Forecast is for more snow in polar regions, less for the rest of us

Feb 22, 2013
A new cli­mate model pre­dicts declines in snow­fall in the US over the next 70 years. Credit: NOAA Geo­phys­i­cal Fluid Dynam­ics Lab­o­ra­tory

A new climate model predicts an increase in snowfall for the Earth's polar regions and highest altitudes, but an overall drop in snowfall for the globe, as carbon dioxide levels rise over the next century.

The decline in snowfall could spell trouble for regions such as the western United States that rely on as a source of fresh water.

The projections are the result of a new climate model developed at the (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) and analyzed by scientists at GFDL and Princeton University. The study was published in the Journal of Climate.

The model indicates that the majority of the planet would experience less snowfall as a result of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric . Observations show that has already increased by 40 percent from values in the mid-19th century, and, given projected trends, could exceed twice those values later this century. In North America, the greatest reductions in snowfall will occur along the northeast coast, in the mountainous west, and in the Pacific Northwest. from Virginia to Maine, as well as coastal Oregon and Washington, will get less than half the amount of snow currently received.

In very cold regions of the globe, however, snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture, leading to increased precipitation in the form of snow. The researchers found that regions in and around the Arctic and Antarctica will get more snow than they now receive.

The highest mountain peaks in the northwestern Himalayas, the Andes and the Yukon region will also receive greater amounts of snowfall after carbon dioxide doubles. This finding clashes with other models which predicted declines in snowfall for these high-altitude regions. However, the new model's prediction is consistent with current snowfall observations in these regions.

The model is an improvement over previous models in that it utilizes greater detail about the world's topography – the mountains, valleys and other features. This new "high-resolution" model is analogous to having a high-definition model of the planet's climate instead of a blurred picture.

Explore further: New system to detect mercury in water systems

More information: The paper, "Controls of Global Snow Under a Changed Climate," was published online by the Journal of Climate Feb. 6.

Related Stories

Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards

Feb 18, 2013

(AP)—With scant snowfall and barren ski slopes in parts of the U.S. Midwest and Northeast the past couple of years, some scientists have pointed to global warming as the culprit.

NASA observations point to 'dry ice' snowfall on Mars

Sep 12, 2012

(Phys.org)—NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter data have given scientists the clearest evidence yet of carbon-dioxide snowfalls on Mars. This reveals the only known example of carbon-dioxide snow falling ...

More ice loss through snowfall on Antarctica

Dec 12, 2012

Stronger snowfall increases future ice discharge from Antarctica. Global warming leads to more precipitation as warmer air holds more moisture – hence earlier research suggested the Antarctic ice sheet ...

Snow could offset global warming in Antarctica

Jul 10, 2012

Increased snowfall in Antarctica could offset the future impact of global warming on the continent, according to research carried out by a French team comprising researchers from the Laboratoire de Glaciologie ...

Recommended for you

'Shocking' underground water loss in US drought

19 hours ago

A major drought across the western United States has sapped underground water resources, posing a greater threat to the water supply than previously understood, scientists said Thursday.

User comments : 201

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

be4r
2.3 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2013
Could this also not counteract any drastic sea level rises due to melting ice caps?
freethinking
2.9 / 5 (28) Feb 22, 2013
This model is opposite of the ones Al Gore used. Rats Global Warming, I mean Man Made Climate Change, is changing these models faster than the weather is changing outside. So when it gets either warmer, colder, wetter, dryer, ocean levels go up, ocean levels go down, NO matter what the sun does (ie. gets dimmer or brighter, less active or more active), the climate here on Earth (but not the rest of the planents) is changed by humans.
Sean_W
2.5 / 5 (24) Feb 22, 2013
Yes and "soon children won't know what snow is."

Given that certain people have said that it is stupid for "deniers" to claim there has been a 16 year pause in planetary warming and it's proof that they are scientifically illiterate...

does this mean that it's stupid and proof of scientific illiteracy for IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri to claim that there has been a 17 year pause in warming (but claiming it is meaningless until it keeps up for 30 or 40 years)?
http://www.theaus...83112134
djr
3.4 / 5 (17) Feb 22, 2013
does this mean that it's stupid and proof of scientific illiteracy for IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri to claim that there has been a 17 year pause in warming (but claiming it is meaningless until it keeps up for 30 or 40 years.

I think that what is stupid - is people not having a solid understanding of the science, and yet always needing to push an agenda on a science site.

Why don't you judge for yourself if it is reasonable to talk about a trend of global warming. Here is the data:

http://data.giss....g.A2.gif

Look at it yourself Sean and Freethinking - how does it look to you?

If you also look at the data on sea ice volume, glaciers, and ocean levels - the trend looks pretty clear to me.
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (15) Feb 22, 2013
Snow is a more or less seasonal form of precipitation, and to say that more snow in certain areas during the winter months, along with less snow in other areas during the winter months is somehow contrary to the concept/process of AGW effects is ludicrous, and displays a supreme lack of understanding of the global climate system.

Furthermore, this in no way refutes the predictions of snowfall pattern changes due to warming --it is a refinement of that prediction.

And it shouldn't even need pointing out that increased snowfall in any given area or areas does Not equate to persistence in that area as ice --generally, it just indicates for increased meltwatyer runoff in the warmer months, much as the Pacific Northwest has experienced in recent years.

@be4r,
It isn't explicitly stated, but can probably be safely assumed, that the amount of increase will be offset by the amount of decrease. Maybe try accessing the publication for more detailed information.

verkle
2.2 / 5 (17) Feb 22, 2013
These "scientific models" will continue to be refined and likely to be severely changed in the years to come. I have zero confidence that the models today are in any way good enough to predict the future accurately. Sorry. The track record is not good.

gregor1
1.7 / 5 (18) Feb 22, 2013
This paper assumes that CO2 drives warming when it has been clearly demonstrated that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise. http://hockeyscht...ade.html
djr
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 22, 2013
verkle: "Sorry. The track record is not good" Could you provide some reference that supports your claim? This issue was discussed recently - references were provided by Vendi showing predictions from Hansen from the 90's were quite accurate. It seems there is an interest in repeating the same debunked issues - perhaps for the purpose of implying flaws that do not really exist.
djr
4.5 / 5 (15) Feb 22, 2013
gregor: "This paper assumes that CO2 drives warming when it has been clearly demonstrated that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise" It is very disingenuous to bring up the same issues over and over - have them addressed - and then bring them up again. Yes - it is understood that in the historical record, temperatures have preceded C02 increases. The mechanisms are complex - and extensively researched. Milankovich cycles and other drivers cause warming - this warming causes C02 increases in a variety of ways - and the C02 then sets up some feed back loops. This does not in any way suggest that increasing green house gases into the system today will not cause temperature rise. Please look at the graph I referenced before. If C02 is not the driver - please explain the temperature increase.
gregor1
1.9 / 5 (19) Feb 22, 2013
The warming in your graph is in no way unprecedented or alarming. These warm periods happen roughly every 900 years and this one is right on cue. Overwhelming evidence suggests the Minoan, Roman,Medieval warm periods and The Holocene Climate optimum where all global and warmer than the present period so there is no cause for alarm.
http://hockeyscht...ive.html
LarryD
1.6 / 5 (12) Feb 22, 2013
Right! Al Gore made a mint and helped to put more CO2 in the air with his travels. I haven't done a study of my own so global warming may or may not be in progress but I'm sure one of the basic things that Al Gore jumped on was that the Earth's Black Body Radiation is at the right frequency to be absorbed by CO2, more CO2 more warmth. Now all that is needed is to show that humans are producing a lot of CO2 and there you have it, alarm bells everywhere. Film makers jumped on the hype too making a lot of 'bucks'. If Al Gore had done the same with radioactive waste I would been on his side but no, he couldn't touch that one. Radio active waste is the real problem. Certain flora etc can help by absorbing CO2 but everything dies when exposed to radiation!
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (25) Feb 22, 2013
"snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture"

Thats why Florida gets so much snow.
Jeffhans1
3.5 / 5 (12) Feb 22, 2013
"Radio active waste is the real problem. Certain flora etc can help by absorbing CO2 but everything dies when exposed to radiation!"

That is fine. Keep believing that this "waste" is a horrible problem. Give it all to me and I will generate enough power to replace coal and natural gas while the "waste" is exhausted in LFTRs. I will happily accept 1/2 of the lowest bid for companies willing to store and secure this "waste". http://en.wikiped..._reactor
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (22) Feb 22, 2013
... it has been clearly demonstrated that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise.

Which does not disprove that CO2 rise cause temperature rise.

Stop with your childish repetitious of uninformed BS and go back to school and learn some basic Physics.
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (14) Feb 22, 2013
"snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture"

Thats why Florida gets so much snow.


Nutpecker.

What a maroon.

deepsand
2.8 / 5 (20) Feb 22, 2013
"snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture"

Thats why Florida gets so much snow.

The usual expected stupid remark from NP
deatopmg
1.9 / 5 (23) Feb 22, 2013
Some humorless commentators here speak as if THEY understand how climate works. They clearly don't know what they don't know but their egos won't let them see that.

The problem is that all the of models over the past 20 or so yrs have been consistently and provably wrong. Not one even close. Why should this new model suddenly be right?

Lots of simplistic dogmatic ideas requiring ridiculous levels of (unobserved) positive feedback to get Chicken Lickin/Henny Penny levels of heating in 90 years. Ever increasing 10's of billions of $$/yr to "study further", resulting in "could", "might", "maybe" reports like this one.

GMaFB! NO ONE UNDERSTANDS how the climate works! Adhering to close minded, consensus ideas will not get us any closer to understanding.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (22) Feb 22, 2013
Some humorless commentators here speak as if THEY understand how climate works. They clearly don't know what they don't know but their egos won't let them see that.

You err in assuming that others share your lack of knowledge and understanding.
djr
3.8 / 5 (16) Feb 22, 2013
The problem is that all the of models over the past 20 or so yrs have been consistently and provably wrong. Not one even close. Why should this new model suddenly be right?

The same tired arguments - with absolutely no support. As I already requested - please provide references for previous models that were so wrong. Vendi has already shown references to previous models from the 90's that were on the mark.
djr
4.1 / 5 (14) Feb 22, 2013
gregor: "The warming in your graph is in no way unprecedented or alarming."

2 things - first - you in no way answered the question I posed - that asked you to deliniate the driver of the current warming - being that you suggested it was not C02 - but that the C02 was following the warming. Second - please give a reference to support your claim that this warming in "not unprecedented". I believe that the warming is unprecedented - in both the rate of change, and also the fact that it is being driven by human activity.
djr
3.9 / 5 (15) Feb 22, 2013
Larry: "I haven't done a study of my own so global warming may or may not be in progress"

Oh - I get it - when you have a couple of spare hours - you will run the definitive research that will resolve this issue for all of us. The millions of hours of research by tens of thousands of scientists - climbing the glaciers, measuring the ocean currents, putting the satelites into orbit etc. etc. etc. will all be finally resolved by your research. This board can be so weird.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (20) Feb 22, 2013
"snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture"

Thats why Florida gets so much snow.


The usual expected stupid remark from NP


The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.

What a bunch of dishonest retards.

la7dfa
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 23, 2013
Arctic ice sheet has been reduced by 80% in volume for the last few decades: http://www.washin...hin-ice/

NotParker and his colleges never give up babbling, until the ocean rises above their mouth level...
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 23, 2013
NP: I am sure you are just trolling by spouting lies you know are wrong, but just in case there is a single brain cell in that empty knoggen, let me go over this one more time.

You say: "The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow."

