I'm sick of this Global Warming!

[FXMastermind]

@Askthepizzaguy

Did you know? Warmer temperatures lead to higher amounts of water vapor in the air due to a process known as “evaporation”.

That sort of simplistic thinking becomes complete ignorance when faced with factual data, and actual reality and such. While we can’t look at this February yet, no doubt in the US it is going to look a lot colder than last February does.

When it’s warmer, like in 2012, there is less snow.

Here’s your warm conditions, in which case there is much less snow.

Here’s cold conditions for the US northeast, which of course means much more snow. Record amounts in this case.

The real irony is that in the western US, where it’s unusually warm, there just hasn’t been much precipitation. The idiot warmer wants more snow to be because it’s warmer, and less snow to be because of warming, and warm winters to be because of warming, and also cold winters to be from warming, and they actually don’t see any problem with declaring everything possible is from global warming.

Now that is sickening.

@Askthepizzaguy

Did you know? Warmer temperatures lead to higher amounts of water vapor in the air due to a process known as “evaporation”.

Did you know that when really cold dry air blows over open water, it causes it to snow? And it can be a lot of snow. And the colder it is, the more snow there will be? Because physics. And if the air is warmer, there will be less snow?

[Askthepizzaguy]

The simplistic thinking comes into this discussion when you equate snow with cold, as if cold was an “on/off” switch. Cold switched to on means snow, cold switched to off means no snow. As if there was no continuum upon which there may be a temperature gradient, going from cold to less cold.

It’s quite simple. If you equate snow with cold, that was already disproved by pointing at that continent known as Antarctica. It’s even colder there than elsewhere. Yet it snows less.

And it’s surrounded by ocean water. One would think it just becomes a bigger and bigger ball of ice, if your theory is that colder means more snow, and, of course, that global temperatures are not on the rise. And it does become a bigger and bigger ball of ice, but not because of an increase in snowfall. It simply loses less water than it gains.

So, explain the following: If the simplistic mind says that colder means more snow, why does snow fall by a much greater amount in warmer locales, such as in Boston?

100 inches in Boston. 26 degrees Fahrenheit.

Okay, so obviously, since the south pole is much, much colder than Boston, at -43 degrees Fahrenheit, and the average snowfall in Antarctica is 6.5 inches of snow.

Now, hold on a minute! Obviously much colder location on Earth, and also receives far less snow.

These are just examples. But these are examples that prove that with 5 minutes’ worth of googling, anyone can see that “cold” =/= “snow”.

And, also, that there’s such a thing as cold, and colder, and even colder than that. 10 degrees is colder than 20 degrees. But, both conditions are ripe for snowfall, if there’s enough water in the air.

So, when the Earth gets warmer,

https://webcms.colostate.edu/lsop/media/sites/30/2014/12/WarmAir.pdf

Both the air and the water will get warmer as well. Warmer water tends to lead to more evaporation, and warmer air generally holds more moisture, if it isn’t already saturated. But, warmer air allows the air to become more saturated than colder air.

Cold air, on the other hand, particularly in places like Antarctica, holds less moisture. The people that visit that continent and do science stuff have to worry about their moisture loss, because they’re in the middle of a desert.

A cold desert.

Again, you appear to confuse local weather with increased global average temperatures.

And you also appear to confuse cold with snow, which is, I have to say, funny as fuck. Thank you so much for the laughs. I wish I could live in a world so simple as to equate cold, which is a rather ambiguous term which provides little context, with snow, which is a phenomenon that happens at specific temperatures and under specific conditions, some of which are warmer than others.

While it’s cold in England, or Boston, it’s also quite warm on other parts of the globe.

You consistently fail to tell the difference between a global temperature reading and a local one, conflate temperature extremes with global trends, always on the low end, never on the higher end, by the way, and laughably draw no distinction between cold and snow, as if cold were an absolute. Note: It can be. Though I predict you’d not see a lot of snow at that temperature.

When you can tell the difference between these concepts, please by all means get back to us.

[Skywatcher]

All these posts are the result of a bet, right?

@FXMastermind

Did you know that when really cold dry air blows over open water, it causes it to snow?

Warm water, relative to the incoming air, which warms said air in turn.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Askthepizzaguy

Again, you appear to confuse local weather with increased global average temperatures.

He’s been doing that since the very first post in this thread. Why should he change now?

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Askthepizzaguy

Again, you appear to confuse local weather with increased global average temperatures.

He also seems to have some kind of weird boner for February.

