There’s few things funnier than somebody trying to have something both ways. If it’s warmer with less snow, it’s global warming. If it’s colder with much more snow, it’s also global warming. And the idiots can’t grasp why they are mocked.
“Colder” than what? Colder than, say, -7°F? Yeah, if there’s a whole bunch of snow (as in flakes, not single crystals) at that temperature then there’s clearly something wrong.
Colder than 34°F? Where’d the moisture come from to create all that snow? Hint: it didn’t come down from the arctic! Unless that arctic air passed over a significantly warmer lake.
You’re a fucking idiot who can’t grasp why he’s a fucking idiot.
I’m fairly sure that Al Gore, the inventor of global warming, specifically said “It will never ever snow anywhere ever again beginning right now.”
At least, that’s what the Republican response to global warming has lead me to believe.
Well, that’s just one component of winter.
To my knowledge, nobody has claimed that the poles will go all Vegas on us: “what happens in the [ant-]arctic stays in the [ant-]arctic.” 
“[W]armer means more snow”.
Correct.
FXMastermind is a person who has a vested interest in deceiving people.
Whether he, or she, (it? …let’s just combine all three as s/he/it or s.h.it to save time) actually makes a personal profit by spreading the thoroughly debunked and laughable argument that global warming isn’t happening because snow, it doesn’t really matter.
S.h.it has successfully trolled us all into responding to its shit, for a few years now. Most have reached the conclusion that it is a task worthy of punishing Sisyphus to attempt to bat down all the poor conclusions reached by the carefully plucked data.
A man will stand there with a straight face and go “snow” and show us a snowball, and say “WHERE IS YOUR GLOBAL WARMING GOD NOW!?!”
At no point can I take this person by the hand, and lead them toward a computer, and show them NASA images which prove that the arctic ice is deteriorating, and have that be a rebuttal; because in their mind, they can still hold out that snowball and go BUT I HAVE SNOW IN MY HAND, AND SNOW MEANS IT IS GETTING COLDER.
Because, as we’ve all learned, snow means cold, and cold means snow.
It’s just that simple.
Simple is as simple does. And sometimes a person with a big shit eating grin can sell a briefcase full of shit to a pig farmer, who is already up to his knees in fecal matter, because simple people buy simple arguments made for simple people to consume.
Remember, the people responding substantively to the s.h.it’s bullshit are not the target audience. The target audience is dumbass who is persuaded by such bullshit, and fortunately there are precious few of those on the Dope.
I mean, we might jokingly refer to it as the Derp, but really, there are only a few derps, they are just very persistent derps.
What part of “global” can’t you comprehend?
It’s cold in some places…and warm in others. The number of warm places is greater this year than it was last year. If you add them all up, the total is rising.
Are you seriously unaware of the existence of South America, southern Africa, southern Asia, Australia, and Antarctica? You sure as hell act like it.
A video on that NASA page:**
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jjwpOWeRZus#t=50**
You don’t have to start at the 50 second mark, but it’s handy for illustrating this point.
You see how the planet’s average temperature is represented locally by warmer than average temperatures being darker and darker orange, and cooler than average temperatures being represented locally by darker and darker blue.
Overall, the planet is warmer, almost everywhere. And yet, it is not universally the case.
A plucker of cling-on shit nuggets will find the area around the northeastern united states and canada and say look, it’s cooler here. (Briefly)
Therefore global warming is a sham.
A person with intelligence will note that pretty much the entire rest of the planet is warmer, particularly in the arctic, and in the oceans, which means less heat is reflected back into space due to less ice, and more water gets into the air because of increased evaporation.
And of course, more water in the air, in the winter, in cool areas like the northeast united states, in the winter, will mean more snow.
You can see NASA’s data and their images which show reduced ice in the arctic, and of course, higher temperatures almost everywhere.
This is the difference between experts with all of the data presenting it professionally, in an easy to understand format, all at once, versus a cretin whose purpose is to measure snow in one part of the globe and say the temperature there is cold, therefore global warming is a hoax.
There are two different purposes behind each- one is to inform and clarify, the other is to lie and distort.
And the methodology is remarkably naked. If NASA were trying to cover up the parts that don’t help their case, they’d simply censor the cooler temps in the northeast united states and canada, and focus only on the orange color.
Whereas if shit troll cretin wants to focus only on the data that keeps its arguments from collapsing under the weight of its own bullshit, it must point at this data point here or there, and utterly ignore the entire rest of the sum of human knowledge, by ignoring it, avoiding response to it, and cutting out those sections of quoted or linked articles.
This is how charlatans operate.
