bermuda as a Category 2, the storm proved fatal for millions of people along the Carolinas.

Just took a page from your textbook, Jack. Over a longer time period, the climate will shift back to an ice age after warming to 9 degrees hotter than average within 20,000 years.

Doc Snow from Camden, South Carolina on June 18, 2018:

"...the $ amount of damages is not an indicator of the severity of these storms."

Well, it's certainly not the *sole* indicator of the severity of a storm; there can be, for instance, tremendously powerful storms that never even make landfall. And it's also true that the more vulnerable we make ourselves, the worse the result is apt to be for us.

However, it's also true that we're seeing objectively measurable changes in storms happening, even though it's going to be quite a while before the data is sufficient for a statistically robust assessment. Theory leads us to expect such an effect and on early empirical results support our expectations; if what we expect does happen, it's going to be costly.

Ivan Hernandez on June 17, 2018:

That's true.Take Hurricane Irene, for Example. Irene caused more than $20 billion dollars in damages and it was because of inland flooding.

Hurricane/Superstorm Sandy caused $80 billion in damages because of coastal flooding from the storm and her wide size, producing waves as much as 100 feet near the East Coast. The subways flooded and the FDR Tunnel was submerged underwater. Harvey was a major hurricane that, unfortunately, struck a major population center as a slow-moving tropical storm. Houston saw nearly 43 inches of rain in 7 days.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 16, 2018:

However, there are more people living near our coast lines and the $ amount of damages is not an indicator of the severity of these storms.

Ivan Hernandez on June 16, 2018:

I'd agree with Doc on that one. The US did lose over $300 billion in 2017 with 15 disasters.

Doc Snow from Camden, South Carolina on June 14, 2018:

Well, let me just register disagreement with the last couple of posts.

First, I must question the assertion that the cost of staying in Paris was $1 trillion a year; there is nothing in the agreement that requires that kind of payment, and pledges made toward things such as the UNFCC climate fund amounted to a couple of billion--chump change in the scale of US spending. If you are talking about cost the the economy, the most pessimistic result I am aware of is the Heritage Foundation. The worst they could say is that staying in the pact would cost the US economy $2.5 trillion *by 2035*--which would imply a cost of $147 billion a year. Now, that's not good news, to be sure, but it's also a long way from $1 trillion. So I have to ask if there is any actual evidence out there for such a large number? I'm very skeptical about the claim, to be candid.

Further, I think that, give the fact that renewable energy is *already* undercutting coal on price, in the US, without subsidies, it's clear that the Heritage Foundation study's assumptions were wildly unrealistic.


Second, it is not true that China 'has to pay nothing.' China pledged to transform her energy economy by 2030, and she is actively and visibly doing so today. China is by far the largest investor in renewable energy and in electric vehicle technology in the world today. To put some numerical meat on that assertion, check the following story from the NYT:


To summarize, China plans to spend $120 billion a year between now and the end of 2020 on renewable energy. Why? Well, besides being part of their Paris plan, they expect this to: "create more than 13 million jobs in the renewable energy sector by 2020, curb the growth of greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming and reduce the amount of soot that in recent days has blanketed Beijing and other Chinese cities in a noxious cloud of smog." Not mentioned is the fact that it will mean that the likelihood of having to import Australian coal again will keep dropping, and, coupled with their emphasis on electric buses and cars--Shenzen, for instance, has an all-electric bus fleet of 16,000 units or so, bigger than the 5 biggest North American transit fleets combined--will also mean that they will be able to cut and eventually eliminate oil imports, giving them energy security, too.

"Projections! Promises!" some may scoff. But already in 2015, China was spending over $100 billion, more than twice the amount spent by Obama's US on clean energy (~$44 billion).


Finally, yes, there is good, solid empirical evidence that some forms of extreme weather are indeed getting worse. Heatwaves are one; another is extreme rainfall events (and the data is most clear about this in the case of North America.) Hurricanes such as Harvey are an example, but so are 'rain bomb' thunderstorms, such as the one that just ruined Ellicott City, MD, for the second time in 2 years. And with such events, we are not talking chump change: in 2017, with Harvey and Maria (as well as Irma), the US lost over $300 billion in damage, for a new record.