[Fear_Itself]

Sea Levels Along The Northeast Rose Almost 4 Inches In Just 2 Years

Sea levels across the Northeast coast of the United States rose nearly 3.9 inches between 2009 and 2010, according to a new study from researchers at the University of Arizona and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The waters near Portland, Maine, saw an even greater rise – 5 inches – over the two-year period.

While scientists have been observing higher sea levels across the globe in recent decades, the study found a much more extreme rise than previous averages. Such an event is “unprecedented” in the history of the tide gauge record, according to the researchers, and represents a 1-in-850 year event.

“Unlike storm surge, this event caused persistent and widespread coastal flooding even without apparent weather processes,” the study’s authors wrote. “In terms of beach erosion, the impact of the 2009-2010 [sea level rise] event is almost as significant as some hurricane events.”

The analysis relied on data from dozens of tide gauges along the eastern seaboard. The nearly 4-inch rise for the Northeast represents the average of 14 tide gauges located between New York and Canada. Tide gauges farther south in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast indicated a sea level rise far less extreme in 2009 and closer to average in some areas. The jump occurred most quickly between April 2009 and March 2010.

The study found that the increase in the Northeast was caused by a 30 percent slowdown in a major ocean current system known as the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) and a fluctuation in atmospheric pressure at sea level. The Gulf Steam is one component of the AMOC, which moves warm water northward in the upper levels of the Atlantic.

[FXMastermind]

@Fear_Itself

Sea Levels Along The Northeast Rose Almost 4 Inches In Just 2 Years

From the actual paper

The slowdown in the AMOC in 2009–2010 was unanticipated
and its magnitude was exceptional compared with interannual
variability in coupled climate models. Its origin
remains uncertain 5 years on: there have been suggestions
that wind stress curl variability 2 to 3 years earlier may have
generated increased southward gyre flow associated with the
slowdown (Duchez et al., 2014) or that ocean–atmosphere
boundary conditions, partially set by the ocean thermal state,
could generate the event (Roberts et al., 2013). Such efforts
representing attempts to show that the atmosphere must drive
all ocean variability do not yet explain why the slowdown
also shows up in a reduction in the southward flow of Lower
North Atlantic Deep Water below 3000 m depth, but not in a
change to the southward flow of upper North Atlantic Deep
Water between 1000 and 3000 m depth. The cooling south of
25◦ N (Fig. 4) preceding the warming during the 2009–2010
event suggests to us that the slowdown started earlier further
south. At this point in time the evidence is that the ocean exhibits
modes of variability that are not explained by recent
atmospheric forcing: the ocean has a mind of its own.

[FXMastermind]

@Skywatcher

Warm water, relative to the incoming air, which warms said air in turn.

Of course. If the water is below freezing and iced over, there will be no evaporation, or lake effect snow. Same if the air temperature isn’t extremely cold, the transpiration warms the air so much there is also no snow. You have to have very cold air blowing over unfrozen water. Such basic physics should be just a given, but of course when it comes to global warming, physics is the second to last thing that will matter.

@Askthepizzaguy

The simplistic thinking comes into this discussion when you equate snow with cold, as if cold was an “on/off” switch. Cold switched to on means snow, cold switched to off means no snow.

That is actually exactly the case for lake effect snow. If it’s not cold, no snow. If cold air blows in, snow. All else being equal. As long as the water isn’t frozen, a very cold wind will produce snow, as it’s the difference between the air and water that matters. If it’s not cold enough, just clouds or rain.

Such nit picking sidetracks don’t change a thing about physics, or weather or climate of course. The record snowfall in Alabama (permalink) is from record cold of course, not because it was “slightly warmer”, the line between snow and rain is an obvious signature of why cold means snow. Where it’s warmer there is rain, not snow. This is such a well known feature of storms and cold in meteorology, you can tell somebody is bullshitiing you when they claim warmer means more snow. It’s complete hogwash, patent nonsense.

And the only reason alarmists fuckheads are even pimping this nonsense is to try and explain why a record warm world is showing so much more snow, in places where it is record cold.

I posted a long data filled post showing global temperatures above, which was of course ignored. The classic fuckhead just returns to making the same idiot claim. When the data clearly shows at the times record cold and snow are recorded, the global mean is trending down.

Priceless.

Science says we can just look at the area in northern Alabama that just got hammered with record snow and cold. Is it an unusual unexpected event? Is January there actually warming? How about February? The entire winter season?

Science bitch! We see with ease that the winters there are not trending warmer.

(Unlike summers)

“You are confusing local with global!” No, that’s why I typed out that long post showing that the US trends actually match the entire NH trends, and why the same thing is observed globally. Not regional.

But the warmers ignore this of course.

