Global Warming killed humans.

Holy Cow !!!!

Neanderthals disappeared from Earth more than 20,000 years ago, but figuring out why continues to challenge anthropologists. One team of scientists, however, now says they have evidence to back climate change as the main culprit.

The Iberian Peninsula, better known as present-day Spain and Portugal, was one of the last Neanderthal refuges. Many scientists have thought that out-hunting by Homo sapiens and interbreeding with them brought Neanderthals to their demise, but climate change has also been proposed.

Francisco Jiménez-Espejo, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Granada in Spain, says a lack of evidence has left climate change weakly supported—until now. “We put data behind the theory,” he said, filling in a large gap in European climate records when Neanderthals faded out of existence.

The scientists’ study is detailed in a recent issue of Quaternary Science Reviews.

Cold spell

To figure out the temperature, water supply, and windiness of Iberia from 20,000 to 40,000 years ago, the scientists looked at sediments on the ocean floor off Spain and Portugal. Because wind or water erode rocky minerals differently, the pebbles and fragments wash into the sea in different ratios, creating a steady track record of land conditions at the bottom of the ocean.

The scientists also focused on barite, a compound gathered by marine animals. The more barite in sediment, the more lively the oceans were at the time. “When we found big drops in marine productivity, we knew there were big changes in climatic condition in Iberia,” Jiménez-Espejo says.

The study reveals three rough climatic periods for Neanderthals, with the last and harshest period starting about 26,000 years ago. “The last event was very, very cold and dry,” Jiménez-Espejo says, “and other than 250,000 years ago, such a harsh climate was never reached before.”

Other reasons

But is climate change the only reason Neanderthals died out?

Full Story.

The Story of Two Houses

Thanks triple6!!!

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern “snow belt,” either. It’s in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house
holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON’T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the WashingtonPost. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it’s truly “an inconvenient truth.”

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Video is available in the pod viewer. I have a companion ppt. sent to me by a Canadian scientist who has asked to remain nameless. I’ll be putting all of this on the homepage as soon as my webmaster can get the video and ppt. embedded.

Story Here @ brentroos.com

Man-made global warming is a hoax. It is a theory based upon some scientific evidence, which conveniently leaves out a lot of scientific data, which would otherwise, disprove it’s credibility.

What you are about to watch is an excellent documentary, aired on UK TV Channel 4, which disproves the hysteria behind the theory of man-made global warming. It uses scientific data to show that climate change is a natural occurrence, which is mainly caused by the Sun. Of course, other factors are involved, but it all comes back to the Sun.

You might call this film man-made global warming anti-propaganda, which grossly discredits Al Gore’s (the world’s leading scientist, inventor of the Internet, and self-proclaimed savior of the world) film, An Inconvenient Truth, which makes the claim that the Earth’s climate is changing on the basis that man’s industrialization has lead to higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In this documentary, scientific data shows that rises in CO2 are a result of climate change, not the other way around (CO2 causes climate change). In other words, the Sun warms and cools the planet, and the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are a result of this change, in reaction to the ocean’s and the atmosphere’s temperatures –heated by the Sun of course.

The documentary features Richard Lizden, a renowned and credible scientist, one of the world’s foremost experts on Meteorology, and man-made global warming skeptic, as well as many other respected scientists in the field.

This is one of the most intelligent arguments that I have seen thus far. All of it makes sense, and is supported by scientific evidence. Much of the hysteria created by the hoax known as man-made global warming has such a lack of real scientific evidence that it is laughable.

The extent of the sheer absurdity and hysteria that people like Al Gore (the world’s leading scientist, inventor of the Internet, and self-proclaimed savior of the world) have created has reached to the outer edges of the extreme. And to sustain itself [the hysteria] has must go further and further to the extreme to remain of vital interest. Money and politics are at the center of this scam and it is a story which the mainstream press gobbles up like a Thanksgiving feast, because everyone knows that doom and gloom sells, especially to those without the capacity to question it.

What the environmentalist extremists do not want you to know, is that there is real scientific data which disproves their theory. There is also evidence that there is a true political agenda behind this; one which is sponsored by those who see communism as a good idea.