Try to understand this sequence. 1) Warm air holds more water vapor. 2) Under the right conditions the air changes temperature and deposits the water in the form of rain or snow. 3) With more moisture in the air more rain and snow fall - but only under conditions that cause the air to lose the moisture. So, areas that are ripe for snow get more. Areas that are ripe for rain get more. Areas where the weather does not cause rain or snow have less precipitation resulting in drought. Does any of that make it more clear to you how changing weather paterns occur?
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Feb 23, 2013
The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.


Good lord, how can you straight out present such a clearly dishonest misrepresentation of what has been said and not expect people to call you out on it?

The IPCC report from 1990 says clearly that the amount of water in a warmer air mass will INCREASE leading to lessoning numbers of storms each of which will produce more extreme AMOUNTS of snow.

READ the bloody thing! Chapter 7, Section 2, Environmental Impacts, SS.1, Seasonal Snow Cover.

Each subsequent report has expanded on the data, which have retained essentially the same conclusions. Read them you fool.

gregor1
1.4 / 5 (18) Feb 23, 2013


@Dir
I suggest you apply Ockam"s razor
"Climatic changes measured during the last 100 years are not unique or even unusual when compared with the frequency, rate, and magnitude of changes that have taken place since the beginning of the Holocene Epoch. Recent fluctuations in temperature, both upward and downward, are well within the limits observed in nature prior to human influence."
http://hockeyscht...ive.html
So what caused the warming? The same thing that caused it to stop 17 years ago. Natural variation.
djr
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 23, 2013
gregor - still no explanation offered for the current 'unprecedented' warming. Yes I read your article from your blog. I was not able to find the original article - could you help me with that? I was able to find plenty of data to support the premise that the current trend is in fact unprecedented. Here is one review of proxy data reconstructions. http://www.ncdc.n...004.html This quote summarizes well - " Only anthropogenic forcing of climate, however, can explain the recent anomalous warming in the late 20th century."
Steven_Anderson
3.1 / 5 (17) Feb 23, 2013
A simple experiment (high school physics) build three plastic covered boxes fill one with normal air (pre-industrial age quantities CO2) and one with an extra percentage of CO2 (comparable to what we have added to the atmosphere) and a third with quantities we project to occur in the next 50 years. Put a thermometer in each. Measure the boxes temperature every five minutes for 8 hours. Which has the highest temperature curve? I challenge all climate nay sayers to try this experiment and be honest about the results! In fact come spring time I think I will run this experiment for you and post the results on youtube! http://rawcell.co...capture/ . Anyone care to wager a bet? 500 bucks on the 50 year CO2 mark! Maybe even build a second and third set with methane quantities added(with and without CO2). Or is this not scientific enough perhaps we need to add a complete eco environment to each box. Perhaps scale this up to the size of football fields?
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (21) Feb 23, 2013
And , most likely,natural variation controls the the CO2 levels, not man.
http://hockeyscht...ity.html
63% of the warming can be attributed to the sun
http://hockeyscht...bal.html
http://hockeyscht...ges.html
CO2 is a greenhouse gas but the climate sensitivity to it is low.
http://hockeyscht...zen.html
http://hockeyscht...-to.html
There are hundreds of these papers
djr
4.2 / 5 (15) Feb 23, 2013
gregor - here is a very comprehensive overview of the subject. It is important to understand that proxy records are understood to get very unreliable the further back in time we go. This quote is a good summary for more recent data that is more reliable - "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above" From - http://www.nap.ed...page=115 Page 115.
djr
4.1 / 5 (14) Feb 23, 2013
Come on gregor - a paper referencing an 11 year solar cycle is used to support a 100 year warming trend?

http://hockeyscht...ges.html

Here is a graphic you may want to look at - http://www.skepti...2009.gif
DarkWingDuck
1 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2013
I've been saying it. Since the reversal of the thermosphere collapse in mid 2009, it's been driving the AO more negative which is what cools the arctic and accumulates ice. It's finally taking hold by sucking up the water it lost and driving cold air down on the arctic, then down the middle latitudes thus cooling and dumping snow.

Over the last 40-50 years, the collapsing thermosphere has been dumping water from the atmosphere (1/8 of the ses level rise) and warming the poles by driving the AO more positive thus sending warm air north.

I'm a bit sick of the ill informed "explanations" by science writers.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (19) Feb 23, 2013
"snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture"

Thats why Florida gets so much snow.


The usual expected stupid remark from NP


The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.

What a bunch of dishonest retards.


The dishonesty is yours, in continuing to quote things out of context by ignoring the phrases that do not support your desired conclusions.

You have gone from being simply stupid to being egregiously puerile.

Go play with your rattles and teething toys until you've become a mature adult.
deepsand
3 / 5 (18) Feb 23, 2013
@Dir
I suggest you apply Ockam"s razor

I suggest that you refrain from playing with razors until you become mature enough to filly understand the risks involved, the present lack of which is amply evidenced by your continued want of rationality here.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 23, 2013
In very cold regions of the globe, however, snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture, leading to increased precipitation in the form of snow.
So why is it, Antarctica (the coldest place on earth) is also the largest desert on earth?

http://www.enviro...iest-con

I love AGW "science," especially the "predictive" (NOT) models. Where else can you be so phenomenally wrong, and still keep your job? LOL.

dav_daddy
1.6 / 5 (19) Feb 23, 2013
Oh what perfect timing. Day before yesterday we had an honest to God little blizzard right here in PHOENIX, ARIZONA!!

My kids building a snowman in front of our house 2 days ago just outside of Phoenix, AZ! http://s1156.phot...ddy/Snow in the desert

About 3 inches of snow at my house (elevation 1200ft). Still over an inch left in morning. Everything that happens they tie to global warming it is rediculous! Drought = AGW, Flood = AGW, Hurricane = AGW, Freaking blizzard in the middle of the damn desert = AGW! Bit by a dog = AGW.

No matter what happens someone can always say "so and so predicted this" and provide a link. When you persistantly have someone "predicting" all possible outcomes it stands to reason 1 of them will be right.

Want to impress me build a model that comes close to predicting the weather of the past. Then I might put some stock in your premonitions of the future.

Better yet lets talk about a real issue with CO2 like ocean acidification
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (16) Feb 23, 2013
The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.

What a bunch of dishonest retards.
LOL. Weren't we pointing this out a few months back when they were all claiming the warm dry winter/spring/summer of 2012 in North America was proof of global warming, reduced precipitation, and desertification? Weren't they all lamenting the lack of snow?

So where are these whiners now? They're back to complaining global warming is causing too much snow!

Pinning down AGW "science" is like trying to hold onto a greased pig. LOL.

VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (14) Feb 23, 2013
It would be good if an environent correspondent would actually know something about science and the environment.

"The Australian's War on Science 53: Graham Lloyd's passion"

http://scienceblo...ence-54/

But when you are a Conservative Rag, it doesn't matter as long as you can lie.

deepsand
3.1 / 5 (19) Feb 23, 2013
Everything that happens they tie to global warming it is rediculous! Drought = AGW, Flood = AGW, Hurricane = AGW, Freaking blizzard in the middle of the damn desert = AGW!

To repeat, increasing the thermal energy in any system increases its volatility. That's ELEMENTARY Physics.

Want to impress me build a model that comes close to predicting the weather of the past.

Guess you missed the news that that's already been done!

Better yet lets talk about a real issue with CO2 like ocean acidification.

Why is this consequence of any greater import of than others?
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (17) Feb 23, 2013
The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.

What a bunch of dishonest retards.
LOL. Weren't we pointing this out a few months back when they were all claiming the warm dry winter/spring/summer of 2012 in North America was proof of global warming, reduced precipitation, and desertification? Weren't they all lamenting the lack of snow?

So where are these whiners now? They're back to complaining global warming is causing too much snow!

Pinning down AGW "science" is like trying to hold onto a greased pig. LOL.

Still being the puerile idiot, I see.

To repeat, increasing the thermal energy in any system increases its volatility. That's ELEMENTARY Physics. Since you continue to have difficulty grasping that, presumably you've yet to graduate from kindergarten.
dav_daddy
1.2 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2013
That link should be: http://s1156.beta...library/
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 23, 2013
Perhaps this graphic will be illustrative.

https://docs.goog...=sharing

"(but claiming it is meaningless until it keeps up for 30 or 40 years)?" - SeanW

https://docs.goog...=sharing
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 23, 2013
UbVonTard's only reason for living is to lie.

Lying is what he does.

Lying is his life.

"Weren't we pointing this out a few months back when they were all claiming the warm dry winter/spring/summer of 2012 in North America was proof of global warming." - UbVonTard

No one here claimed that last year's missing North American winter was "proof", since only Scientific Illiterates think that science provides proof.

What last year's first ever winter without a winter was, and remains, is strong evidence of global warming.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (15) Feb 23, 2013
In fact the graphic that accompanies the article shows quite clearly that North America will experience a dramatic reduction in snowfall.

Yet UbVonTard claims the exact opposite.

"So where are these whiners now? They're back to complaining global warming is causing too much snow!" - UbVonTard

No where in the article is it claimed that there is "too much snow".

UbVonTard is a perpetual liar.

Lying is his reason for existence.

Lying is his life.
dav_daddy
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 23, 2013


Want to impress me build a model that comes close to predicting the weather of the past.

Guess you missed the news that that's already been done!


I must have missed that one. Kinda hard to do when you still have no idea if aerosols are a net contributor or mitigator but eh it's a model take a guess right?

Better yet lets talk about a real issue with CO2 like ocean acidification.

Why is this consequence of any greater import of than others?


To start with any idiot can spend $2 get a couple dozen strips of litmus paper and bang confirmation. It's not as impressive as AGW where they need a computer model, a psychic, a Rabbi, and pimp.

Secondly the ocean provides a good portion of the populous with food, all of us with air, and we are altering that!

Its not as sexy as screaming that we are Venusforming (<--just made that up) the earth. But the results could be 100x worse than if we increase the temperature by 5-10°C by the year 2100.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 23, 2013
It is because you are an idiot.

"So why is it, Antarctica (the coldest place on earth) is also the largest desert on earth?" - UbVonTard

The antarctic polar vortex inhibits the large scale influx of moist air to regions above the central Antarctic continent.

deepsand
2.8 / 5 (18) Feb 23, 2013
I must have missed that one. Kinda hard to do when you still have no idea if aerosols are a net contributor or mitigator but eh it's a model take a guess right?

Hard as it is, it's been done.

To start with any idiot can spend $2 get a couple dozen strips of litmus paper and bang confirmation. It's not as impressive as AGW where they need a computer model, a psychic, a Rabbi, and pimp.

All that's needed to understand AGW is a grasp of elementary Physics.

Secondly the ocean provides a good portion of the populous with food, ...

A minority portion that is rapidly dwindling due to over-fishing.

... all of us with air, ...

Are you serious?

LarryD
2.1 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2013
djr, Ha you made me laugh. I didn't quite mean '...my own research...' that way. What I meant was that hadn't looked at the various stats and conclusions made by the 'professionals' to form a real opinion. But one thing is clear; The situation is NOT clear. I get the feeling that it rather depends on the sponsor of certain parts of research who publish only those findings that suits them. Hence some say one thing and others say something else. All living creatures have an impact on the planet and I would imagine the gigantic Dino-herbivores contributed much CO2 from both ends (comparison to what some say about us and our livestock). I am just not convinced that we alone are the problem, there are just too many variables. Even Astro varaibles could contribute; the position of the Sun and solar system in the our galaxy might enhance some reactions but impede others. In the end we don't understand enough how the climate works and what effect the variables have over a long period of time.
deepsand
3 / 5 (18) Feb 23, 2013
I meant ... that [I] hadn't looked at the various stats and conclusions made by the 'professionals' to form a real opinion.
But one thing is clear; The situation is NOT clear. I get the feeling that it rather depends on the sponsor of certain parts of research who publish only those findings that suits them. Hence some say one thing and others say something else. All living creatures have an impact on the planet and I would imagine the gigantic Dino-herbivores contributed much CO2 from both ends (comparison to what some say about us and our livestock). I am just not convinced that we alone are the problem, there are just too many variables. Even Astro varaibles could contribute; the position of the Sun and solar system in the our galaxy might enhance some reactions but impede others. In the end we don't understand enough how the climate works and what effect the variables have over a long period of time.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2013
you are asking if snow due to warming can prevnt the warming that is causing the snow.