Ivan Hernandez on June 13, 2018:

You're right. The climate accord was a waste of paper. Obama shouldn't have even signed up for it. The US had to pay $1 trillion per year for it to be kept alive. I think Trump did the right thing, hoping that the US is in a better place.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 13, 2018:

Recent extreme weather events does not seem too extreme in light of historical facts. I have shown you how some past weather events were just as devastating... we have a short memory.

The US did not sign up to the Paris Accord because it was one sided against the US. we had to pay billions while China pays nothing and being the bigger polluter... the accord was non binding...and voluntary...

Ivan Hernandez on June 13, 2018:

That's True, Jay. We were not there, But how does the recent extreme weather events affect human growth? And Jack. The US Ignored climate change because it doesn't want to produce carbon dioxide anymore. It has found renewable energy. Just thought about that.

Jay C OBrien from Houston, TX USA on July 06, 2017:

Q ...why do we need 1 person?

A We need a minimum number of people to avoid inbreeding and the resultant birth defects.

Q. It is not a question of how many people but what is the meaning and purpose of life? Answer that and you will have solved the mystery of all times.

A. The purpose of life is to love each other. Do no harm to another person. Learn to share and help each other. Do not Condemn unless you wish to be condemned by the same measure. Forgive to be forgiven.

You are correct, the number of people will not matter unless we learn the above.

Q. God did not instruct Adam and Eve to multiply and stop at 100 million. There is no mechanism to set a population to a fix number except in science fiction. Remember Soylent Green - the movie?

A. Nature drives us to procreate, that is fine, but we are not animals. We should control ourselves and avoid: war, famine and disease as our control mechanisms. The above proposal of birth control is to avoid the situation of Soylent Green.

P.S. We do not know what God told Adam because we were not there.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 06, 2017:

That is a "dumb" question to ask. What do you mean why do we need more than ...? In that case, why do we need 1 person?

It is not a question of how many people but what is the meaning and purpose of life? Answer that and you will have solved the mystery of all times.

God did not instruct Adam and Eve to multiply and stop at 100 million. There is no mechanism to set a population to a fix number except in science fiction. Remember Soylent Green - the movie?

Jay C OBrien from Houston, TX USA on July 06, 2017:

Yes, we have resource management problems and probably always will. Fewer people may simplify logistical problems. Follow the examples of Europe and Japan.

Again, why do we need more that 100 million people in the world?

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 06, 2017:

Europe is dying slowly. When the birth rate falls below the death rate, the society is in decline.

You have no solution until you answer the question "who decides?" In nazi Germany, under Hitler, they exterminated Jews...

We don't have a population crisis.

We have a resource management problem.

There are plenty of food and energy and land and space...

We don't have the infrastructure to distribute and move resources to where people are concentrated...

I prefer a democracy where people vote for their government and policies...

Jay C OBrien from Houston, TX USA on July 06, 2017:

So population control IS working in Europe!

My suggestion is simple, start thinking of the Minimum number of people needed in the world. How much is that? 100 million? 10 million? Can you give any rational reason we need more that 100 million people in the world?

Look at the alternative, Famine, poverty and war. Why not control ourselves rather than rut like animals?

Ivan Hernandez on July 05, 2017:

OK, I'll check out the old farmer's almanac myself.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 05, 2017:

Jay, that is a little naive. No person will volunteer to reduce their number of children. In Europe and Japan, they are experiencing a declining population where their country 's long term survival is in question. I remember in the 1970s, over population was a big discussion. As it turned out, there was no problem as we found better and more efficient way of food production. The bottom line, we haved plenty of energy, plenty pf raw materials and we have ingenuity to invent and improve...

Jay C OBrien from Houston, TX USA on July 05, 2017:

Good questions Jack. I think education is the key. Once people know what we are doing to the environment they would voluntarily have fewer children or none at all. Who decides... as always... the woman.



Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 05, 2017:

Jay, assuming what you say is true, what do you consider a good limit on global population and who gets to decide?

Jay C OBrien from Houston, TX USA on July 05, 2017:

Jack Lee, I do not watch Bill Nyc, but I agree we need to reduce population to reduce our effects on the Environment (I did not say climate change, but environment).