Is the winter trend meaningful? Does it show us something about global warming theory? Greenhouse theory says lows should be warming more than daytime highs. Can we see this in our example?

The minimum temp trend for winter is -8,5F, the maximum temp winter trend is -6.5F, whichis the opposite of greenhouse forcing. Theory says the enhanced greenhouse effect should keep night time temps higher. It’s a key signature of CO2 forced climate change.

We see the same thing globally, with winter trends. Colder night time lows are driving the drop, the trend. (I quoted this from Cohen et al. 2014 above)

So record cold and snow is just a result of colder winter temperatures, except where the winters are warmer of course. It’s not like the entire NH is becoming colder in winter.

Just the global mean. It’s why averaging doesn’t tell us much about the real picture. Like this absurd “Antarctica gets very little snow”, which is meaningless with out understanding what really happens there.

The average annual snow is 6.5 inches there. The interior, far from the oceans, gets an inch usually. The coastal regions get many meters. Averaging it out shows 6.5 inches, but that tells us little about any area. Usually the persistent high pressure causes wind to blow down from the glaciers, preventing much moisture from reaching inland. But it snows a lot on the coasts, especially when the sea ice has melted.

So some idiot claiming it’s a desert and gets almost no snow is just an absurd troll.

[Skywatcher]

@FXMastermind

Of course. If the water is below freezing and iced over, there will be no evaporation, or lake effect snow. Same if the air temperature isn’t extremely cold, the transpiration warms the air so much there is also no snow. You have to have very cold air blowing over unfrozen water.

It’s not the coldness of the air but the temperature difference between the air and the water. Guess what happens when air temperature stays cold but the water gets warmer? Grade school physics!

So some idiot claiming it’s a desert and gets almost no snow is just an absurd troll.

Is NASA an absurd troll?
Is Scribol?
Extreme Science?
National Geographic?

[FXMastermind]

@Skywatcher

Grade school physics!

Might want to update that lesson.

Automobile exhaust: Lead from automobile exhaust combines with the natural iodine in the air to form lead-iodine compounds.

I’m pretty sure there is little lead in current car exhaust.

But even so, it’s right there in the basic physics lesson. "Arctic air, necessary for lake effect snow, "

In other words, the air has to be very cold for it to happen. Warmer air does not cause more snow, something any basic meteorology text will learn ya, but fuckheads never read books, or they wouldn’t be fuckheads. It will not matter how much you repeat it, saying “warmer means more snow” is never going to be correct. Because physics.

As for this idiot claim that “Antarctica is a desert”, nobody is saying the interior of Antarctica is dry, as I noted, the average snowfall doesn’t tell the whole story, a common theme with alarmists and the terminally ignorant.

Weather fronts don’t usually reach the Antarctic interior, where the air is too cold to hold much moisture anyway. The little snow that does fall tends to stay for a very, very long time because it’s never warm enough to melt it! The coasts, on the other hand, can get heavy snowfalls of up to 1.22 meters (4 feet).

http://www.polarcruises.com/polar-info/antarctica-info/antarctic-weather-and-environment

Why would anyone want to quibble over a well known thing like Antarctica and snow there? Oh yeah, to avoid the data I showed, which clearly makes the claims about “more snow because it warmer” look stupid. Which it is.

The Antarctic interior is a cold, windy and dry desert whose snowfall is equivalent to less than 2 inches (50 millimeters) of rain per year. Antarctica is the driest desert on earth – drier than the Sahara, and just as big.

But the coastal areas, they get a fuck ton of snow, meters at a time or more. Because it’s cold there. Using the south pole to claim “when it’s cold it snows less”, which is the idiot claim on the table, is stupid.

Is there some asinine global warming blog somewhere spreading this idiocy? Do people actually believe this shit? Or do they just regurgitate idiot ideas as fact?

And does anybody give a fuck?

[kidchameleon]

@Fiveyearlurker

He also seems to have some kind of weird boner for February.

He once lost a girlfriend to a groundhog.

[Skywatcher]

@FXMastermind

In other words, the air has to be very cold for it to happen. Warmer air does not cause more snow, something any basic meteorology text will learn ya, but fuckheads never read books, or they wouldn’t be fuckheads. It will not matter how much you repeat it, saying “warmer means more snow” is never going to be correct. Because physics.

Tell that to the University of Michigan:

“If there is a reduction in lake ice or lake ice starts forming later in the winter season, these factors can help to increase the area along the lakeshore that experience snow in a given lake-effect snow event,” he explained. “If the lake surface temperature begins to significantly increase above normal values seen during the winter season, the overall amount of snowfall increases as well as how far inland the snowfall is seen. This shows (one way) how climate change can begin to impact the distribution of precipitation and intensity in future climate scenarios.”