"Could this also not counteract any drastic sea level rises due to melting ice caps?" - be4

If you push hard on a wall, can your leftward push move the wall right?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2013
This paper assumes that CO2 drives warming when it has been clearly demonstrated that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise. http://hockeyscht...ade.html

So you've cited the one paper that comes anywhere near to "clearly demonstrate" that temp leads CO2. A paper that is seriously flawed due to bad statistics ( the authors are not climate scientists BTW ). For none denialist types ( because of course you don't want to change your world-view ) try looking here ..
http://www.realcl...nfusion/
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 23, 2013
"snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture"
Thats why Florida gets so much snow.

The usual expected stupid remark from NP

The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.
What a bunch of dishonest retards.


Parky - Yet again you demonstrate your spectacular ignorance of science and knee-jerk defaulting to prejudice. It does not say warm air will produce more snow - it says warmer air. That the basic physical process of air at Zero C holding more snow than air at -10C eludes you boggles my mind. That you deem yourself qualified to pontificate on here - a scientific forum populated ( thankfully ) largely by scientifically educated people, even more so. Have you ever met people who's self regard is inversely proportional to their intelligence? If the cap fits
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2013
And , most likely,natural variation controls the the CO2 levels, not man.
http://hockeyscht...ity.html
There are hundreds of these papers


And thousands of papers that point to it being most likely that warming is being caused by man-made CO2.

You want a 100% consensus do you? In an area emerging science bar the basic centuries old known scientific principles of the behaviours of gases and planetary movement?
Even the jury principle allows for majority verdicts - and we're talking some major consequences if ignored here. But of course you don't except that either, do you?
MR166
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 23, 2013
"What a bunch of dishonest retards."

NP you only got half right. The scary part of the problem is that some of these warmists are among the brightest and most educated people in the world. The have banded together and are using their knowledge to promote a political agenda. As a group they are getting huge amounts of government monies to do so. The progressive one world government establishment has a huge war chest which they are using to try to bankrupt all of us and to make us dependent enough to give up our freedoms.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2013
..Since the reversal of the thermosphere collapse in mid 2009, it's been driving the AO more negative which is what cools the arctic and accumulates ice. It's finally taking hold by sucking up the water it lost and driving cold air down on the arctic, then down the middle latitudes thus cooling and dumping snow. Over the last 40-50 years, the collapsing thermosphere has been dumping water from the atmosphere (1/8 of the ses level rise) and warming the poles by driving the AO more positive thus sending warm air north.


I'm sorry this makes no sense and is contradictory. A negative AO ( in winter ) does not cool the Arctic. By definition it is higher pressure which expels cold air to more southern latitudes. You don't get something for nothing, so the Arctic will become warmer ( though still well below zero ). The Thermosphere has no moisture and cannot "drive cold air down on the arctic,". Descending air warms. Look up the gas laws.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2013
In very cold regions of the globe, however, snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture, leading to increased precipitation in the form of snow.
So why is it, Antarctica (the coldest place on earth) is also the largest desert on earth?

http://www.enviro...iest-con

I love AGW "science," especially the "predictive" (NOT) models. Where else can you be so phenomenally wrong, and still keep your job? LOL.


"So why is it, Antarctica (the coldest place on earth) is also the largest desert on earth?"
It will still be the largest desert on Earth, just not quite so.

"Where else can you be so phenomenally wrong, and still keep your job?" In any field where a forecast is the principle endeavour - then there will be failures. Sensible people realise this and way up the probabilities.
LarryD
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2013
[q
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

deepsand...Oh, So I have to believe what Papers say and commit argumentum ad poplulum? I am not shifting the burden of proof but you are. Try reading a bit more Aristotle and Sorites then you might get your comments right.
djr
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 23, 2013
Larry: "What I meant was that hadn't looked at the various stats and conclusions made by the 'professionals' to form a real opinion."

But then you go on to discuss your real opinion (that you actually have not formed yet) - and to denigrate science on a science board. Sure there is corruption in science (look at the tobacco lobby) - but it gets weeded out and dealt with. You are clearly pushing a political agenda - and I would trust the results of science long before the opinion of someone who claims to not have an opinion - but then goes on to promote his/her opinion.
djr
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2013
Larry: "So I have to believe what Papers say and commit argumentum ad poplulum?"

Well - when you can find papers that say X, and other papers that say not X, that creates a conundrum - right? The rational approach is to look at the consensus of science. If you don't believe in the consensus of science - fine - go away - and spend your time on a paranormal phenomena, or young earth creationist forum. The problem for me is people coming on to a science forum - and then promoting not science.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 23, 2013
Still being the puerile idiot, I see.
Talking about yourself, I see.

To repeat, increasing the thermal energy in any system increases its volatility. That's ELEMENTARY Physics.
That's a nice theory, but can you prove it with statistics? Has global weather volatility significantly increased? And, if so, what proof is there it's caused by temperature increases, over natural variability?

And why have AGW proponents even switched to this argument over their earlier arguments for steadily decreasing precipitation, increasing drought, and desertification? Is it simply that the weather hasn't cooperated?

And here's an interesting point. Why is it the most extreme climate regions on earth (high peaks) have not been warming at all? The highest temperatures ever recorded on any of them are from the 1970's. Most records are much older:

http://en.wikiped...ontinent

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2013
Uba's only reason for living is to lie.

Lying is what he does.

Lying is his life.

"Weren't we pointing this out a few months back when they were all claiming the warm dry winter/spring/summer of 2012 in North America was proof of global warming." - Uba

No one here claimed that last year's missing North American winter was "proof", since only Scientific Illiterates think that science provides proof.

What last year's first ever winter without a winter was, and remains, is strong evidence of global warming.

Ha-ha-ha! This from the one screaming the loudest of all, that last year was the beginning of a never ending long term drought and desertification in the U.S.?

How quickly we forget! LOL.

Poor Vendispambot. It gets confused when the weather won't cooperate.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2013
In fact the graphic that accompanies the article shows quite clearly that North America will experience a dramatic reduction in snowfall.
So? What's that prove? I can draw all sorts of pretty pictures of increasing snow. Will that prove snow will increase?

Yet Uba claims the exact opposite.

"So where are these whiners now? They're back to complaining global warming is causing too much snow!" - Uba

No where in the article is it claimed that there is "too much snow".
LOL. Vendispambot loses the context (again).

Uba is a perpetual liar.

Lying is his reason for existence.

Lying is his life.
LOL. Spambots like Vendispambot are foisted on the world by the AGWite faithful.

If their science is so valid, why do AGWites need childish insult spewing programs, like Vendispambot, to proselytize their faith?

runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2013
Why is it the most extreme climate regions on earth (high peaks) have not been warming at all? The highest temperatures ever recorded on any of them are from the 1970's. Most records are much older:
http://en.wikiped...ontinent

Maximum temps do not tell the whole story. You have to tie them to minima as well. ie to gain an average you add max to min and divide by 2. This paper provides evidence of the raising of minima over highest ground...
http://dvfu.ru/me...5993.pdf

"In this paper we find evidence for appreciable differences in mean temperature changes with elevation during the last several decades of instrumental records. The signal appears to be more
closely related to increases in daily minimum temperature than changes in the daily maximum. The changes in surface temperature vary spatially, with Europe, and parts of Asia displaying the strongest high altitude warming"
deepsand
3 / 5 (16) Feb 23, 2013
To repeat, increasing the thermal energy in any system increases its volatility. That's ELEMENTARY Physics.
That's a nice theory, but can you prove it with statistics? Has global weather volatility significantly increased? And, if so, what proof is there it's caused by temperature increases, over natural variability?

Asked and answered ad nauseum. Needlessly repeating the question is itself an act of puerility.

You can't learn what you don't want to know.
deepsand
3 / 5 (16) Feb 23, 2013
[q
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

deepsand...Oh, So I have to believe what Papers say and commit argumentum ad poplulum? I am not shifting the burden of proof but you are. Try reading a bit more Aristotle and Sorites then you might get your comments right.

Try not being a sophist, and you might learn something about Physics.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (15) Feb 23, 2013
"What a bunch of dishonest retards."

NP you only got half right. The scary part of the problem is that some of these warmists are among the brightest and most educated people in the world. The have banded together and are using their knowledge to promote a political agenda. As a group they are getting huge amounts of government monies to do so. The progressive one world government establishment has a huge war chest which they are using to try to bankrupt all of us and to make us dependent enough to give up our freedoms.

How very novel, accusing those who stand against you of employing the very policy strategy and tactics that you do. :rolleyes:
LarryD
1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2013
djr, oh boy you really have got me all wrong. Me, a political agenda? I am one of the least Political guys you have ever met. And as for science, I have a very high regard. The fact that we cannot predict weather systems accurately and have to rely on probability shows that we have got the math models right...yet. Climate change is ultimately Quantum Mechanical and Bond strengths control the amount energy released. Black Body Radiation to is determined by QM as is the burning of various fuels and the Bending Modes and Vibration (E=hv(n 1/2))of the CO2 molecule are important in producing the GH effect. Global effects from QM is still a highly debated subject and we obviously haven't got things right yet. Or perhaps it's just a question of Money. If a reliable 'clean' alternative to were to suddenly invade the 'markets' tomorrow a lot of big companies would suffer. For a long time various companies have bought patents and shelved them simply because they would cause shares to drop.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 23, 2013
Over 650 snow records set in USA this week

Over 60% of the USa covered in snow

IPCC claims Arizona is near the North Pole

http://wattsupwit...located/

deepsand
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 23, 2013
The fact that we cannot predict weather systems accurately and have to rely on probability shows that we have got the math models right...yet.

Weather and climate are two quite different things. The difficulties inherent in forecasting short term variations (weather) are irrelevant to the of predicting long term trends (climate.)

Climate change is ultimately Quantum Mechanical ...

One need not invoke QM in order to well understand GW. Classical Newtonian Physics here suffice.
Yarking_Dawg
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2013
Not Parker is not a person, THEY are employees of a PR firm paid to spew BS on behalf of certain billionaires who have an extreme vested interest in an anti-science agenda and they are actually working under several different names on this and other science and news websites. You'll find the exact same wording of their initial asinine comments, under different names, on dozens upon dozens of news sites around the web.

Every so often this gets exposed and that particular moniker gets kicked off the sites and just shifts to a new name.

Thus, not stupid nor ignorant, deceitful is the probably the best term.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) Feb 23, 2013
Not Parker is not a person, THEY are employees of a PR firm paid to spew BS on behalf of certain billionaires who have an extreme vested interest in an anti-science agenda and they are actually working under several different names on this and other science and news websites. You'll find the exact same wording of their initial asinine comments, under different names, on dozens upon dozens of news sites around the web.

Every so often this gets exposed and that particular moniker gets kicked off the sites and just shifts to a new name.

Thus, not stupid nor ignorant, deceitful is the probably the best term.

Anyone who knowingly engages in such deceit is either grossly ignorant of the facts or stupidly ignores them.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2013
Over 650 snow records set in USA this week

Over 60% of the USa covered in snow


Here nutpecker supplies us with a link to NON scientist watts' blog, where he touts winter weather as proof that there is no AGW.