Climate change is due in large part to the Malkovich cycles.

The Bible is better explained by a misidentification of a person/ pilot as God. Who wants a God who goes around killing people or commanding genocide? See the Book of Joshua.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 05, 2017:

Erick, I think you are missing the point. The Old Farmers Almanac has a good track record in predicting weather. They have a secret formula that has worked for them over the years. They are not 100 percent but are better at predicting long range forecast than most including our NOAA which has over estimated hurricanes for the past several years.

The point of my article is that given the past 300 years of extreme weather, we cannot say the past 25 years is better or worse. It is within the statistical variation of natural climate change.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 05, 2017:

Jay, that is far out! I think you been watching the Science Guy, Bill Nye too much. He too think the way to deal with climate change is to have a smaller population.

That is not what God instructed?... "Be fruitful and multiply..."

The problem with AGW is the focus on Man and his influence on the environment. Even though we have accomplished much, we are very small compared to the size of the earth. We have plenty of resorces to last a long long time and we are not even close to full population.

Ivan Hernandez on July 05, 2017:

While Technology has improved since the 1890s and has certainly improved since the 1940s, I now think that the weather has grown steady since the 1700s. Does the old farmer's almanac predict hurricanes that'll strike this year?

Jay C OBrien from Houston, TX USA on July 05, 2017:

Theory: Mt. Toba killed so many people reproduction was by Incest. That is why we have so many genetic defects today.

Theory: Mt. Toba destroyed a high-tech civilization (with aircraft). The remnants of that civilization flew around trying to organize people. The piolets and aircraft were misidentified as God/angels to the remaining bands of low-tech survivors. This theory would completely explain ancient religious stories of flying Gods.

Climate change? Yes, according to the Malkovich Cycle. To reduce our effect on the environment we need to practice Birth Control. We need to think of the Least amount of people in the world rather than the most.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 05, 2017:

Erick, just wondering if this information affected your thinking about current extreme weather conditions. Do you think it is worse, about the same or better today than the past 300 years history in the US?

Ivan Hernandez on July 05, 2017:

The Mt Toba theory stated that the population dipped from just over 200,000 to about 2,500 (I think).

Doc Snow from Camden, South Carolina on July 05, 2017:

To be clear, the possible human population bottleneck due to Mt. Toba is proposed to have occurred about 75,000 years ago. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it:


Ivan Hernandez on July 05, 2017:

For your information, Mt. Toba, the Indonesian supervolcano, killed so many people that it caused the world population to plummet below 16,000. Fact.

Doc Snow from Camden, South Carolina on March 25, 2017:

Jack, my mind is open to new evidence... with emphasis on the word "evidence."

"Doc, I am generally against using geo engineering technique to combat climate change... There are unintended consequences when dealing with these global changing events... The cure may be worst than the disease..."


"...the small chance that global warming becomes a deadly issue down the road."

Except that it is already a "deadly issue," having by my rough and unscientific estimate, already killed more than 100,000 people prematurely.

"Mitigating against climate change over a century is better than tackling it now when we are still studying the climate and perfecting the models..."

I know I've said it before, but this cannot be reiterated enough. *There is no time to wait.* The carbon budget is limited, and we have burned through more than half of it already--with emissions still increasing (though less quickly than they used to). Another decade like this and we will have no hope whatever of staying under 2 C warming.

I don't want to submerge you with links, but this is well worth your time. Note that the IEA has a deep history with fossil fuels, and that IRENA was created in part to address a consistent IEA history of underestimating renewable energy deployment. So it's quite remarkable to see both agencies addressing the issue of carbon emissions, and possible pathways to staying under 2 C.


Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on March 24, 2017:

Here is another article -


Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on March 24, 2017:

Here is one paper worth reading -


Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on March 24, 2017:

Doc, I am generally against using geo engineering technique to combat climate change. Not for the reasons cited in your link. There are unintended consequences when dealjng with these global changing events. Who knows what can happen when we blanket the globe with a compound that seems harmless...? The cure may be worst than the disease...

