Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[ideogram]

Now if a year ago, when I posted evidence like crazy, there had been one single person who responded like a scientist, I might be motivated to do your homework for you on this one.

But now?

Nah. It won't matter at all. You have to see for yourself this time. That way you will understand something.

It seems to me some people here view this forum as a chance to educate. That does involve repeating yourself for the benefit of those who are new to the debate.

 

[r-j]

Did you have any trouble understanding what I said? The sources I used? My reasoning for why I said things? Is there any confusion about my points?

For example, was this post difficult to understand?

Winters have been getting colder. If this had been predicted as part of global warming, we would be hearing about how cold it's been, and crying over global warming.
...

Obviously that wasn't the end of it, as I posted two responses with evidence.

tell me again that winters have been getting colder.

For most scientists his reasoning doesn't add up, but Boris did get one thing right: winters are getting colder.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2013/feb/01/weatherwatch-boris-johnson-cold-winter

As global temperatures rise, a new study indicates that winters in the northern hemisphere are set to get colder and snowier. Data from the last two decades suggests that this colder trend is already under way. Indeed the chilly winters of 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 caused many to question whether global warming was happening at all.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2012/jan/22/weatherwatch-global-warming-climate-change

The world is getting warmer, which should mean warmer winters - right? Wrong - a new study shows that global warming produces colder winters and heavier dumps of snow for large swathes of the northern hemisphere

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/48293

The world is warming, so why have winters been getting colder across much of Eurasia?
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/52135

See? Now, after we all get over the shock, we can start complaining about global warming while we are buried in snow.

And then I supplied this as well.

"Recent severe winters like last year's or the one of 2005-2006 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it," explained Vladimir Petoukhov, lead author of the study and a physicist at the Potsdam Institute.

"These anomalies could triple the probability of cold winter extremes in Europe and north Asia," he said.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/cold-winter-snow-weather-global-warming-101222.htm

Clearly cold winters are the next horror that global warming will bring upon us. Warming causes cooling!

That line of reasoning would help explain why the Northern Hemisphere has seen a trend of more extreme winter weather — both bitter cold spells and heavy snows — since around 1988, the researchers say.

“(E)vidence suggests that summer and autumn warming trends are concurrent with increases in high-latitude moisture and an increase in Eurasian snow cover,” they write in an article published in Environmental Research Letters. And that, they continue, “dynamically induces large-scale wintertime cooling.”

There you go: warming causes cooling.

http://www.greenbang.com/global-warming-might-cause-colder-winters-more-snow_21263.html

See? So quit complaining that your roof collapsed from record snow, you can't get a flight or even drive anywhere, and start doing something about global warming. Because it's really starting to mess with the weather.

In short, I backed up everything I said with facts, evidence, and links so you can see for yourself. No games, no avoiding.

Is any of that hard to understand?

That this year the NH winter became oh so much worse. Ironic. Very ironic.



And, like I have always said, I always post a source for anything I say. That you can't understand the source, or the logic behind my words, or the meaning of the science involved, that I can't help you with.

 

[r-j]

It seems to me some people here view this forum as a chance to educate. That does involve repeating yourself for the benefit of those who are new to the debate.

That won't be a problem.

If you don't understand why macdoc is spreading woo woo science, I would probably explain it for you. But if you believe what he says, if you actually agree with that antiscientific nonsense, then ... well .. waste of time.

 

[ideogram]

Winters have been getting colder.

Did you have any trouble understanding what I said?

I told you that was ambiguous. I don't know why you can't just be clear that Cohen et al are talking about regions and not the entire Northern Hemisphere. I don't know why it's my fault that you didn't make that clear to begin with. I don't know why you can't just agree that there is a difference and move on.

 

[ideogram]

That won't be a problem.

If you don't understand why macdoc is spreading woo woo science, I would probably explain it for you. But if you believe what he says, if you actually agree with that antiscientific nonsense, then ... well .. waste of time.

Obviously I am biased, but I am interested in seeing your evidence.

 

[r-j]

How amusing.

Answer my question: do you believe that snow precipitation correlates with temperature ?

I want you to stop using the word "believe" in regards to scientific matters. If you want to put forth a claim, like macdoc did, and others have, that overturns everything we know about snow and meteorology and the atmosphere, you need to provide evidence, lay out your new theory of weather. What is being claimed is at the level of saying our theory gravity is all wrong. it's that wrong.

Are you another one of the group that associates "snowier" with "cooling"? Where did all that water came from? Can you enumerate and evaluate the heat transactions in relation with all that snow?

You see? That is just woo woo talking there.

The "group" would be every educated scientist on the planet, and certainly ever meteorologist, as well as a medium level earth science major.

In essence what is being claimed is pure woowoo land nonsense.

 

[r-j]

I told you that was ambiguous.

Only because you don't know the science yet.

And you are correct, people new to the discussion have no idea of all the evidence I presented, so it can be confusing. Just follow the links in the post and read the next few hundred replies I made a year ago, it will all become clear.

 

[Belz...]

I want you to stop using the word "believe" in regards to scientific matters.

I'm asking you what you think. Your opinion is not a scientific matter.

What is being claimed is at the level of saying our theory gravity is all wrong. it's that wrong.

Answer my question: does snowfall correlate with colder temperatures ?

Your inability and unwillingness to answer only makes you look worse.

 

[r-j]

Obviously I am biased, but I am interested in seeing your evidence.

Here's the thing about something so completely out there.

To understand how I see it, imagine somebody posted "increased gravity is not associated with more mass. It's when there is less mass that is allows the gravity to be stronger."

That is the sort of claim I am just laughing about. If when challenged the person then demands I prove them wrong, well, the fallacy is beyond words at that point.

Same for the "climate models predict colder winters", it's just too much. I keep thinking it has to be an inside joke or something.