Of course he does. That's what he(watts) AND nutpecker are paid to do.

Note that none of these snowfalls are unprecedented, geographically, and very few represent accumulations that depart significantly from previous records.

Ditto for temperatures. Note, also, that this "snow cover" will be very short-lived, as it is the result of highly unstable airmasses that are caused -and were predicted to occur- by AGW.

Also Note that it is WINTER, so we expect to see snow. However, if you keep track of the extent and volume of the snow(perhaps via NSIDC) you can expect to see -as I already stated- very little persistence in either accumulation or extent.

A diffuse storm, in other words.

Meanwhile, 2012 was the HOTTEST YEAR EVER in US history.

nutpecker. What a maroon.

VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2013
How many cold records were set in the U.S. this week?

"Over 650 snow records set in USA this week" - ParkerTard

Warmer air holds more moisture.

It doesn't snow if the air is real cold. Cold air just can't hold enough moisture.

Poor, Ignorant ParkerTard.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2013
It is criminal.

It is treason against nature and mankind.

The only punishment that rises to the level of ParkerTard and UbVonTard's crime is public execution.

"Thus, not stupid nor ignorant, deceitful is the probably the best term." - Yawning

Have your lists ready. The revolution grows closer by the day.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 24, 2013
How many cold records were set in the U.S. this week?

"Over 650 snow records set in USA this week" - ParkerTard

Warmer air holds more moisture.

It doesn't snow if the air is real cold. Cold air just can't hold enough moisture.

Poor, Ignorant ParkerTard.


Tell that to the Canadians.

Even the UN is admitting that temps have not changed in 17 years.

You warmists are just like Nero fiddling while the western economy burns. Useless green projects waste billions of dollars which are paid for by government deficit spending. The politically connected get richer while the middle class dwindles.

Good paying jobs are driven out of western economies by your progressive hatred of industry.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 24, 2013
It doesn't snow if the air is real cold.


" ... annual snowfall on the Antarctic polar plateau is equivalent to less than 5 cm of rain. Storms are much more frequent and snow can, at times, be heavy on the coast and peninsula."

2 inches of rain coming down as snow in the coldest part of the world!

Therefore a sane person would conclude it is never "too cold to snow".

MR166
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 24, 2013
Is the Yukon cold enough for you VD???

http://meteowhite...tail.php

Of course it snows when it is cold. I don't think that this debate is about snow at -60C.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2013
Maximum temps do not tell the whole story. You have to tie them to minima as well. ie to gain an average you add max to min and divide by 2. This paper provides evidence of the raising of minima over highest ground...
http://dvfu.ru/me...5993.pdf

"In this paper we find evidence for appreciable differences in mean temperature changes with elevation during the last several decades of instrumental records. The signal appears to be more
closely related to increases in daily minimum temperature than changes in the daily maximum. The changes in surface temperature vary spatially, with Europe, and parts of Asia displaying the strongest high altitude warming"

LOL. A paper from 1997, using data which is years to decades older (mostly from before AGW was supposed to have an effect), is the best you could do? Really?

And isn't it interesting, your reference uses predominately low peaks? What is it you don't you understand about "most extreme climate regions?"

Try again.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2013
Asked and answered ad nauseum. Needlessly repeating the question is itself an act of puerility.
I don't recall having asked this question before. Can you provide examples of me doing so?

And if it was so common a question, why don't you have a ready reply?

You can't learn what you don't want to know.
It appears you're simply trying to evade the question. Why? What is it you don't want to know?

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2013
Over 650 snow records set in USA this week

Over 60% of the USa covered in snow

IPCC claims Arizona is near the North Pole

http://wattsupwit...located/

ROFLMAO. 6.3 inches of snow in Paradise, AZ! Wow!

runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2013
... using data ... is the best you could do? Really? And isn't it interesting, your reference uses predominately low peaks? What is it you don't you understand about "most extreme climate regions?"


I thought you claimed warming stopped 17 years ago? .... 1996 then, a year before this study and many of the data go up to at least 1990. Heights are broken down, so your comment about low peaks is specious. How high do you want to go BTW? because on a peak with a permanent glacier you couldn't safely place instruments and the extreme weather would make them u/s for large spells. The sensor on Caingorm Scotland has to emerge from its housing, take readings, then retract back away again and is heated to protect against rime-ice which can build up copiously on a peak often in sub-zero cloud. This at a dizzying altitude of 1245m/4084ft.

PS the temp records you link are by region, not for peaks. Try again.

http://cairngormw...ails.htm
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2013
I thought you claimed warming stopped 17 years ago? ....1996 then, a year before this study
But your reference comes from before the current hiatus. I haven't claimed it hadn't warmed before this period.

...and many of the data go up to at least 1990.
But isn't it your claim warming is continuing? Why aren't you supporting your own claim?

Heights are broken down, so your comment about low peaks is specious.
Not exactly. The data is regional. Interesting that most North American, the Caucusus, and E. European regions show no upward trend, even then.

This at a dizzying altitude of 1245m/4084ft.
A mere foothill, where I come from.

PS the temp records you link are by region, not for peaks.
My mistake, you're right. But they are long-standing extreme records. Why are they long-standing, if the climate is warming?

Continued...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2013
Try again
As I said above, 4084ft is a mere foothill.

In the U.S. Rockies during the time period of your reference, there was actually cooling above 11,000 feet (contrary to the climate models).

"Temperature trends warmed at mid-elevation sites and cooled at high elevation sites."

http://www.nps.go...ends.pdf

runrig
5 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2013
Try again
As I said above, 4084ft is a mere foothill.

In the U.S. Rockies during the time period of your reference, there was actually cooling above 11,000 feet (contrary to the climate models).

"Temperature trends warmed at mid-elevation sites and cooled at high elevation sites."

http://www.nps.go...ends.pdf


My point about Cairngorm was precisely that it is "a mere hill" in global terms ( my English irony passed you by ) - but yet it is not easy to maintain a continuous temp record, and requires expensive equipment to do so.

The link that you give has interesting findings, but as you say re my post - it is regional. Also no mention there of how the data was obtained.

Nice part of the world - visited once ( Vail/Breckenridge ) for skiing trip.

Kudos for admitting your error BTW - it happens to the best of us.
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 24, 2013
For those that believe that the earth is warming. I have found the cause. The cause is all the windmills that have been built. You need to chart the number of windmill in operation. Over the last 100 years there has been a significant increase in windmills AND and increase in temperature, weather change, climate change, et al.

Windmills and climate change are related. The more windmills we have, the more climate change we have. The science is proved.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 24, 2013
Even the UN is admitting that temps have not changed in 17 years.

Lie.

You warmists are just like Nero fiddling while the western economy burns. Useless green projects waste billions of dollars which are paid for by government deficit spending. The politically connected get richer while the middle class dwindles.

Good paying jobs are driven out of western economies by your progressive hatred of industry.

You denialists are like Nero fiddling while the world burns, with your idolized industries feeding the fire and fanning the flames.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (15) Feb 24, 2013
Therefore a sane person would conclude it is never "too cold to snow".

Only an idiot would reach such an insane conclusion.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2013
Yes, it doesn't snow the air temperature is real cold.

The air just doesn't hold enough moisture for it to occurr.

"annual snowfall on the Antarctic polar plateau is equivalent to less than 5 cm of rain." - ParekerTard

Well done Tard Boy.

BTW what was the temperature during those trace levels of snow fall?
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2013
The problem with free thinking of course, is the same problem with everything that is free.

"The cause is all the windmills that have been built." - FeeTard

It is usually hyped, and inferior to the point that it isn't worth the price - which or course is nothing.

VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2013
UbVonTard offers his usual cherry picking exercise again.

His point source of data - Rocky Mountain national Park is no more reflective of global temperature trends as the average temperature from a single city from somewhere else on the earth would be.

"In the U.S. Rockies during the time period of your reference, there was actually cooling above 11,000 feet" - UbVonTard

Nevertheless, global trends for the lower troposphere are Up, Up, Up.

The Global Average Tropospheric temperature measured badly by satellite can be found here.

Spencer has a history though of allowing his politics to pollute his science.

http://www.drroys...ratures/

http://climatecro...spencer/
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2013
Yawn. It is well known that a warming climate will result in greater extremes in weather.

"6.3 inches of snow in Paradise, AZ! Wow!" - UbVonTard

UbVonTard implies that one example of those extremes indicated the opposite.

Pure mentally diseased, Idiocy.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2013
MR166 asks the question

"Is the Yukon cold enough for you VD???" - MR166

And then links to snow depth measurements rather than temperatures.

Had he actually linked to temperatures...

http://meteowhite...ail.php?

He would notice that the average high for this February -1.6'C is well above the -8.6'C'C typically recorded at WhiteHorse.

http://meteowhite...whha.php

Denialist Trash like MR166 are growing more and more desperate with each passing day.
MR166
2 / 5 (16) Feb 25, 2013
VD, my socialist comrade, you said that "It doesn't snow if the air is real cold. Cold air just can't hold enough moisture."

I have news for you the Yukon Territory is COOOOLD!

The only thing that you do well here is hurl pejoratives at those who disagree with you.

Your hatred of free market economies and individual freedom is only exceeded by your love of collectivism.
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 25, 2013
Anyone who denies that Wind Mills are the cause of climate change are deniers who are denying the truth because they are in bed with Al Gore. Charts don't lie. Ever since Wind Mills have been increasing, according to the UN's own charts, climate change has been increasing.

VD how much money are you making from Wind Mills? How much hush money is Al Gore paying you? Follow the money!
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 25, 2013
Yes, it doesn't snow the air temperature is real cold.

The air just doesn't hold enough moisture for it to occurr.

"annual snowfall on the Antarctic polar plateau is equivalent to less than 5 cm of rain." - ParekerTard

I bow to your genius.

BTW what was the temperature during those trace levels of snow fall?


5cm of rain = 50cm of snow. A foot and half is not a trace amount.

And -89C is pretty cold. But not too cold to snow. It is never too cold to snow. It can be too dry to snow. But not too cold.

deepsand
2.3 / 5 (15) Feb 25, 2013
VD, my socialist comrade, you said that "It doesn't snow if the air is real cold. Cold air just can't hold enough moisture."

I have news for you the Yukon Territory is COOOOLD!

Clearly you are still not paying attention.

Snow results when precipitation from warm moist air falls through sufficiently cold air.

Now, go stand in the dunce corner.

Your hatred of free market economies and individual freedom is only exceeded by your love of collectivism.

Stupid attempt at misdirection.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (15) Feb 25, 2013
Anyone who denies that Wind Mills are the cause of climate change are deniers who are denying the truth because they are in bed with Al Gore. Charts don't lie. Ever since Wind Mills have been increasing, according to the UN's own charts, climate change has been increasing.

VD how much money are you making from Wind Mills? How much hush money is Al Gore paying you? Follow the money!

Your sophomoric sophistry is laughable.

Go play with the rest our your kindergarten classmates.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2013
So Sandy let me get this straight. You are saying that it snows less in the Yukon than say New York City because it is colder in the Yukon????
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 25, 2013
Yes, it doesn't snow the air temperature is real cold.

The air just doesn't hold enough moisture for it to occurr.

"annual snowfall on the Antarctic polar plateau is equivalent to less than 5 cm of rain." - ParekerTard

I bow to your genius.

BTW what was the temperature during those trace levels of snow fall?


5cm of rain = 50cm of snow. A foot and half is not a trace amount.

And -89C is pretty cold. But not too cold to snow. It is never too cold to snow. It can be too dry to snow. But not too cold.

Without warm moist air to supply precipitation, there can be no snow.