It is good to know that there is a drastic measure that though costly, can be implemented in the small chance that global warming becomes a deadly issue down the road.

I would prefer to take a more measured approach. Mitigating against climate change over a century is better than tackling it now when we are still studying the climate and perfecting the models...

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on March 23, 2017:

Doc, It will take me a while to go through the info you provided. Give me a week or so and I will respond.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on March 23, 2017:

It's always good to keep an open mind... even when you are 100% convinced. haha...

Doc Snow from Camden, South Carolina on March 23, 2017:

Jack, why do I 'need' to "think outside the box?"

The point here is that there are cost-effective ways to deal with our problems here and now. We don't need super-plants or space shields that may or may not exist 50 years from now. We simply have to give up the delusion that fossil fuels are necessary for prosperity and progress.

As to "Cool It," I haven't read it, but I have looked into a number of Bjorn Lomborg's public pronouncements in the past. He's clearly out to lunch on sea level rise.

On other points, he's--well, controversial, to put it mildly. But no-one claims, as far as I can tell, that he has any expertise in climate science.


Returning to the point we were talking about, do you have a response to the analyses that I pointed to?

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on March 23, 2017:

doc, there was a book written a few years ago that address the mitigation issue. It is called "Cool It" you might want to check it out. Also, you need to think outside the box. There is no one solution to this crisis. With all the technologies improvements just tjhe last 50 years, don't you think something will be invented in the next 50 years that will revolutionize our way of dealing with CO2? For example, how about the creation of a "super plant" that will eat up CO2 in large quantities? or building a sky shield shutter above the atomosphere to deflcect solar energy? the possibil;ities are endless.

Doc Snow from Camden, South Carolina on March 23, 2017:

Well, the question of geo-engineering versus mitigation is a huge topic, and I suspect that you really need to read a lot of literature to get a pretty complete picture. However, just with quick references, Robock concluded in a seminal 2009 paper that radiation management would cost "several billion [USD]" yearly, and would have, in addition to its benefits, the following disadvantages:

--produce regional drought

--produce ozone depletion,

--produce less sunlight for solar power

--make skies less blue

--hamper Earth-based optical astronomy

--do nothing to stop ocean acidification

--present many ethical and moral issues

He concludes that the pluses and minuses need to be quantified to inform decision-making.

You can read previous studies in that area he cites, and you can search citations of this paper to read more recent analyses. Here's a link to a PDF:


On the costs of mitigation side, the Stern report, an official effort of the UK govenment, found that transitioning away from a fossil-fuel-based economy to mitigate carbon emissions would cost as much as 1% of global GDP. But since costs of up to 20% of global GDP would be avoided, mitigation should have been an economic no-brainer. Today, some say the economics of mitigation are much better than then, because so much 'green tech' has become more affordable--in fact, by more than an order of magnitude:


On the putative Mars shot, I'd love to see it done, personally. But just as it's much more expensive to maintain your home over the years than to go on a fun vacation, it's much harder to 'climate condition' the world than even to colonize Mars. (Unless you include 'climate conditioning' Mars in colonization costs, and maybe even then, given that as far as we know, Mars has no current ecosystems to preserve.)

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on March 20, 2017:

Doc, I don't think anybody have done the analysis that reducing fossil fuel is the cheapest way to go... there are other methods which the environmentalist disagree...

As far as technology goes, in the next 50 years, we are expected to travel to Mars... and you don't think we can come up with a way to cool the planet? You have too little faith in our ingenuity.

Doc Snow from Camden, South Carolina on March 20, 2017:

Two quick replies, Jack.

1) Yes, the great ice sheets will take a long time to melt completely. However, they do not 'clamp' the temperature of the entire planet, just as you note in your analogy when you say those piles of snow will be there when the temperatures are in the 50s and 60s.

2) Jack, to 'condition' the planet would be to modulate the energy fluxes in and out of the atmosphere. In fact, that's exactly what we are doing now with our greenhouse emissions--in the warming direction, obviously. To cool, we'd have to either decrease GHG concentrations, or decrease incoming sunlight. The latter has been suggested as a possible response, but has numerous drawbacks: vast expense, non-linear responses differentially advantaging various nations and therefore making adoption difficult and highly contentious, failure to address ocean acidification, and the need for indefinite maintainenance of the program (in the face of dangerous very rapid warming in the event of sudden cessation.)

