Actually, it did.
Tris
I guess my point is that just because more snowy winters in some places is a predicted result of global warming/climate change/etc, does not mean that the opposite occurring indicates that climate change is not happening. You can’t point at it and say, “haha! You were wrong about snow! Guess the whole thing’s off then, eh?”
And, conversely, you can’t point at a snowy winter and say that “see, more snow means the climate is changing! Take that!”
Changes in climate are the result of changes to the equilibrium of the climate system. While I think that general statements about what is likely to happen on a broad scale are reasonable to make, I think it’d be pretty foolish for anyone to make definitive predictions about the climate in their specific location for the next 10, 50, or 100 years, particularly when talking about such a small piece of the weather pie like, “how much snow is going to be on the ground in March of 2010 in North America,” and then draw any conclusions based on the success or failure of that prediction.
So, to answer the OP (and to echo what a lot of other folks have already said, a snowy NH winter doesn’t prove anything, though it might have been predictable to some extent given any number of models, global climate change being one (sunspots perhaps being another).
I went back and read your post again, and I think I just missed your point the first time; my apologies.
Though I suppose the argument might be that that big hefty chunk of ice that is now floating around in the ocean will melt much more rapidly than it would staying down at the pole, and that much of that heat transfer to the ice is coming from the warmer water at higher latitudes.
So, the ice isn’t cooling the planet, but it is cooling the sea. If that makes any sense.
It does - and a fair point.
That’s a bit of a strawman, because I’m not claiming that one missed prediction torpedos the whole theory.
Again and again people have tried to set up that strawman, and it’s getting a little old.
The real point is this: If a hypothesis makes some interesting predictions; and those predictions come true; it’s evidence in favor of the hypothesis. If those predictions do not come true, it’s evidence against the hypothesis.
Simple enough, but when it comes to the CAGW hypothesis, a lot of people have a hard time with this concept.
Did you read what I said?
Clearly it did not. Putting aside the issue of whether some average was referred to, the source clearly specified a particular month.
Evidently you either wish to deceive someone, perhaps yourself, or your reading skills are simply not up to the task of assimilating the meaning of a compound sentence. Here is a hint, read the part of the sentence you cut off when you tried to make your point. Read it carefully, and consider what it actually means, as opposed to what you wish it meant.
Tris
:shrug:
I read it carefully and my point stands. If weather in a single month has absolutely no significance, then there’s no need to mention it at all.
And I note that you haven’t bothered to answer my question.
I will ask one more time, and then I will explain why I think you are evading it:
I did not fail to answer your question, I simply refused to defend a straw man. The misquote you used, to imply that the reference was to a single month was not a reference to a single month. Either you are not able to understand that, or you are not willing to face the fact that a very large body of evidence does show that global climate has changed, and that the change has been instrumentally documented by scientific professionals.
The snow cover is a single element of the climate. That means that alone, it is not sufficient to demonstrate climate change. Even over decades, it is only one aspect of weather. Total hydrosphere involvement in climate is extraordinarily complex. However, as NOAA noted, the trend for the last twenty years is for earlier meting, and loss of snow cover over time. It’s a world average, and a multi decade phenomenon, and it is significant. It might be cyclic, although I know of no hard instrumental evidence that it is.
Ice and snow are melting, and doing so in an accelerating pace, over half a century, and that is a world wide phenomenon.
Tris
flex, you missed the part where I said I was going to do some language-mangling. 
Transmit cold?!
Ahem…more energy gets pumped into the big planetary ice cubes, so instead of being -40°C ice, it’s -20°C ice. This ice will absorb heat, and stay solid, for a while. Eventually, though, it’s 0°C, and then (as you mentioned, thanks, I spaced that) heat of fusion kicks in, so it stays 0°C for a little bit, and then all our cocktails get warm and we have to head to the gas station for another $1.29 bag of the white stuff.
The whole snowfall thing comes from this: as the temp gets higher, more water is in the air (don’t forget, solids have vapor pressure too). This water is available for crystallization (and condensation), and both will precipitate more readily, because the air is also warmer=less dense=less able to hold non-gaseous components aloft. So…more snow. For a while.
Good crap, I’m starting to sound like one of my HS profs, and for all I know flex has a PhD and I just made a royal fool of myself.
That’s nonsense. You admitted that snow patterns over a period of decades could have some significance vis-a-vis global warming. However you refused to state what snow patterns would be inconsistent with global warming.