Thank you for entertaining us with your never ending display of stupidity.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2013
So Sandy let me get this straight. You are saying that it snows less in the Yukon than say New York City because it is colder in the Yukon????

Another stupid attempt at misrepresentation.

I am not here to spoon feed juveniles such as you; do your own homework.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 25, 2013
Well then Sandy perhaps you are trying to tell me that the glaciers in Greenland were all formed during the warmer periods since it does not snow when it is too cold.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 25, 2013
Well then Sandy perhaps you are trying to tell me that the glaciers in Greenland were all formed during the warmer periods since it does not snow when it is too cold.

Still not paying attention, are you.

What I am telling you is to stop being puerile, and instead learn the appropriate Science before spouting off.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2013
Yes, it doesn't snow the air temperature is real cold. The air just doesn't hold enough moisture for it to occur. "annual snowfall on the Antarctic polar plateau is equivalent to less than 5 cm of rain." - ParkerTard I bow to your genius.

5cm of rain = 50cm of snow. A foot and half is not a trace amount. And -89C is pretty cold. But not too cold to snow. It is never too cold to snow. It can be too dry to snow. But not too cold.
5cm is around 2 inches. Now in a western European type climate 25 inches annual rainfall is a typical amount. 5cm is of course a bit of an average - Vostok, the Russian base in the interior gets 0.18ins of ( rain equivalent ) per year. Air at 30C holds 27.7 g/kg of WV. At -30C, 0.3 g/kg or 92 times more can be held by the warmer air. Air at -80C indeed holds nil/negligible WV. Use this calculator to confirm.... http://www.easyca...atio.php
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 25, 2013
For those of you who are clueless as to what causes snow, and too lazy to do your own research, see http://en.wikiped...ow#Cause .
MR166
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 25, 2013
You will have to forgive me Sandy if I seem confused. So you are claiming that the Greenland ice pack could have never formed since if it is a few degrees too warm it snows but everything melts in the summer. If it is a few degrees too cold it never snows enough to form the glaciers. After all, the warmists are only saying that we have warmed a few tenths of a degree by now.
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 25, 2013
deepsand you are a denialist. The link to global warming and windmills is established. Just look at the charts produced by the UN.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 25, 2013
You will have to forgive me Sandy if I seem confused.

Quite possibly your only factually correct utterance here.

So you are claiming that the Greenland ice pack could have never formed since if it is a few degrees too warm it snows but everything melts in the summer. If it is a few degrees too cold it never snows enough to form the glaciers.

Your claim, not mine. Did you read http://en.wikiped...ow#Cause . ?

After all, the warmists are only saying that we have warmed a few tenths of a degree by now.

So what?

deepsand
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2013
deepsand you are a denialist.

I do indeed categorically deny that you are capable of engaging in informed and substantive rational discourse.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2013
Warming eh?

"And just days ago, yet another German meteorology site questioned global warming in a piece titled: "Global Warming Stagnates – Guessing The Causes". The report begins:

Since 1998 the global mean temperature has not risen significantly. While the global temperature rose by about 0.5°C from the 1970s until the end of the 1990s, it has stagnated for the last 15 years, though at a high level. [...] The stagnation surprised a lot of experts, who are now searching for possible causes for this development.""

The temps went up only .5 degrees since the 70s. They are using one of the coldest decades as a starting point. It was so cold, in fact, they were predicting a new ice age during that decade. This is the only "science" that changes daily with the weather.

deepsand
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2013
Warming eh?

"And just days ago, yet another German meteorology site questioned global warming in a piece titled: "Global Warming Stagnates – Guessing The Causes". The report begins:

Since 1998 the global mean temperature has not risen significantly. While the global temperature rose by about 0.5°C from the 1970s until the end of the 1990s, it has stagnated for the last 15 years, though at a high level. [...] The stagnation surprised a lot of experts, who are now searching for possible causes for this development.""

The temps went up only .5 degrees since the 70s. They are using one of the coldest decades as a starting point. It was so cold, in fact, they were predicting a new ice age during that decade. This is the only "science" that changes daily with the weather.

Yawn ...
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 25, 2013
My point about Cairngorm was precisely that it is "a mere hill" in global terms ( my English irony passed you by )
Inflection doesn't carry well into the written word, but I certainly understand the irony now.

Funny story: The highest peak in Florida is called "Britton Hill." It's located in the "Northern Florida Highlands." It's only 345ft (105 meters) above sea level.

but yet it is not easy to maintain a continuous temp record, and requires expensive equipment to do so.
Can't be as bad as Mount Washington:

http://www.mountw...ton.org/

The link that you give has interesting findings, but as you say re my post - it is regional. Also no mention there of how the data was obtained.

Nice part of the world - visited once ( Vail/Breckenridge ) for skiing trip.

Kudos for admitting your error BTW - it happens to the best of us.
If I don't live up to my personal values, who will? ;)

Howhot
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2013
If I don't live up to my personal values, who will? ;)


You have personal values? If you do, they must really suck.
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2013
My point about Cairngorm was precisely that it is "a mere hill" in global terms ( my English irony passed you by )
Inflection doesn't carry well into the written word, but I certainly understand the irony now.

Funny story: The highest peak in Florida is called "Britton Hill." It's located in the "Northern Florida Highlands." It's only 345ft (105 meters) above sea level.

but yet it is not easy to maintain a continuous temp record, and requires expensive equipment to do so.
Can't be as bad as Mount Washington:

http://www.mountw...ton.org/

The link that you give has interesting findings, but as you say re my post - it is regional. Also no mention there of how the data was obtained.

Nice part of the world - visited once ( Vail/Breckenridge ) for skiing trip.

Kudos for admitting your error BTW - it happens to the best of us.
If I don't live up to my personal values, who will? ;)

Pure pablum, a waste of perfectly good photons.
thermodynamics
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2013
Oh, I really hate to do this, but I am going to have to support the denialists on one technical issue. It does not get too cold to snow. A very good explanation can be found here:

http://www.thewea...nts/222/

However, as the air is cooled, it holds less water vapor and there is less that can precipitate. Don't get me wrong, the denialists that point at snow as debunking global warming are incorrect. However, the technical issue of it being too cold to snow is a different issue. Sigh. I hate to give them any fodder because they will run with this for the wrong reason. This does not debunk AGW in any way.
Howhot
4 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2013
This does not debunk AGW in any way.

Nothing the denialist will say makes any since anyway.
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 26, 2013
Oh, I really hate to do this, but I am going to have to support the denialists on one technical issue. It does not get too cold to snow. A very good explanation can be found here:

http://www.thewea...nts/222/

As the cited article points out, there are several conditions which must be satisfied in order for snow to form and reach the ground.

The denialists here seem to think that a mass of sufficiently cold air alone is all that is needed, when in fact a temperature differential is required.

Thus, within the context of this thread, it can indeed be too cold to snow.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2013
The fact that air holds less and less WV as it cools does not of course mean that ( in all circumstances ) it cannot snow because your thermometer at ground level is reading -80C ( for eg ). It takes depth of cloud to produce precipitation. Even in the Antarctic interior a temperature that low at the surface would have a temperature inversion in the atmosphere above it. Less cold/moist air very often ascends above cold air and it snows down THROUGH the very coldest air at the surface. We cannot have in the real world a demonstration that "it is too cold to snow".
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2013
Top Ten Reasons CO2 is NOT Responsible for Environmental Change, from a pro-AGW-er:

10. Political reason, even if CO2 was the cause then there are so many variables effects it would be hard to lock down. It is good and ambivalent debate fodder.
9. CO2 has no effect during the daylight hours. Unlike water, CFCs, and many other GH gasses, CO2 absorbance will be saturated, once saturated the net effect is for thermal energy to pass through it, as will occur in what is the overwhelming radiation bath that is daytime.
8. CO2 releases absorbed energy 2 ways. By re-emission in the same wavelength or by collision. In both cases it is overwhelmed by water's broad absorption bands, higher air percentage (even in the driest desert there is far more water than CO2), it is a one way path: Once absorbed by water it will more likely be re-emitted as lower energy photons or with less angular momentum, both due to H2O asymmetry.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2013
7. The change in the mean free path of CO2 interactions. The mean free path of pre-industrial CO2 is 0.000187 m, and is currently 0.000154 m. This is a 20% increase. If we use an exponential model for insulation capability, this means the Earth should retain 8x more heat. Or 2x, when put in proportion with H2O. If anyone can show a decline in the night-time cooling of the Earth, this will be the proof that puts CO2 back in the running. Actually, an elegant way of quantifying it.
6. If we don't use an exponential model, and assume that CO2 is working all the time, then it will work at nearly 100% efficiency and be just as effective at 10% of current concentrations, furthermore, not become more effective until significant fractions are in the upper atmosphere, at least, but more than 10x more needed to not significant effect. (Note this is the other extreme of the above argument, CO2 fails both ways!
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2013
5. If the effect we are witnessing is a greenhouse effect, we would see heat retention, yes, but we would also see climate stabilization, not wilder weather.
4. No one has made any good correlations or intuitive relations, such as this % increase is equivalent to turning up the Sun 0.X%.
3. Water is a much more powerful GH gas. They don't give it a GWP number, for the reason if they did the debate would be over. Oh wait, they say because "H2O is extremely short lived and quickly stabilizes in the atmosphere, largely as a product of global temperature." What they seem to gloss over is it is always about 100x more prevalent than CO2, is a broader and more powerful absorber, and it's short lived-ness transfers colossal amounts of heat. CO2 has two specific peaks 80% at 4.2 and 15 microns. I'd give water about an 80GWP, minimum.
2. Alright, so I really can't think of 10, I'm surprised anyone's still reading anyway, you are really great and appreciated! Thanks!
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2013
And... by the power ested in me by the principle of parsimony, CO2 is not necessarry...
1. A simple little intuitive model has predicted, even retroactively, climate change and it does not use CO2 as a variable. http://www.facebo...4557455/
Howhot
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2013
The Alchemist dude say:
Water is a much more powerful GH gas.


If this was Jeopardy I would say, "And how does CO2 evaporate more H2O from the oceans creating a seriously dangerous global warming feedback mechanism that will kill the planet for millions of years."

Your correct Alchemist, It will be the water vapor that kills us. CO2 lingers for 1000s of years and will continually heat the oceans creating more water vapor, creating more green-house heating. Those are all in the computer models you love to hate by the way. We already thought about it.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2013
@Howhot, excellent observation, and I completely agree, barring a part of the conclusion: I say if we could model, say, an Earth without water, it would be much colder. In other words, the Earth's GH gas of choice is H2O.
It really is amazing, it evaporates, taking huge amounts of heat with it, insulates as a GH gas, then is able to deposite that heat far away from where it evaporated.
arq
4 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2013
The more with mess with factors that affect climate, the more erratic it becomes.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2013
Mr Alchemist

The problem with your assertion that H20 is driving GW is like the myth of CO2 following and not ( ever ) leading. The thing about water in the atmosphere is that in totality it is stable, it being added/removed from the air in cycles of days. Yes, there are great variations spacially and temporally but taken as a whole there is little change. Any increases in H20 in the atmosphere are as a result of temperature increases, not the other way about. Where CO2 differs is that when added it stays a damn sight longer and there is a continuing incremental increase in it's concentration. Basic physics then take over with an ( added ) GHG response. I know you think you know more than the worlds scientists - but it is my contention you don't.
Also, CO2 DOES work as a GHG during the day, just as your greenhouse in the garden does. The atmosphere is thick ( differing balances of radiation transmission vertically ) and it absorbs/re-emits IR from the earths surface 100% of the time.
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2013
The Alchemist says;
I say if we could model, say, an Earth without water, it would be much colder. In other words, the Earth's GH gas of choice is H2O

Given your idea, how would you account for a real planetary green-house effect like what happens on Venus? There is not a drop of water there.