This is an excellent and thought provoking documentary which gives great support in disproving the [un]scientific theory of man-made global warming/cooling/climate change/pick your buzzword.

What Al Gore Really Wants

A great piece on the Algore and his crowds agenda for globalization and primitivism.  Or you could just stop reading now and pretend that the Global Warming scare is scientific fact. 

RealClearPolitics – Articles – What Al Gore Really Wants

In New York’s Newsday, Ellis Hennican describes a three-on-three debate held last week in New York City, in which opponents of the global warming hysteria–including that meddling novelist Michael Crichton, along with distinguished British scientist Phillip Stott and MIT’s Richard Lindzen–took on some of the scare’s defenders. The interesting things about this debate is that the organizers polled the audience before and after the event. The result? The number of people who thought that global warming is a “crisis” dropped from 57% to 42%.That’s why folks like Al Gore have to keep claiming that there is an iron-clad “consensus” on global warming and that the debate is “over”–because the moment the debate on the scientific merits of global warming is actually allowed to begin, the alarmists start to lose.

Al Gore is trying to dragoon science in an attempt to win over converts who don’t share his sense of personal spiritual crisis and don’t find his anti-industrial moral vision compelling. But the moment people see through his charade–and realize that what Gore is really pushing is a not a scientific campaign against “pollution” but a quasi-religious crusade against industrial civilization–his campaign will collapse.

The virus of Al Gore on the internet.

It’s amazing to me the way the internet loops in on itself sometimes. Maybe I’m just too new at this stuff to not be amazed.

But last night we linked to Hot Air’s post “Scientists to Goracle”.   Which is a very funny post, BTW.   Allahpundit is my diarist of the month.

So this morning, The New York Times posted this piece, which linked to “House of Chin” through their co-opted Sphere service.

And by this afternoon, Newsbusters has linked to the New York Times piece in this post.

Anyway, hat’s off to Hot Air and Allahpundit, as usual.

Global Warming Expeditition to North Pole cancelled due to Cold-Frostbite

I’d say something very (frost)biting about the irony here. But I’m simply laughing too hard to type.

Frostbite Ends Bancroft-Arnesen Trek

A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

‘Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey,’ said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.

On Monday, the pair was at Canada’s Ward Hunt Island, awaiting a plane to take them to Resolute, Canada, where they were to return to Minneapolis later this week.

Bancroft, 51, became the first woman to cross the North Pole on a 1986 expedition. She and Arnesen, 53, of Oslo, Norway, were the first women to ski across Antarctica in 2001.

But the latest trek got off to a bad start. The day they set off from Ward Hunt Island, a plane landing near the women hit their gear, punching a hole in Bancroft’s sled and damaging one of Arnesen’s snowshoes.

They repaired the snowshoe with binding from a ski, but Atwood said the patch job created pressure on Arnesen’s left foot, which led to blisters that then turned into frostbite.

Then there was the cold _ quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.

‘My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold,’ Atwood said.

She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen’s foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze.

The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft’s 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.

Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.

‘They were experiencing temperatures that weren’t expected with global warming,’ Atwood said. ‘But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability.’

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Scientists to Goracle: Relax

Allahpundit over at Hot Air is quickly becoming my favorite diarist.
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Scientists to Goracle: Relax

It’s a breezy read — although if we don’t reduce our carbon emissions soon, in a few decades that breeze could become a hurricane.

It’s not so much that he’s wrong, they say, as that he’s, well, hysterical.

Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent…

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

You don’t win Oscars with 23-inch waves, buddy. Other scientists, meanwhile, disagree: it’s not that he’s hysterical, it’s that he’s really hysterical. And by “really hysterical” I mean “totally wrong.”

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

Biofuels boom raises tough questions

Biofuels boom raises tough questions – Yahoo! News

NEW YORK – America is drunk on ethanol. Farmers in the Midwest are sending billions of bushels of corn to refineries that turn it into billions of gallons of fuel. Automakers in Detroit have already built millions of cars, trucks and SUVs that can run on it, and are committed to making millions more. In Washington, politicians have approved generous subsidies for companies that make ethanol.

And just this week,

President Bush arranged with Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva for their countries to share ethanol production technology.

Even alternative fuel aficionados are surprised at the nation’s sudden enthusiasm for grain alcohol.