Nobody has to provide any evidence to disprove anything. In a case like this, the person making the woo woo claim needs to instantly back it up with actual scientific evidence, or forever lose all credibility.

 

[ideogram]

How amusing. I want you to stop using the word "believe" in regards to scientific matters.

You spend a lot of time attacking how people phrase their arguments. My understanding of the argument is that many people here claim that increased snowfall is more due to increased moisture in the air than lower temperatures. Is this phrasing acceptable?

It seems your response is that this claim is too ridiculous to be worth answering. My impression is that this link supports their claim.

 

[ideogram]

Just follow the links in the post and read the next few hundred replies I made a year ago, it will all become clear.

No, I'm not going to read a few hundred replies to earn the right to ask you questions.

 

[r-j]

If you really are confused about snow and temperature, the internet is full of free education on weather things, snow being quite easy to learn about.

Remember that this ridiculous claim is a sidetrack from the actual scientific data I posted, showing the snow trend matches the cooling trend for the NH boreal winters. No intelligent half educated person with even a tiny bit of knowledge thinks increased snow cover, and increased snow fall is connected to warmer temperatures.

Certainly warm oceans and warm tropics often provide the moisture that results in snow, and the warmer the air mass meeting the cold front, the more rain, ice, sleet and snow there will be. But it's the temperature that creates the snow, not the moisture.

If the cold front is weak, not that cold, there is much more rain than snow. When the cold front is very cold, there is more snow and ice, and no rain at all on the cold side of the frontal boundary.

This is basic basic meteorology.

 

[ideogram]

I want to emphasize that your response that their claim was too ridiculous to deserve an answer was misguided, probably because you didn't understand their claim. I suggest this discussion would be smoother if you spent more time trying to understand the opposing arguments.

 

[Belz...]

But it's the temperature that creates the snow, not the moisture.

Nice try. The question is not whether cold weather results in snow rather than rain, but whether cold results in MORE snow than less cold weather.

Here it is again:

Additional snow cover is not related to cold weather - more snow is an artifact of more moisture in the atmosphere.

 

[r-j]

You spend a lot of time attacking how people phrase their arguments.

Opinion noted. I rarely worry about a person, it's the claims that are so absurd.

My understanding of the argument is that many people here claim that increased snowfall is more due to increased moisture in the air than lower temperatures. Is this phrasing acceptable?

That's a common misconception, as your link says right up front.

The answer to the question of can it be too cold to snow is no, but is gets increasingly difficult the colder it gets.

Fortunately there is another good article explaining most of this here.

 

[ideogram]

That's a common misconception, as your link says right up front.

Their claim is not that it ever gets too cold to snow. Why do you not understand this?

 

[r-j]

I suggest this discussion would be smoother if you spent more time trying to understand the opposing arguments.

I know exactly what he is trying to do. I posted clear abundant evidence that supports the data that show the NH boreal winters are getting colder, with much more snow. He is avoiding dealing with that. So is everybody else.

It's like they can't grasp that it's getting colder in these vast areas, and along with the colder temperatures, there is more snow. Or they don't want it to be true. I don't understand that approach at all.

Most people can grasp that if it's colder, there will be more snow in the winter, and less rain. They don't try and claim the reverse is true.

As to the "increased moisture", you can look at the data for precipitation and see if there is more water falling, be it snow or rain, over a time period. If the amount is trending up, then you can say there is more moisture.

Certainly warm winter weather never results in snow, no matter how much moisture there is. Warm and cold being of course undefined terms we throw about in a most un-scientific manner.

 

[ideogram]

Could you please be very clear that your evidence supports the claim that some regions are experiencing colder winters, which they do not contest? They claim that overall the Northern Hemisphere is not becoming colder. Apparently you contest this.

 

[Belz...]

I know exactly what he is trying to do. I posted clear abundant evidence that supports the data that show the NH boreal winters are getting colder, with much more snow. He is avoiding dealing with that. So is everybody else.

It's like they can't grasp that it's getting colder in these vast areas, and along with the colder temperatures, there is more snow. Or they don't want it to be true. I don't understand that approach at all.

Most people can grasp that if it's colder, there will be more snow in the winter, and less rain. They don't try and claim the reverse is true.

As to the "increased moisture", you can look at the data for precipitation and see if there is more water falling, be it snow or rain, over a time period. If the amount is trending up, then you can say there is more moisture.

Certainly warm winter weather never results in snow, no matter how much moisture there is. Warm and cold being of course undefined terms we throw about in a most un-scientific manner.

Yeah, maybe you should go back and actually, you know, read the posts that people write so as to understand what they are really saying, rather than what you imagine that they are saying.

 

[r-j]

They claim that overall the Northern Hemisphere is not becoming colder. Apparently you contest this.

Are you having trouble with comprehension? I was clear about what I said. It's srtill right there, the same as before.

The facts are that the NH boreal winters, in very large areas, have been getting colder, with much more snow and ice. This is not a claim, it is facts from all the data we have.

This is a NH trend, the colder winters, but it is so negative, such a cooling trend, that the winter season has actually brought the entire global mean down, so that we are seeing a global mean trend that is negative.

You can't retract reality.

The interesting thing, to me, is that the NH summers are still warming. They never stopped going up.

CO2 theory and greenhouse gas warming can not account for this. This does not mean CO2 isn't playing a part, it's just not driving the engine.

Since the data is free and available, it's easy to simply show the above isn't true. Or that it is true. It's not some mystery.

If you check, and see that I am right, of course, then you if you disagree with the data, that's not my problem. Among climate researchers, there is no disagreement that the global mean hasn't continued to rise since 1995, or 1998, or 2002, that isn't a dispute at this point.

It's WHY it happened that is so interesting to me.