Runrig has it right. Humidity is just one more GHG feed-back that traps IR radiation. High concentrations of CO2 H2O is a bad combination for Global Warming.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2013
@runrig, you have excellent points-I'll have to fully consider them...
In the meanwhile, I am not saying that H2O is driving GW. (My asserion is much more boring then that-but let's not dilute this vignette). I am saying that GH gasses are the baseline. Without them we'd be colder.
One facet I was also considering-though again, I don't want to ruin this opic, goes something like this: Assume H2O and CO2 are both GH gasses. Now, do we have an addition or dilution effect when we add CO2? (Dilution in this case may mean intensify, counter-intuitively-like "diluting" H3PO4 with HCL.) Interesting our minds were running down similar if complementary channels.
Cordially now: I do know quite abit more than many world scientists, but then the reverse is also true. It all depends on topic, really, and I have been passionate about AGW for 30 years now. It may not make me an expert, but lets face it, experts have said the dumbest things...
Most importantly-thanks.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2013
Here's a tidbit for the pirana's: I realized I have my exponential pointing the wrong way. I am not sure it really changes the arguement, and a case can be made for the atmospheric mixture having a characteristic unbounded "k e^(x/X)" for small amounts and bleeding into the "k ln (x/X)" for larger amounts.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2013
@Howhot-No H2O, but unfortunately plenty of CO2. As I understand it, since CO2 dominates Venus' atmosphere, it both keeps it hot, and keeps it cool. Since CO2 is at the top of the Venitian atmosphere it blocks mucho heat. However, as you go lower it insulates as they taught us in school.
I tend to stay away from Venus analogies, they are easily "double-edged swords," and I don't have the expertise to run them down.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (15) Feb 28, 2013
Alchemist is either incredibly forgetful or steadfastly ignoring of those facts which do not well comport with his desired conclusions.

To repeat, while the effects of H2O and CO2 are cumulative, H2O levels are not rising, while those of anthropogenic CO2 are doing so rapidly, such that H2O is NOT increasing radiative forcing, but CO2 levels ARE.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2013
@runrig, first we need to base-line, do we both agree that, even in the driest desert there is always ~5% water in the atmosphere? This means 100% persistence plus anything over that 5% everywhere else.
Also, I know CO2 is absorbing and emitting during the day, what I am saying is that the "oven" of daytime radiation (sunlight becoming thermal) is that it is virtually always in its excited state, allowing its first absorption radiaition to pass. (Ignoring H2O for simplicity in this arguement.)
Do you see these as good assumptions?
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 28, 2013
@Deeps- Ubavontuba already handed it to you in the other thread, -and I am not going to explain it to you any longer, YOU can research why what you're saying is incorrect. The adults are speaking now.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 28, 2013
@Deeps- The adults are speaking now.

In which case you should be silent.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 28, 2013
Also, I know CO2 is absorbing and emitting during the day

As it is at night as well.

what I am saying is that the "oven" of daytime radiation (sunlight becoming thermal)

Sunlight does not "become thermal."

is that it is virtually always in its excited state,

A false assumption, since it spontaneously re-radiates.

allowing its first absorption radiaition to pass.

There's no such thing as "first absorption radiation."

Ignoring H2O for simplicity in this arguement.

Ignoring H2O owing to it's being irrelevant to the role of CO2.

Do you see these as good assumptions?

No need for any of these false assumptions unless you are trying to support a fallacious conclusion.

deepsand
2.9 / 5 (15) Feb 28, 2013
@Deeps- Ubavontuba already handed it to you in the other thread,

How very hilarious, considering that ubavontuba can't even decide which type of skeptic he is, trend, attribution or impact. In a single breath he switches back and forth between the three, thus dispaying his intellectual fraud.

... and I am not going to explain it to you any longer, YOU can research why what you're saying is incorrect.

Translation: You've been bested but are going to pretend otherwise.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2013
@runrig, first we need to base-line, do we both agree that, even in the driest desert there is always ~5% water in the atmosphere? This means 100% persistence plus anything over that 5% everywhere else.
Also, I know CO2 is absorbing and emitting during the day, what I am saying is that the "oven" of daytime radiation (sunlight becoming thermal) is that it is virtually always in its excited state, allowing its first absorption radiaition to pass. (Ignoring H2O for simplicity in this arguement.)
Do you see these as good assumptions?

Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2013
To @the Alchemist; We already thought about it. All of your wining looser, non-science, politically based tea party idea BS is not going to change the FACTS! People consuming fossil fuels is causing global warming, and not just a little global warming your type believes. Hell no, it a BIG and fast global warming like nothing this world has seen in all of Earths history! Prove me wrong.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2013
If I don't live up to my personal values, who will? ;)


You have personal values? If you do, they must really suck.
My personal values are such that I wouldn't stoop so low as to say such a thing, simply out of spite.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2013
@Deeps- Ubavontuba already handed it to you in the other thread,

How very hilarious, considering that ubavontuba can't even decide which type of skeptic he is, trend, attribution or impact. In a single breath he switches back and forth between the three,
Is there a rule now? I must have missed the memo! LOL.

thus dispaying his intellectual fraud.
LOL. More like intellectual acumen.

For contrast, why don't you tell us again how a single photon being "re-radiated" repeatedly, adds energy to a system. LOL.

... and I am not going to explain it to you any longer, YOU can research why what you're saying is incorrect.

Translation: You've been bested but are going to pretend otherwise.
LOL. Now THAT'S funny!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2013
Oh, I really hate to do this, but I am going to have to support the denialists on one technical issue. It does not get too cold to snow. A very good explanation can be found here:

http://www.thewea...nts/222/

However, as the air is cooled, it holds less water vapor and there is less that can precipitate. Don't get me wrong, the denialists that point at snow as debunking global warming are incorrect. However, the technical issue of it being too cold to snow is a different issue. Sigh. I hate to give them any fodder because they will run with this for the wrong reason. This does not debunk AGW in any way.
Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.

deepsand
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2013
@Deeps- Ubavontuba already handed it to you in the other thread,

How very hilarious, considering that ubavontuba can't even decide which type of skeptic he is, trend, attribution or impact. In a single breath he switches back and forth between the three,
Is there a rule now? I must have missed the memo!

The three are mutually exclusive.

thus dispaying his intellectual fraud.
LOL. More like intellectual acumen.

More like the inability to logically distinguish between the three.

For contrast, why don't you tell us again how a single photon being "re-radiated" repeatedly, adds energy to a system. LOL.

... and I am not going to explain it to you any longer, YOU can research why what you're saying is incorrect.

Translation: You've been bested but are going to pretend otherwise.
LOL. Now THAT'S funny!

Only an idiot or a charlatan would fail to grasp the truth in my statement.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (15) Mar 02, 2013
Oh, I really hate to do this, but I am going to have to support the denialists on one technical issue. It does not get too cold to snow. A very good explanation can be found here:

http://www.thewea...nts/222/

However, as the air is cooled, it holds less water vapor and there is less that can precipitate. Don't get me wrong, the denialists that point at snow as debunking global warming are incorrect. However, the technical issue of it being too cold to snow is a different issue. Sigh. I hate to give them any fodder because they will run with this for the wrong reason. This does not debunk AGW in any way.
Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.

ROTFLMAO.

Frost is NOT PRECIPITATION. Frost does NOT FALL.

Do your own research to find out what frost is.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2013
Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.
ROTFLMAO.

Frost is NOT PRECIPITATION. Frost does NOT FALL.

Do your own research to find out what frost is.
LOL. Sure, maybe it's not the technical definition of frost, but it's closely related. And I think, more aptly describes the process over terms like "snow" and "frozen drizzle," which bring to mind an association with clouds and heavy fog. In Antartica, this this very light snow can happen on relatively clear days.

"The low temperatures mean that little or no water vapour is held in the air, instead it freezes and falls out, or builds up on surfaces as frost."

http://www.coolan...ther.htm

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2013
Is there a rule now? I must have missed the memo!
The three are mutually exclusive.
LOL. No they aren't.

1. The trend of the last decade and a half is for no warming.

2. Warming has previously occurred which may, or may not, be partially attributable to the activities of man.

3. Even if warming resumes, it's likely to be more beneficial, than not.

How are any of those "mutually exclusive?"

thus dispaying his intellectual fraud.
LOL. More like intellectual acumen.
More like the inability to logically distinguish between the three.
And thus you display your rigid, linear (narrow minded) point of view.

For contrast, why don't you tell us again how a single photon being "re-radiated" repeatedly, adds energy to a system. LOL.
Only an idiot or a charlatan would fail to grasp the truth in my statement.
So now you're a "free energy" believer? Maybe you're building a "super secret" zero-point energy machine in your garage? LOL!
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2013
Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.


BAW HAWHAW HAW HAW HAW!! No bloody wonder you have no idea how climate works!!!
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2013
Aw dang deepsand beat me to it!!

Psst Hey Uba--he's in on it!! :Wink O_o
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2013
Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.


BAW HAWHAW HAW HAW HAW!! No bloody wonder you have no idea how climate works!!!
This appears to be your problem.

From the Observers' Handbook, published by HMSO, ISBN 0 11 400329 7

Page 140:

"If the observer knows that the deposit in the gauge results from dew, wet fog, hoar frost or rime, an appropriate note should be made in the remarks column of register, (for example tr(w)). (The entry tr(w) is not made just because the observer sees dew on the grass). Such deposits are sometimes more than 0.05mm, in which case the measured amount is recorded".

In other words, frost is included in the precipitation total.

Even NASA agrees:

"However, this precipitation most likely takes the form of frost, rather than rain or snow."

http://imagine.gs...03c.html

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2013
Aw dang deepsand beat me to it!!

Psst Hey Uba--he's in on it!! :Wink O_o
And I just handed both of you your asses on a plate. Enjoy!

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2013
And I just handed both of you your asses on a plate. Enjoy[\q]

So, you do understand there is a difference between Earth (that't the place you live, at least physically) and Mars?

Nice try at obfuscation though. What a maroon!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2013
And I just handed both of you your asses on a plate. Enjoy
So, you do understand there is a difference between Earth (that't the place you live, at least physically) and Mars?

Nice try at obfuscation though. What a maroon!
LOL. Embarrassed much?

Perhaps you think the science of precipitation analysis and its definitions are suddenly different just because they described the process on another planet?

Or perhaps you think NASA scientists just willy-nilly make up whole new languages for every planet they examine?

I wonder... How do you say, "You just had your ass handed to you, again." in NASA Martian?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2013
OMG! You honestly don't understand the mistake you made do you? Look past your bias Uba, it will come to you.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2013
Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.
ROTFLMAO.

Frost is NOT PRECIPITATION. Frost does NOT FALL.

Do your own research to find out what frost is.
LOL. Sure, maybe it's not the technical definition of frost, but it's closely related. And I think, more aptly describes the process over terms like "snow" and "frozen drizzle," which bring to mind an association with clouds and heavy fog. In Antartica, this this very light snow can happen on relatively clear days.

"The low temperatures mean that little or no water vapour is held in the air, instead it freezes and falls out, or builds up on surfaces as frost."

If you can't get the simple stuff right there's no reason that you can do better with anything greater.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2013
Is there a rule now? I must have missed the memo!
The three are mutually exclusive.
No they aren't.

Still having trouble with logic, I see.

1) A trend skeptic questions the existence of change.

2) An attribution skeptic questions the existence of a particular cause of a trend, which first requires that he acknowledge that a trend exists.

3) An impact skeptic questions what effects a trend attributable to a particular cause or set of causes will have, which requires that he first acknowledge both the trend and said attribution(s).

Now, was that so difficult to understand?