I suspect the reason you evaded the question was because you have made up your mind already that the CAGW hypothesis is correct and you are interested only in evidence that confirms the hypothesis, not in evidence that undermines the hypothesis.
Of course it was a reference to a single month. Sure, it referenced a 20-year period too, but that doesn’t change the fact that it referenced a single month – as if that single month had some degree of significance.
Ok, and if the amount of ice and snow cover increases on a worldwide basis over the next 20 years, that’s evidence AGAINST CAGW, right?
You keep abbreviating what I have already said into some sort of binary logic test. This is not a binary logic phenomenon. When I said hydrosphere interaction with climate was extraordinarily complex, I didn’t mean that using a ruler in your back yard to measure snow was complex.
Yes, the entire annual cycle of snow cover, over the entire range of latitudes, and altitudes would be expected to drop over time, and an average increase over half a century would be highly surprising. That doesn’t mean that a change in wind patterns might not have unexpected consequences. During the last fifty years, snow pack has decreased. Glaciers have lost area, and mass, even during years of relative high snow fall. There may be a glacier that grew, somewhere on the face of the earth, but if so, I am unaware of it.
When you finally pull out your pet statistic, and tell us again that there can be no global warming because of it, please be sure that it does have some bearing on world wide, long term increases in average snow cover. If you have such information, I will have to re-evaluate pretty much everything I have learned about twentieth century meteorology. I would be surprised. I won’t cling to the premise if the evidence actually proves it wrong. But I won’t immediately reject the premise without examining the data point, and its sources, either.
Tris
That’s right, because CAGW (as pushed by many) is not an honest hypothesis. An honest hypothesis makes interesting predictions. If those predictions come true, it supports the hypothesis. If those predictions do not come true, it undermines the hypothesis. Simple binary logic.
But as you admit, CAGW (as pushed by many) is exempt from “simple binary logic.” If an ice shelf collapses, it’s evidence of global warming. On the other hand, if the amount of sea (or land) ice increases, it’s still consistent with global warming. Or it’s “weather not climate.”
If there’s a drought in Australia, it’s consistent with global warming. On the other hand, if the amount of rain increases in Australia, it’s consistent with global warming.
As Karl Popper observed, “Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions . . . .”
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiability.html
Perhaps you should invest in cold weather gear, then.
Tris
I’m not tellin’ 
Okay, no PhD here. I find the subject of extreme interest and remain mostly open-minded. My main worry is that the cure may be worse than the disease.
Well, I’m not making any special predictions about weather for the next 50 or 100 years.
Over the next couple thousand years, it seems pretty likely that we’ll enter another ice age.
In any event, I would say that the best way to prepare for cold weather or warm weather (in the medium and long term) is to accumulate wealth.
brazil84, at first I thought were playing Devil’s Advocate. Maybe.
Too bad this isn’t the Pit.
All I have seen you do is trot out the weakest reality-denying arguments, not even for the purpose of making converts, but for claiming for your own mental benefit that nothing bad is happening, or ever will happen, and that all of your behaviors and desires are simple prudence in the face of things that don’t exist. Did I phrase that nonsensically enough for your personal views?
And, um…this “accumulated wealth.” What do you plan on using it for? Passenger-Pigeon-Pie?
ETA: Mods, dock me as hard as I deserve. I knew when I wrote that that it’s too harsh for GD, and I don’t take any of it back.
I’m not sure one should even correlate amount of snow with average local temperature.
Have you ever noticed that when it’s really really cold, the air tends to be dry and it doesn’t snow very much?
Have you ever noticed that when it is snowing like crazy, the air temperature is usually rather mild?
I believe we get the most snow when the temperature is just below freezing. When it is colder than that, we get LESS snow due to drier air masses.
A rise in temperature resulting in more snow in some places seems entirely reasonable to me.
I still have no idea what your point was.
In an effort to discuss matters in good faith, I asked you this:
A simple and fair question, the purpose of which was to help me understand your argument. A question which you ignored, as far as I can tell.
Instead, you played a classic alarmist card by attacking my motivations.
As opposed to the so-called “skeptics” who attack the motivations of the IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, and practically the entire field of climate science? I don’t see any distinct difference between attacks on motivations except that one side is attacking the motivations of a few people whose views stand in stark contrast to the rest of the scientific community while the other side is attacking the motivations of nearly everyone qualified to have an informed opinion on the subject.