Arctic air + warmer water = more snow. Because physics.

As for this idiot claim that “Antarctica is a desert”, nobody is saying the interior of Antarctica is dry
<snip>

What’s this, then?

[Antarctica is] dry like a desert.

[M]easured on an annual basis the Antarctic is as almost as dry as the Sahara Desert.

More snow occurs in winter near the coast, whereas inland no seasonal pattern is discernable. This may be due, again, to local uplift conditions, which are common in winter. We find no influence of the distance to the sea ice edge. Katabatic winds play an important role in transporting snow to the valley bottoms and essentially double the precipitation. That much of the snow accumulation sublimates prior to making a hydrologic contribution underscores the notion that the McMurdo Dry Valleys are indeed an extreme polar desert.

In coastal regions about 200 mm can fall annually. In mountainous regions and on the East Antarctica plateau the amount is less than 50 mm annually.

But the coastal areas, they get a fuck ton of snow, meters at a time or more. Because it’s cold there. Using the south pole to claim “when it’s cold it snows less”, which is the idiot claim on the table, is stupid.

The coastal areas of the Antarctic continent are characterized by somewhat milder temperatures and much higher precipitation rates, mainly occurring as snow. Snows more on the warmer coast and less in the colder interior? Congratulations, you just lost what little credibility you had!

[FXMastermind]

@FXMastermind

As for this idiot claim that “Antarctica is a desert”, nobody is saying the interior of Antarctica is dry,

@Skywatcher

What’s this, then?

That is an obvious typo. Should have read “nobody is saying the interior of Antarctica isn’t dry”, as the source I used explained.

The Antarctic interior is a cold, windy and dry desert whose snowfall is equivalent to less than 2 inches (50 millimeters) of rain per year. Antarctica is the driest desert on earth – drier than the Sahara, and just as big.

[brazil84]

@Trinopus

He doesn’t bathe often enough.

No, seriously, I blundered by trolling the troll; that was damn stupid of me. It was like a child prodding at a caged tiger at the zoo.

Lol, nice way to retcon your bullshit.

Now please show me where I supposedly misquoted you. Of course you cannot do that because it was a complete lie and you know it.

I apologize to the forum for this absurd waste of time.

You should apologize to the world for being such a waste of oxygen, lying scumbag.

[VinylTurnip]

@brazil84

You should apologize to the world for being such a waste of oxygen, lying scumbag.

Please provide a citation supporting your claim that Trinopus’s level of oxygen consumption has had a negative impact on the biosphere, or admit that you were lying and apologize.

[Skywatcher]

@FXMastermind

That is an obvious typo.

Yet somehow not obvious enough for you to go back and fix it while the edit window was open? :dubious:

Say, now that you’ve argued yourself into that corner, here’s something to keep your head warm!

[Skywatcher]

Scientific American
“Once the air temperature at ground level drops below about -10 degrees Fahrenheit (-20 degrees Celsius), snowfall becomes unlikely in most places. Therefore, significant snowfall at such very low temperatures is rare.”

<snip>

“At higher, but still subfreezing, temperatures, ice crystals hook onto each other to create snowflakes.”

“‘[W]armer means more snow’ is never going to be correct”, huh?

[Skywatcher]

Cecil Adams

[A]t temperatures near freezing, you can expect big honking snow flakes and lots of them. One those comparatively rare occasions when it snows near 0 F, you can expect individual snow crystals, but not very many of them because such cold air can’t “hold” as much water vapor. Below about -40°, you can expect only very small crystals to fall, and very few of them at that.

You gonna call our own Perfect Master a troll now?

[marshmallow]

FXMastermind, do you or your family work in or rely on the fossil fuel industry or related fields? I only ask because I noticed in two prominent pit threads you rant a lot against global warming and nuclear energy. These opinions can be arrived at independently of course, but I thought it was interesting.

[Knorf]

It helps if one reminds oneself that FXMastermind is plain and simple an industry shill. He’s just like Robert Kehoe and his ilk, “scientists” and apologists funded by the industry who testified before Congress and insisted, for literally decades, that the lead in gasoline wasn’t hurting anybody, despite overwhelming evidence that it was. Or similar apologists who kept the public doubting the very clear links between smoking and cancer for decades.

I am optimistic that science will win out in the end. The question is only whether it will be too late.

In other news, the permafrost is melting Siberia, leading pockets of formerly trapped methane to burst out of the ground leaving behind some spectacular craters.