Oh, wait, silly question, considering who's being addressed.

deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2013
Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.


From the Observers' Handbook, published by HMSO, ISBN 0 11 400329 7, Page 140:

"If the observer knows that the deposit in the gauge results from dew, wet fog, hoar frost or rime, an appropriate note should be made in the remarks column of register, (for example tr(w)). (The entry tr(w) is not made just because the observer sees dew on the grass). Such deposits are sometimes more than 0.05mm, in which case the measured amount is recorded".

In other words, frost is included in the precipitation total.

From http://en.wikiped...ology%29

"In meteorology, precipitation (also known as one of the classes of hydrometeors, which are atmospheric water phenomena) is any product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapour that falls under gravity."

Frost does NOT "Fall under gravity.".
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2013
To @the Alchemist; We already thought about it....it a BIG and fast global warming like nothing this world has seen in all of Earths history! Prove me wrong.

Darn it! Howhot, Darn it! I CAN'T prove you wrong, mankind IS adding heat energy to the planet Earth with detrimental effects! WE are absolutely right. We simply disagree on the cause. You say it's CO2, I say its the heat from the fossil fuels. I think CO2 is a wild goose chase confusing the issue, allowing no action to be taken from dissention, and eventual disproof.
Aside: I am working on modelling the Earth without H2O in the atmosphere. I know the temperature will drop, but I haven't found the equilib. temp yet. Working.
Every day the US alone produces enough heat to melt 100m3 of ice. Put another way enough to raise 10,000 m3... 14 C. YOU know from your models, that heat is not significantly radiated... it's absorbed. The world burns about 10x that!
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2013
Correction: "Produces enought heat from burning gasoline..."
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2013
CxHx O2 = H2O CO2 energy.

Of that, the H2O quickly condenses, and a significant portion of the energy, which is of the shorter IR wavelengths or in the visible light range, is either converted to kinetic energy or emitted as visible light. The only output with a relatively long lifespan is CO2.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 03, 2013
Aw dang deepsand beat me to it!!

Psst Hey Uba--he's in on it!! :Wink O_o
And I just handed both of you your asses on a plate.

Only in your fantasy world.

For a realistic view, look at your rankings here.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 03, 2013
And I just handed both of you your asses on a plate. Enjoy
So, you do understand there is a difference between Earth (that't the place you live, at least physically) and Mars?

Nice try at obfuscation though. What a maroon!
LOL. Embarrassed much?

Perhaps you think the science of precipitation analysis and its definitions are suddenly different just because they described the process on another planet?

Or perhaps you think NASA scientists just willy-nilly make up whole new languages for every planet they examine?

You obviously are either incapable of making the distinguish between the meteorological definition and what is essentially an accounting practice or being deliberately obtuse.

And, yes, you just had your ass handed to you, again.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 03, 2013
Thank you, PhysOrg, for improperly handling the "plus" symbol.

CxHx O2 = H2O CO2 energy.

Should read CxHx PLUS O2 = H2O PLUS CO2 PLUS energy.

Of that, the H2O quickly condenses, and a significant portion of the energy, which is of the shorter IR wavelengths or in the visible light range, is either converted to kinetic energy or emitted as visible light. The only output with a relatively long lifespan is CO2.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2013
A FEB PGA golf tournament in Tucson was delayed by snow this year.
It was snowing last night in northern AL.
"The highest mountain peaks in the northwestern Himalayas, the Andes and the Yukon region will also receive greater amounts of snowfall after carbon dioxide doubles."

Sounds like the start of an ice age as glaciers build.
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2013
A FEB PGA golf tournament in Tucson was delayed by snow this year.
It was snowing last night in northern AL.
"The highest mountain peaks in the northwestern Himalayas, the Andes and the Yukon region will also receive greater amounts of snowfall after carbon dioxide doubles."

Sounds like the start of an ice age as glaciers build.


It has also happened that Florida --further south, still-- has received snowfall during the winter.

The operative word here is WINTER, you gobshite maroon.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 04, 2013
This 70 year forecast doesn't matter as it will be 'adjusted' when it fails.
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2013
This 70 year forecast doesn't matter as it will be 'adjusted' when it fails.

Its only a forecast R2. It's probably correct, but you can dismiss it as you like. The person that has the final word is Mother Nature, and she is swinging a mighty big hammer right now.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2013
Is there a rule now? I must have missed the memo!
The three are mutually exclusive.
No they aren't.
Still having trouble with logic, I see.

1) A trend skeptic questions the existence of change.
The current trend is flat.

2) An attribution skeptic questions the existence of a particular cause of a trend, which first requires that he acknowledge that a trend exists.
There's no proof any warming which occurred in the past was anthropogenic.

3) An impact skeptic questions what effects a trend attributable to a particular cause or set of causes will have, which requires that he first acknowledge both the trend and said attribution(s).
Past warming seems to have been benign. And even if warming resumes, so what?

Now, was that so difficult to understand?
For you, obviously.

Oh, wait, silly question, considering who's being addressed.
Indeed. I shouldn't expect a free-energy proponent like you to understand real science. LOL

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2013
In other words, frost is included in the precipitation total.
From http://en.wikiped...ology%29

"In meteorology, precipitation (also known as one of the classes of hydrometeors, which are atmospheric water phenomena) is any product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapour that falls under gravity."

Frost does NOT "Fall under gravity.".
So where do you think the frost's moisture content comes from? Does it just appear, as if by magic?

precipitation [prɪˌsɪpɪˈteɪʃən]
n
1. (Earth Sciences / Physical Geography) Meteorol
a. rain, snow, sleet, dew, etc., formed by condensation of water vapour in the atmosphere
b. the deposition of these on the earth's surface
c. the amount precipitated

http://www.thefre...pitation

And:

Deposits of dew, frost, or rime, and moisture collected from fog are occasionally also classed as precipitation.

http://www.ecomii...eorology

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2013
Aw dang deepsand beat me to it!!

Psst Hey Uba--he's in on it!! :Wink O_o
And I just handed both of you your asses on a plate.
Only in your fantasy world.

For a realistic view, look at your rankings here.

Says the downranking sockpuppet of Caliban/lite/deepsand/excalibur.

Grow up. Science isn't a popularity contest.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2013
Or perhaps you think NASA scientists just willy-nilly make up whole new languages for every planet they examine?
You obviously are either incapable of making the distinguish between the meteorological definition and what is essentially an accounting practice or being deliberately obtuse.
LOL. "the distinguish" LOL.

You can't even use proper grammar, and you speak to me of definitions? LOL.

Maybe you're trying to say, NASA can't make this distinction, as well?

And, yes, you just had your ass handed to you, again. LOL.

deepsand
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 11, 2013
1) A trend skeptic questions the existence of change.

The current trend is flat.

False.

2) An attribution skeptic questions the existence of a particular cause of a trend, which first requires that he acknowledge that a trend exists.

There's no proof any warming which occurred in the past was anthropogenic.

Immaterial to the present.

3) An impact skeptic questions what effects a trend attributable to a particular cause or set of causes will have, which requires that he first acknowledge both the trend and said attribution(s).
Past warming seems to have been benign.

Both false and immaterial to the present and future.

I shouldn't expect a free-energy proponent like you to understand real science.

Free energy proponent? You've obviously confused me with another. No surprise, though, considering how confused you are about so many things.
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 11, 2013
So where do you think the frost's moisture content comes from? Does it just appear, as if by magic?

That you are confused as to the origin of frost will not alter that fact that it is not "a product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapour that falls under gravity."

precipitation n 1. (Earth Sciences / Physical Geography) Meteorol a. rain, snow, sleet, dew, etc., formed by condensation of water vapour in the atmosphere b. the deposition of these on the earth's surface c. the amount precipitated http://www.thefre...pitation

The Free Dictionary is hardly authoritative.

]And: Deposits of dew, frost, or rime, and moisture collected from fog are occasionally also classed as precipitation. http://www.ecomii...eorology

The operative word there being "occasionally."
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 11, 2013
Says the downranking sockpuppet of Caliban/lite/deepsand/excalibur.

You're just pissed that so many find your stupid deception to be so very transparent. Deal with it.

Grow up.

Advice you you would do well to heed.

Science isn't a popularity contest.

It's also not whatever idiots like you and your ilk take it to be.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 11, 2013
LOL. "the distinguish" LOL. You can't even use proper grammar, and you speak to me of definitions?

You are too stupid to even know the difference between a typographical error and one of grammar.

LOL. Maybe you're trying to say, NASA can't make this distinction, as well?

The fact that you understood my meaning suffices to make your complaint moot.

What NASA does is immaterial. That frost may be counted as "precipitation" owes to the simple fact that it is not easily physically separated from the true preciptation gathered by collection devices. I.e., it's an artifact of accounting.

And, yes, you just had your ass handed to you, again.

Idiot. You can't even recognize your own ass when it's being passed about.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
The current trend is flat.
False.
Lie.

The trend for the last dozen years or more is flat, or cooling:

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

There's no proof any warming which occurred in the past was anthropogenic.
Immaterial to the present.
If your claim is AGW, than the past and current temperatures are entirely relevant.

Past warming seems to have been benign.
Both false and immaterial to the present and future.
If your claim is AGW is dangerous and continuing, it's entirely material to the present and future.

I shouldn't expect a free-energy proponent like you to understand real science.
Free energy proponent? You've obviously confused me with another. No surprise, though, considering how confused you are about so many things.
You're the idiot who claimed one photon can endlessly add energy to a system. LOL.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
So where do you think the frost's moisture content comes from? Does it just appear, as if by magic?
That you are confused as to the origin of frost will not alter that fact that it is not "a product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapour that falls under gravity."
So it's not delivered by the atmosphere and gravity? Maybe you think it's beamed there directly from space? LOL.

The Free Dictionary is hardly authoritative.
It's well recognized and in common use. That you don't like it, is irrelevant.

precipitation n 1. (Earth Sciences / Physical Geography) Meteorol a. rain, snow, sleet, dew, etc., formed by condensation of water vapour in the atmosphere b. the deposition of these on the earth's surface c. the amount precipitated http://www.thefre...pitation
The operative word there being "occasionally."
I used it in this fashion once. Is that "occasional" enough for you?

deepsand
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 11, 2013
The trend for the last dozen years or more is flat, or cooling

Cherry-picked short-term data. Using your same source, look at the 40 yr. trend http://www.woodfo...70/trend

You are an intellectual fraud.

If your claim is AGW, than the past ... temperatures are entirely relevant.

If your claim is AGW is dangerous and continuing, it's entirely material to the present and future.

Bullshit.

Either you are incredibly ignorant or so very stupid as to believe that others will not recognize your deceit.

You're the idiot who claimed one photon can endlessly add energy to a system.

A blatant falsehood.

One born of ignorance? Or, just a simple deliberate lie?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2013
Says the downranking sockpuppet of Caliban/lite/deepsand/excalibur.
You're just pissed that so many find your stupid deception to be so very transparent. Deal with it.
Like I said, grow up.

Grow up.
Advice you you would do well to heed.
Aren't you the moron playing the pissy little popularity games?

Science isn't a popularity contest.
It's also not whatever idiots like you and your ilk take it to be.
You mean you don't believe it's the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement? Instead, you think it's just a popularity contest? LOL.

I can see it now...

"Here she is... Miss Science 2013! LOL!"

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2013
LOL. "the distinguish" LOL. You can't even use proper grammar, and you speak to me of definitions?
You are too stupid to even know the difference between a typographical error and one of grammar.
A typographical error is a misspelling. This was clearly a grammatical error.

LOL. Maybe you're trying to say, NASA can't make this distinction, as well?
The fact that you understood my meaning suffices to make your complaint moot.
Not at all. As you too clearly understood my meaning regarding frost and precipitation.