Most people, as in almost everybody who has looked at it, think it would be simpler and cheaper to stop burning fossil fuels.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on March 20, 2017:

Doc, another thought which you inspired me by talking about the next ice age. The average temperature of the earth now is 57.2 degrees F, and during the last ice age was 44.6 degrees F a range of 12 degrees. What if we did what we do in our homes? In the summer we use AC to cool our homes and in the winter we use oil or gas heat to keep a comfortable 68 degrees F. Instead of calling IPCC, why not support International Panel on Climate Control?

Let's treat the earth, our habitat as a closed system. We can keep the earth more closely to what we like and less what the natural cycle of warming and ice ages. There is nothing that will prevent future technologies of improving on warming and cooling on a global scale. Suppose we are able to control it? Wouldn't that be even better? than reducing fossil fuel... ideally, if we can maintain the earth at an even balmy 60 degrees give or take a few degrees either way for all times. Think of all the benefits of increased food production for longer periods for mankind. Less problems with moving glaciers every 100,000 years... food for thought...

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on March 20, 2017:

Doc, perhaps this simple exercise can explain it for you. In my neck of the wood, last week, we received 12 inches of snow in less than 24 hours. In my driveway and in shopping centers, the snow plow pushed all the snow into a high pile. This pile will be there long into Spring when the temperature will be in the 50s and 60s. Why is that? It is the same reason why glaciers will not melt anytime soon... on a much bigger scale. This may be an unscientific explanation but it serves the purpose.

Doc Snow from Camden, South Carolina on March 20, 2017:

No, the El Nino does not account for the record high temps. Otherwise, 2014 & 2015 would not have surpassed the last big Nino in '98. And it's unlikely that we are heading into an Ice Age, though we 'should' be, according to Milankovitch cycles--the GHG forcing is much greater than the solar 'signal.' (There's also the issue of time scales, but let's not get too far into the weeds here.)

And once again, you are arguing purely from incredulity. You advance no actual reason why the temperature projection can't happen--it's just that you *choose* not to believe that it is possible.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on March 18, 2017:

Doc, history is the facts hard to deny. I find most people have short memories. The latest storms always seems to be the worst... The el nino of past few years accounts for the high record temperatures. If you look at the global climate, we are actually heading into a mini ice age. Thst is why the projected rise ala hockey stick is all wet. There is no way the global temperature can rise at that steep curve, no matter how hot the earth get.

Doc Snow from Camden, South Carolina on March 18, 2017:

Interesting, in a "Trivial Pursuit" kind of way, but the fact that extreme weather has always happened tells us nothing. If we want to know something about whether weather extremes are changing in some way reflective of anthropogenic climate change, we really need to look at quantifiable *patterns* of change. Like this, for instance:


The present decade is well-positioned to outdo the last, too.


Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on March 14, 2017:

I agree that man has very little control over our climate. I also agree that we were given dominion over the earth and it is our duty to protect and conserve our environment and the animals. Thanks for checking in.

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on March 14, 2017:

Jack I would love to take you on a hike to the inner gorge of the Grand Canyon. There are spots where a million years settle into one inch. And just below are formations known to be at least two billion. God can make it so. But us kicking natures' ass and changing it to any degree is folly. Even our endangered and extinct creatures come and go - it is true nature. I heard that ten new species in the animal kingdom are found each month. One massive volcano - Pinatubo released more crap than LA could in 100 thousand years.

Such arrogance man has. OTOH my footprint is tiny tiny tiny. Use, reuse and recycle and drive less and wash less.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on March 14, 2017:

I thouht I made it clear. These pages are from the Old Farmer's Almanac 2017 edition.

Jay C OBrien from Houston, TX USA on March 14, 2017:

Very informative. Where did you get the chart? If you look up, "Ice Cores" and weather you can go back about 800,000 years. A graph of air temperature shows a fairly regular cycle of highs and lows. We are in a hot period now. I am waiting for the reversal and the next Ice Age.

Related Articles