FXMastermind is openly, nakedly, and unabashedly a fraud, a charlatan, and a collector of human fly-brains. It is a trap, ensnaring those too dumb to know what to do when confronted with its disingenuous nonsense, attracted by the sweet smell of rancid shit, they are then buried by it. Fittingly.
But there is still a good 99 percent of the scientific community and most of the entire Dope board membership here to save any minds out there that are confused.
Just read the thread, and note the constant references to this:
And all the reposts and requotes and links back to this one, singular message which is simple enough for even the simplest of minds.
But really, it is slightly inaccurate. It should be:
[QUOTE=Me]
If you believe any of the bullshit spewed by FX, you’re a fucking idiot.
[/QUOTE]
Note also that I did not put dozens of links into my post.
You watch a video from a reputable source which has a lot more access to the facts and the scientific instruments, a source that the s.h.it quotes from often enough, so we’ll all stipulate this is a good source of information.
The video is quite short. Yet within it, a vast amount of data is presented, at once, in the form of a graphic. In a simple format, one which is not very difficult to understand, and doesn’t attempt to confuse the issue by presenting only part of the data, in one region, and suggesting that represents the whole.
It shows the entire whole, at once. The parts that the s.h.it can’t explain.
With pretty colors.
It is designed to present the maximum amount of truthful information in a manner that allows everyone to follow along, even the dipshits who deny science.
Although there are not a lot of numerical values being shoved into one’s face, the colors on the graphic are representations of those numbers, and easier to represent as the temperatures of those areas in a quick and handy graphic.
The actual tables containing all the relevant numbers will exist. They will be used by trolls to highlight any minority trend which goes against the global trend, for the purposes of misinforming. Because no one wants to sit there and pore over dozens of tables and walls of numbers. So a troll can quote outlier numbers, present it as the trend, rather than the outlier, and convince people, because that convinces people, and uses NASA’s integrity in place of one’s own, even though the argument is disingenuous.
It takes part of NASA’s data, and part of NASA’s argument, and suggests by omission of complete information, the opposite of what NASA is arguing.
Whereas I simply presented NASA’s data and argument without cutting out anything. And mine took one whole click.
This is the difference between the effort it takes to distort and misinform people, and the effort it takes to show the actual data. It’s not hard, the information is available to everyone.
What’s hard is to sit there, day after day, and misrepresent scientists over and over again, and insist on pointing at cold weather reports, and ignore hot weather reports, and equate weather with climate, and argue ad infinitum, even when everyone already knows you’re a fraud.
That’s hard. It takes effort to be that much of a corrupt ball of sleaze, a singularity where rational thought goes to die.
You have to give credit- it is hard to be one of the last few people to deny scientific truths. It’s exhausting.
At least the pay is good. I wish I could get some of that money. But there’s no money in truth-telling.
Meaning, of course, if FX actually believes his bullshit then he’s a fucking idiot.
If he doesn’t actually believe his bullshit and is posting for the negative attention – well, we have a word for that, don’t we?
Come to think of it, considering all those ATMB posts about insults, FXMastermind is like the climate change version of Fred Phelps for Internet message boards: badgering posters to the point of a perceived attack then complaining to the powers that be.
There is vast difference between making something up, just typing shit out on the page, and using evidence, facts and sources to support your claim. It became obvious to me in 2010 that something was wrong seriously with the official story. After five years, you can be sure I’ve read and listened to almost every possible form of idiocy when it comes to internet experts on global warming. I’m also familiar with the actual science, and some of the actual scientists/climatologists in the world today.
Exactly, it’s also about as meaningless as “colder”. When the IPCC (consensus science) states "Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point. ", it is implied that they are informing the world about the consequences of warming. For winters. This is further amplified by the statements concerning the 15.3.2.5. Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Subregion
When the IPCC states “These observed impacts are similar to the impact scenarios described earlier.”, it is in regard to warming winters for North America. You have to be a complete tool to not know the IPCC (and pretty much everyone else) has been predicting and warming about warmer winters for North America. They put a lot of effort into it. I’ve shown you how you can check for yourself, and know that this claim, “While the U.S. as a whole has seen a warming trend that has raised annual average temperatures by 1.3°F over the past 100 years, warming varies seasonally, and it’s winter that has seen the fastest warming.” is a lie. Even with the unscientific claim of “the fastest warming” you can still see it is a lie, with ease.
trend - 3.63F a century for the US winter
trend +2.58F a century for the US spring
trend +6.73F a century for the US summer
Rather than face those facts, the alarmist idiots call it cherry picking, or just ignore it, or claim it doesn’t matter because (insert reason here), and when I simply lay out that the entire NH land trend shows the same pattern, they still deny it means anything. You can’t fix that sort of stupid. I’m not even interested in that level of idiot.