“It’s coming on dramatically; more rapidly than anyone had expected,” said Nathanael Greene, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

You’d think that would be good news, but it actually worries a lot of people.

The problem is, ethanol really isn’t ready for prime time. The only economical way to make ethanol right now is with corn, which means the burgeoning industry is literally eating America’s lunch, not to mention its breakfast and dinner. And though ethanol from corn may have some minor benefits with regard to energy independence, most analysts conclude its environmental benefits are questionable at best.

Proponents acknowledge the drawbacks of corn-based ethanol, but they believe it can help wean America off imported oil the way methadone helps a junkie kick heroin. It may not be ideal, but ethanol could help the country make the necessary and difficult transition to an environmentally and economically sustainable future.

There are many questions about ethanol’s place in America’s energy future. Some are easily answered; others, not so much.

WHAT IS ETHANOL?

Ethanol is moonshine. Hooch. Rotgut. White lightning. That explains why the last time Americans produced it in any appreciable amount was during Prohibition. Today, just like back then, virtually all the ethanol produced in the United States comes from corn that is fermented and then distilled to produce pure grain alcohol.

WILL MY CAR RUN ON IT?

Any car will burn gasoline mixed with a small amount of ethanol. But cars must be equipped with special equipment to burn fuel that is more than about 10 percent ethanol. All three of the major American automakers are already producing flex-fuel cars that can run on either gasoline or E85, a mix of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Thanks to incentives from the federal government, they have committed to having half the cars they produce run on either E85 or biodiesel by 2012.

HOW FAST IS ETHANOL PRODUCTION GROWING?

About as fast as farmers can grow the corn to make it. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group, ethanol production has doubled in the past three years, reaching nearly 5 billion gallons in 2006. With 113 ethanol plants currently operating and 78 more under construction, the country’s ethanol output is expected to double again in less than two years.

IS ETHANOL BETTER THAN GASOLINE?

For all the environmental and economic troubles it causes, gasoline turns out to be a remarkably efficient automobile fuel. The energy required to pump crude out of the ground, refine it and transport it from oil well to gas tank is about 6 percent of the energy in the gasoline itself.

Ethanol is much less efficient, especially when it is made from corn. Just growing corn requires expending energy — plowing, planting, fertilizing and harvesting all require machinery that burns fossil fuel. Modern agriculture relies on large amounts of fertilizer and pesticides, both of which are produced by methods that consume fossil fuels. Then there’s the cost of transporting the corn to an ethanol plant, where the fermentation and distillation processes consume yet more energy. Finally, there’s the cost of transporting the fuel to filling stations. And because ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline, it can’t be pumped through relatively efficient pipelines, but must be transported by rail or tanker truck.

In the end, even the most generous analysts estimate that it takes the energy equivalent of three gallons of ethanol to make four gallons of the stuff. Some even argue that it takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than you get out of it, but most agricultural economists think that’s a stretch.

BUT AREN’T THERE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS TO ETHANOL?

If you make ethanol from corn, the environmental benefits are limited. When you consider the greenhouse gases that are released in the growing and refining process, corn-based ethanol is only slightly better with regard to global warming than gasoline. Growing corn also requires the use of pesticides and fertilizers that cause soil and water pollution.

The environmental benefit of corn-based ethanol is felt mostly around the tailpipe. When blended into gasoline in small amounts, ethanol causes the fuel to generate less smog-producing carbon monoxide. That has made it popular in smoggy cities like Los Angeles.

WHAT ABOUT ETHANOL’S ECONOMIC BENEFITS?

Making ethanol is so profitable, thanks to government subsidies and continued high oil prices, that plants are proliferating throughout the Corn Belt. Iowa, the nation’s top corn-producing state, is projected to have so many ethanol plants by 2008 it could easily find itself importing corn in order to feed them.

But that depends on the Invisible Hand. Making ethanol is profitable when oil is costly and corn is cheap. And the 51 cent-a-gallon federal subsidy doesn’t hurt. But oil prices are off from last year’s peaks and corn has doubled in price over the past year, from about $2 to $4 a bushel, thanks mostly to demand from ethanol producers.

High corn prices are causing social unrest in Mexico, where the government has tried to mollify angry consumers by slapping price controls on tortillas. Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, predicts food riots in other major corn-importing countries if something isn’t done.

U.S. consumers will soon feel the effects of high corn prices as well, if they haven’t already, because virtually everything Americans put in their mouths starts as corn. There’s corn flakes, corn chips, corn nuts, and hundreds of other processed foods that don’t even have the word corn in them. There’s corn in the occasional pint of beer and shot of whisky. And don’t forget high fructose corn syrup, a sweetener that is added to soft drinks, baked goods, candy and a lot of things that aren’t even sweet.

Some freaks even eat it off the cob.

It’s true that animals eat more than half of the corn produced in America; guess who eats them? On Friday the Agriculture Department announced that beef, pork and chicken will soon cost consumers more thanks to the demand of ethanol for corn.

It’s also true that there’s a difference between edible sweet corn and the feed corn that’s used for ethanol production. But because farmers try to grow the most profitable crop they can, higher prices for feed corn tend to discourage the production of sweet corn. That decreases its supply, driving the price of sweet corn up, too.

In fact, many agricultural economists believe rising demand for feed corn has squeezed the supply — and boosted the price — of not just sweet corn but also wheat, soybeans and several other crops.

America’s appetite for corn is enormous. But Americans consume so much gasoline that all the corn in the world couldn’t make enough ethanol to slake the nation’s lust for transportation fuels. Last year ethanol production used 12 percent of the U.S. corn harvest, but it replaced only 2.8 percent of the nation’s gasoline consumption.

“If we were to adopt automobile fuel efficiency standards to increase efficiency by 20 percent, that would contribute as much as converting the entire U.S. grain harvest into ethanol,” Brown said.

ISN’T THERE A BETTER RENEWABLE FUEL SUBSTITUTE FOR GASOLINE?

Most experts think it will take an array of renewable energy technologies to replace fossil fuels. Ethanol’s main drawbacks come not from the nature of the fuel itself, but from the fact that it is made using a critical component of the world’s food supply. Ethanol would be more beneficial both environmentally and economically if scientists could figure out how to make it from a nonfood plant that could be grown without the need for fertilizers, pesticides and other inputs. Researchers are currently working on methods to do just that, making ethanol from the cellulose in a wide variety of plants, including poplar trees, switchgrass and cornstalks.

But plant cellulose is more difficult to break down than the starch in corn kernels. That’s why people eat corn instead of grass. Plus it tastes better.

There are also technical hurdles related to separating, digesting and fermenting the cellulose fiber. Though it can be done, making ethanol from cellulose-rich material costs at least twice as much as making it from corn.

HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE BEFORE CELLULOSIC ETHANOL IS COMPETITIVE WITH CORN ETHANOL AND GASOLINE?

Some experts estimate that it will take 10 to 15 years before cellulosic ethanol becomes competitive. But Mitch Mandich, CEO of Range Fuels, thinks it will be a lot sooner than that. The Colorado-based company has started building a cellulosic ethanol plant in Georgia that converts wood chips and other waste left behind by the forest products industry. Another company, Iogen Corp., has been producing cellulosic ethanol from wheat, oat and barley straw for several years at a demonstration plant in Ottawa, Canada.

HOW MUCH MORE EFFICIENT WOULD CELLULOSIC ETHANOL BE COMPARED TO CORN ETHANOL?

Studies suggest that cellulosic ethanol could yield at least four to six times the energy expended to produce it. It would also produce less greenhouse gas emissions than corn-based ethanol because much of the energy needed to refine it could come not from fossil fuels, but from burning other chemical components of the very same plants that contained the cellulose.

HOW MUCH GASOLINE COULD CELLULOSIC ETHANOL REPLACE?

The U.S.

Department of Energy estimates that the United States could produce more than a billion tons of cellulosic material annually for ethanol production, from switchgrass grown on marginal agricultural lands to wood chips and other waste produced by the timber industry. In theory, that material could produce enough ethanol to substitute for about 30 percent of the country’s oil consumption.

A University of Tennessee study released in November reached similar conclusions. As much as 100 million acres of land would have to be dedicated to energy crops in order to reach the goal of substituting renewable biofuels for 25 percent of the nation’s fuel consumption by 2025, the report estimated. That would be a significant fraction of the nation’s 800 million acres of cultivable land, the study’s authors said, but not enough to cause disruptions in agricultural markets.

“There really aren’t any losers,” said University of Tennessee agricultural economist Burton English.

REALLY? NO LOSERS AT ALL?

There might be losers. Simple economics dictates that if farmers find it more profitable to grow switchgrass rather than corn, soy or cotton, the price of those commodities is bound to rise in response to falling supply.

“You can produce a lot of ethanol from cellulose without competing with food,” said Wallace Tyner, an agricultural economist at Purdue University. “But if you want to get half your fuel supply from it you will compete with food agriculture.”

There may also be ecological impacts. The government currently pays farmers not to farm about 35 million acres of conservation land, mostly in the Midwest. Those fallow tracts provide valuable habitat for wildlife, especially birds. Though switchgrass is a good home for most birds, if it became profitable to grow it or another energy crop on conservation land some species could decline.

WILL ETHANOL SOLVE ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS?

Ethanol is certainly a valuable tool in our efforts to address the economic and environmental problems associated with fossil fuels. But even the most optimistic projections suggest it can only replace a fraction of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline that Americans consume every year. It will take a mix of technologies to achieve energy independence and reduce the country’s production of greenhouse gases.

“I think we’re in a very interesting era. We are recognizing a problem and we are finding lots of potential solutions,” said David Tilman, an ecologist at the University of Minnesota.

But if we’re serious about achieving energy independence and mitigating global warming, Tilman and other experts said, one of those solutions must be energy conservation.

That means doubling the fuel economy of our automobiles, expanding mass transit and decreasing the amount of energy it takes to light, heat and cool our buildings. Without such measures, ethanol and other innovations will make little more than a dent in the nation’s fossil fuel consumption.

News::Snow Reprieve to be Short-Lived in Upstate New York

Maybe Senator Clinton can regail us with her global warming horror stories while, up in New York, Bill can get some illegal aliens to shovel the driveway!

News::Snow Reprieve to be Short-Lived in Upstate New York
Snow Reprieve to be Short-Lived in Upstate New York
REDFIELD, N.Y. – The reprieve isn’t going to last long for the folks in Oswego County, New York. While the snow finally tapered off today, a lot more is on the way.

The region already has plenty. One town has an unofficial total of just over 12 feet, thanks to a week’s worth of storms. The National Weather Service is checking that out, and if it’s true, it’ll set a new record for New York state.

Forecasters already have a winter storm watch in effect through late Wednesday. It could bring another six to 12 inches of snow.

But the folks in Oswego County mostly shrug. They usually average more than 22 feet of snow each winter. And while it’s generally more spread out, the local economy thrives on snowmobilers and cross-country skiers.

Upstate N.Y. braces for more snow

It’s That Damn Global Warming!

Upstate N.Y. braces for more snow

Brief reprieve ends; snow measures more than 100 inches in some hamlets

Heather Bragman / AP Shoveling snow this week in upstate New York, including this scene Thursday in the town of Pulaski, is no easy task. Lake effect snow has buried the area under as much as three inches of snow an hour. View related photos

getCSS(“3088867”) NBC VIDEO

 

MEXICO, N.Y. – Ray DeLong took advantage of a break from the snow to use a blower to forge a path to his driveway as two contractors pushed streams of snow from the roof of his home.

The brief reprieve Friday ended early Saturday as snow fell at a rate of 2 to 3 inches per hour, further burying a region already tested by nearly record snowfalls.

“Have to move fast. Want to at least get it off my roof,” DeLong said, just hours before more flakes began to fall.

 

More than a week of bitter cold and slippery roads have contributed to at least 20 deaths across the northern quarter of the nation — five in Ohio, four in Illinois, four in Indiana, two in Kentucky, two in Michigan, and one each in Wisconsin, New York and Maryland, authorities said. No deaths were reported in Oswego County, where Mexico is located, however.

By 9 p.m. Friday a heavy lake effect band started to intensify over the county, said Tony Ansuini, a meteorologist for the National Weather Service in Buffalo.

Officials expected up to 14 inches of snow overnight, a trend that would push the seven day total beyond 100 inches and continue through the weekend.