What NASA does is immaterial. That frost may be counted as "precipitation" owes to the simple fact that it is not easily physically separated from the true preciptation gathered by collection devices. I.e., it's an artifact of accounting.
The why of it is irrelevant.

And, yes, you just had your ass handed to you, again.
Idiot. You can't even recognize your own ass when it's being passed about.
Loser much? LOL.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
The trend for the last dozen years or more is flat, or cooling
Cherry-picked short-term data. Using your same source, look at the 40 yr. trend

You are an intellectual fraud.
As you're the one trying to hide the current trend in a larger trend, the fraud appears to be you.

If your claim is AGW, then the past ... temperatures are entirely relevant.

If your claim is AGW is dangerous and continuing, it's entirely material to the present and future.
Bullshit.

Either you are incredibly ignorant or so very stupid as to believe that others will not recognize your deceit.
So you're saying AGW is not relevant to the past or current temperatures? Really?

You're the idiot who claimed one photon can endlessly add energy to a system.
A blatant falsehood.

One born of ignorance? Or, just a simple deliberate lie?
Have we forgotten so quickly? LOL.

deepsand
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 11, 2013
So it's not delivered by the atmosphere and gravity?

What do you not understand about frost not condensing in the atmosphere and then falling? Your pretenses and misrepresentations are most childesh.

It's well recognized and in common use.

Doesn't mean shit to a tree.
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 11, 2013
Says the downranking sockpuppet of Caliban/lite/deepsand/excalibur.
You're just pissed that so many find your stupid deception to be so very transparent. Deal with it.
Like I said, grow up.

Grow up.
Advice you you would do well to heed.
Aren't you the moron playing the pissy little popularity games?

Science isn't a popularity contest.
It's also not whatever idiots like you and your ilk take it to be.
You mean you don't believe it's the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement? Instead, you think it's just a popularity contest? LOL.

I can see it now...

"Here she is... Miss Science 2013! LOL!"

My, my, aren't you the clever idiot.
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 11, 2013
What NASA does is immaterial. That frost may be counted as "precipitation" owes to the simple fact that it is not easily physically separated from the true preciptation gathered by collection devices. I.e., it's an artifact of accounting.

The why of it is irrelevant.

Never said that it was irrelevant, but that it was immaterial. You're too stupid to even understand the difference.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 11, 2013
As you're the one trying to hide the current trend in a larger trend, the fraud appears to be you

You keep getting more and more stupid by the moment. That's what happens when a charlatan is cornered.

So you're saying AGW is not relevant to the past or current temperatures?

Yet another stupid sophist's trick, misrepresentation. It's plain for all to see that I said that past temperatures are irrelevant to present and future ones. Pretending that others cannot see what I said just makes you look more and more foolish.

Have we forgotten so quickly?

Apparently you have.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
So it's not delivered by the atmosphere and gravity?

What do you not understand about frost not condensing in the atmosphere and then falling?
Didn't you read my reference about how the moisture literally freezes out of the air?

Maybe you think the frost in the Antarctic is formed from liquid moisture in the air? Hardly.

Your pretenses and misrepresentations are most childesh.
This seems to be your problem, as exemplified by your persistent name-calling.

It's well recognized and in common use.
Doesn't mean shit to a tree.
But it means everything to a linguist.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
Says the downranking sockpuppet of Caliban/lite/deepsand/excalibur.
You're just pissed that so many find your stupid deception to be so very transparent. Deal with it.
Like I said, grow up.

Grow up.
Advice you you would do well to heed.
Aren't you the moron playing the pissy little popularity games?

Science isn't a popularity contest.
It's also not whatever idiots like you and your ilk take it to be.
You mean you don't believe it's the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement? Instead, you think it's just a popularity contest? LOL.

I can see it now...

"Here she is... Miss Science 2013! LOL!"
My, my, aren't you the clever idiot.
That's an oxymoron. You can't both be clever and an idiot, at the same time.

That you feel science is a popularity contest though, certainly implies the latter descriptor, for you.

deepsand
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2013
Didn't you read my reference about how the moisture literally freezes out of the air?

If it forms on a surface, it's frost. If it freezes in the air and falls onto a surface it's not frost. Stop playing the idiot.

This seems to be your problem, as exemplified by your persistent name-calling.

If the name fits, wear it. With all the names that are suitable for describing you, wearing them would save you the expense of purchasing clothing.

But it means everything to a linguist.

Then go play in a linguistics forum; this is to be one of Science.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
What NASA does is immaterial. That frost may be counted as "precipitation" owes to the simple fact that it is not easily physically separated from the true preciptation gathered by collection devices. I.e., it's an artifact of accounting.
The why of it is irrelevant.
Never said that it was irrelevant, but that it was immaterial. You're too stupid to even understand the difference.
Idiot. First, immaterial and irrelevant are synonyms.

im·ma·te·ri·al (m-tîr-l)
adj.
1. Of no importance or relevance; inconsequential or irrelevant.

http://www.thefre...material

Second, I didn't say you said it was irrelevant. I said your claim that it's an "artifact of accounting" is irrelevant to the definition being discussed. Regardless of why the definition as used by me exists, it exists.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
As you're the one trying to hide the current trend in a larger trend, the fraud appears to be you
You keep getting more and more stupid by the moment. That's what happens when a charlatan is cornered.
So that explains your behavior.

So you're saying AGW is not relevant to the past or current temperatures?
Yet another stupid sophist's trick, misrepresentation. It's plain for all to see that I said that past temperatures are irrelevant to present and future ones. Pretending that others cannot see what I said just makes you look more and more foolish.
"past temperatures are irrelevant to present and future ones." Really?

So, if the past temperatures are irrelevant, how can you show there's been any warming? LOL.

Have we forgotten so quickly?
Apparently you have.
LOL. You'd like me to forget your stupidity, wouldn't you?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
Didn't you read my reference about how the moisture literally freezes out of the air?
If it forms on a surface, it's frost. If it freezes in the air and falls onto a surface it's not frost. Stop playing the idiot.
LOL. How does "it form on the surface" if it's not delivered there by the air? Is it magic?

This seems to be your problem, as exemplified by your persistent name-calling.
If the name fits, wear it. With all the names that are suitable for describing you, wearing them would save you the expense of purchasing clothing.
So when science fails you, it's all about name-calling? Grow up.

But it means everything to a linguist.
Then go play in a linguistics forum; this is to be one of Science.
So how is, "Doesn't mean shit to a tree." relevant to science?

Interestingly, exact definitions are very important to science. That you didn't know this isn't surprising though.

deepsand
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2013
My, my, aren't you the clever idiot.

That's an oxymoron. You can't both be clever and an idiot, at the same time.

But, one can be both clever and an idiot in different things.

Either you aren't clever enough to figure that out, or you think that we aren't clever enough to see you for what you are.

That you feel science is a popularity contest though, ...

Still trying futilely to escape by way of misrepresentation. Yet another desperate ploy of the cornered charlatan.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2013
immaterial and irrelevant are synonyms.

Nope; there is a fine distinction.

Irrelevant - having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue
Immaterial - of no consequence

Something can be relevant but still immaterial.

I said your claim that it's an "artifact of accounting" is irrelevant to the definition being discussed.

Nevertheless, my statement is both relevant and material.

Regardless of why the definition as used by me exists, it exists.

That a falsehood exists does not make it truth.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2013
"past temperatures are irrelevant to present and future ones." Really?

Within the context of your claims, yes, really.

So, if the past temperatures are irrelevant, how can you show there's been any warming?

If you think long and hard enough, the answer might come to you.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2013
How does "it form on the surface" if it's not delivered there by the air? Is it magic?

Still playing the fool, we see.

So when science fails you, it's all about name-calling?

Facts are facts. If you don't like being accurately described as a liar or a fool, then change your behavior.

Interestingly, exact definitions are very important to science.

A point lost to you when it's convenient, as with the definitions of frost and precipitation.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
My, my, aren't you the clever idiot.
That's an oxymoron. You can't both be clever and an idiot, at the same time.
But, one can be both clever and an idiot in different things.

Either you aren't clever enough to figure that out, or you think that we aren't clever enough to see you for what you are.
Well, I'm still waiting for the clever part, from you. LOL.

That you feel science is a popularity contest though, ...
Still trying futilely to escape by way of misrepresentation. Yet another desperate ploy of the cornered charlatan.
Stating it's a misrepresentation when it isn't, doesn't make it a misrepresentation. Rather, it makes you a liar.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
immaterial and irrelevant are synonyms.
Nope; there is a fine distinction.

Irrelevant - having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue
Immaterial - of no consequence
LOL. How is that substantively different?

Something can be relevant but still immaterial.
No they can't. That's simply saying something can be relevant, but still irrelevant.

ir·rele·vant·ly adv. adv.
Synonyms: irrelevant, extraneous, immaterial, impertinent

http://www.thefre...relevant

I said your claim that it's an "artifact of accounting" is irrelevant to the definition being discussed.
Nevertheless, my statement is both relevant and material.
Saying so, doesn't make it so.

Regardless of why the definition as used by me exists, it exists.
That a falsehood exists does not make it truth.
You apparently should know.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
"past temperatures are irrelevant to present and future ones." Really?
Within the context of your claims, yes, really.
LOL. Funny how you took out all references to AGW. Who's misrepresenting now?

So, if the past temperatures are irrelevant, how can you show there's been any warming?
If you think long and hard enough, the answer might come to you.
LOL. Couldn't come up with anything, eh? LOLOLOL!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
How does "it form on the surface" if it's not delivered there by the air? Is it magic?
Still playing the fool, we see.
And yet another non-answer. What's the matter? Has your own logic led you to a dead end?

So when science fails you, it's all about name-calling?

Facts are facts. If you don't like being accurately described as a liar or a fool, then change your behavior.
LOL. You mean I should emulate you and stop bringing in the actual science? No thanks.

But as you've gone off the deep end altogether, I think I'll refer to you henceforth as "deepend."

Interestingly, exact definitions are very important to science.
A point lost to you when it's convenient, as with the definitions of frost and precipitation.
LOL. Says the idiot that already grudgingly acknowledged the occasional use is acceptable. And, the same idiot who deliberately ignores widely used definitions he doesn't like. LOL.

Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2013
Aw dang deepsand beat me to it!!

Psst Hey Uba--he's in on it!! :Wink O_o


And I just handed both of you your asses on a plate.


Only in your fantasy world.

For a realistic view, look at your rankings here.


Says the downranking sockpuppet of Caliban/lite/deepsand/excalibur.

Grow up. Science isn't a popularity contest.


I'll downrank you my very own self, boohoobooby. No puppets of any type required.

Thanks for providing me with precisely that pleasure, over and over --and over again-- in this very thread with your stupidiot insistence upon posting specious, superfluous, pseudoscientific denialist twaddle.

LOL.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2013
I'll downrank you my very own self, boohoobooby. No puppets of any type required.

Thanks for providing me with precisely that pleasure, over and over --and over again-- in this very thread with your stupidiot insistence upon posting specious, superfluous, pseudoscientific denialist twaddle.
LOL. You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the butt.

Caliban
2.8 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2013
I'll downrank you my very own self, boohoobooby. No puppets of any type required.

Thanks for providing me with precisely that pleasure, over and over --and over again-- in this very thread with your stupidiot insistence upon posting specious, superfluous, pseudoscientific denialist twaddle.
LOL. You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the butt.


That's why you should forego looking at your own, as there isn't any left.

LOL.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2013
LOL. You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the butt.
That's why you should forego looking at your own, as there isn't any left.
Thanks for noticing. I don't even work out.

deepsand
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2013
Good night, Irene.

And, do keep us apprised as to your doctors' appraisals of your mental afflictions.