And there is the latest idiot idea, it’s like there is some idiot University of global warming spreading stupid across the world or something.
There it is again.
The “warmer” could result in …
What the fuck does that even actually? If you are claiming there is a higher chance of snow when the surface temps are -18C than -23C, then you are an idiot. That’s roughly 0F and -10F for you Americans.
It does not matter one bit if it’s 0 or -10 or 10 degrees F, if clouds that will produce snow move in at any of those temperatures, it will snow. The size and type of snow depends more on the temperatures far above the surface, so there isn’t even much connection between surface temps and snow, except that if it’s above 32F (0C) at the surface, snow will melt.
Physics.
It might melt before hitting the ground, or it may turn to rain, but there will not be snow if it’s above the freezing point. Laws of physics. Same for freezing rain, can’t happen when it’s above freezing.
The IPCC stuff above about ice storms and flooding is based on predictions that due to milder winter temperatures, there will be more rain, and freezing rain (ice), instead of snow. Because of “warmer” winters.
Ain’t science fun?
This idiot effort to claim record snow and cold is actually because it’s warmer (than the winters with little snow), is easy to debunk. Just state the reverse, which according to idiot logic, also has to be true.
Hint:this is what warmers sound like to me, it certainly isn’t a true statement
"You know, this winter had very little snow because it was so cold. When a winter is really cold it doesn’t snow as much. " - Global warmer belief system
Are you fucking kidding me?
No, and none of that is actually true. That’s why you don’t quote anyone saying that, or use a scientific source for any of your idiocy.
Here’s the other fact based thing about snow. When it snows “a lot”, which means enough to bury everything under a layer of snow that does not melt, it usually reduces the surface temperatures, by reflecting heat and light away. Snow acts as a negative feedback for surface air temps. heavy snow, enough to resist the sunny days after a blizzard, has been found to actually influence the air temperatures, making it colder than it would be with out the snow, leading to more snow.
Because the colder it is (aside from an ice sheet, or Greenland and Antarctica), the more likely it will snow. This general rule starts to become meaningless at -40F (-40C) since there will be little chance of those temperatures lasting as clouds move in and it starts snowing. which will raise the surface temps. (It’s complicated, but snow is much warmer than the surface temps, so while it certainly will snow at -40C, this will raise the temperature. But if a warm moist air mass meets a -40C air mass, boy will it snow.
Record snowfalls are always directly connected to very cold temperatures, even as the blizzard warms (relative term) the surface temps. One reason people think extreme cold means it can’t snow, is the most extreme lows are after a snow storm, and the cold dry air dominates the area, meaning it will not snow.
But as we saw again this year, when there is open warm water, and very cold air, it can snow even when it is very cold. Lake effect snow (or ocean effect snow) is unlike regular blizzards, in that a constant supply of moisture results in a continual snow.
This is partly the idea behind the belief that warming oceans is leading to the increase in snow. But it still has to be cold enough to snow, no matter what.
This is so stupid to have to even explain any of this.
But remember his closing remark kids. (this is Kevin Trenberth, a really important person to global warmers)
“Because the increased moisture in the storm can also feedback and amplify the storm itself, the extra snow can easily be order 10% or more from the climate change component.”
Kevin Trenberth
Distinguished Senior Scientist at National Center for Atmospheric Research
As yet another record cold event is happening in the US, just remember kids, it “can easily be order 10% or more”, and then feel bad because you caused this.
Yes you. You are responsible for the weather now.
And the people telling you this complete nonsense actually believe their own bullshit.
They look at two decades of winter temperature trends, and they see warming. They look at the ocean and think it got so much warmer, that’s why it’s so cold and there is a lot of snow.
But by all means, do not take my word for any of this. Check the figures yourself.
I think they count on nobody bothering to check, which is why something as idiotic as “it’s warming and this makes more snow”, or “the record hot creates the cold”, and “it warmer that why it snow so much”.
You can easily check the facts yourself these days. Cold equates with more snow, warmth with less. That’s how the data reads. Of course it’s more complicated than that, but it’s still easy enough to show in 5 minutes.
I hope you have good job satisfaction to justify being such a complete ass.
If you can explain to me two things, I will never be mean to you again.
What does he actually mean by “the extra snow can easily be order 10% or more from the climate change component”? Did he mean to say “over”? Because that doesn’t make much more sense. Also, over can’t be turned into order, the number of letters is different. And the r is too far away from the v on a keyboard.
And why would people link to that page, but not bother to tell Kevin he has a typo in his article?
Speaking of “typos”: