35 years ago, snow was due to cold. Modern cold and snow is due to excess heat.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Mann Says He Was Correct
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “carbon emissions may have now peaked”
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- “4th Hottest Summer”
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Mike Peinsipp on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Mike Peinsipp on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Disillusioned on Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Disillusioned on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Gamecock on Mann Says He Was Correct
- toorightmate on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Robert Denby on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Michael Abbott on “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- _Jim on Mann Says He Was Correct
How will the children survive this snow!!
Just by behaving like children.
Move the polar bears to San Francisco beause all the cold from their natural habitat in the Arctic is moving south because human beings left the refigerator door open.
Do you have anything scientific to say or satisfied with attempted humour?
“35 years ago, snow was due to cold. Modern cold and snow is due to excess heat.”
****
A rather stupid direct cause and effect statement. The heat changes the weather patterns; one place may get colder another warmer. One place may get wetter, another drier. Warmer in one place may still be cold. Warming cold places may bring more snow because there is more moisture to turn into snow and the temperature may be a little less minus. Steven, you can do better than appealing to simpletons.
ZZZZZzzzzzzz…..
Was it a dream?
………one place may get colder another warmer. One place may get wetter, another drier. Warmer in one place may still be cold. Warming cold places may bring more snow because there is more moisture to turn into snow and the temperature may be a little less minus.
That being way different than saying weather happens. Or are you insisting that the newly found dynamic of warm generated cold (we call it warmcold) is a valid premise?
Weather always happens and no, no newly found dynamic; just more modulation on the carrier wave (transmission analogy) Warmcold is a rather ridiculous notion. When a place normally experiencing an average temperature of say minus 5 degrees C and it then begins to experience say minus 3 degrees C average, it is warmer but still cold for human exposure. Yet the raised temperature will still result in snow if moisture and conditions favour it; more snow. That’s not newfound, just normal dynamics amplified. Apologies for repeating myself; to make it clear, I read a lot about winter events cited to disprove global warming, but they are part and parcel of it and don’t disprove anything. All it proves is that the weather is expressing itself between larger boundaries. Only time will prove this point to some yet never to others. In our societies we have people who make tings happen, others who watch things happen and a remainder of people forever wondering what happened. Sad but real.
Like I said, cold is now caused by heat.
In our societies we have people who make tings happen, others who watch things happen and a remainder of people forever wondering what happened. Sad but real.
——————————————————————–
You forgot the other group of people that don’t know what happened but think they do. You know the group, the types that thought human sacrifice would be a solution to what ever ills were perceived. And other stuff of equal wonder. I wonder which group is the saddest for humanity?
Baffled is uh, apparently… Baffled.
Hansen (the outlier) constructed a fantasized .01 degree rise over the previous 1998 (actual), or 2005 (Alice-in-Hansenland) record.
Baffled gulps down the illusion that an immeasurable .01 Global Mean Temperature fantasy, flanked by margins of error orders of magnitude greater than itself, has somehow unleashed the arctic upon the temperate zone.
Yay-ussss! Can I have a Halelu-yah, brethren?!!
I chose my pseudonym intentially just to find out how many could not resist the obvious. It makes me take them less serious, if worth it.
Bring me something more scientific, layman will be okay, but at least reasoned. Just let me bring some food for thought. The arctic is part of the global climate regulator. The albedo of the arctic is very important, because it´s summer ice acts as a huge solar reflector. When it goes into a down spiral feeding upon itself, it becomes unstoppable. Give me your counter argument or hypothesis and, if substantive
I´ll treat it with respect.
Don´t ask for a Halelu/yah, earn it!
“The arctic is part of the global climate regulator. The albedo of the arctic is very important, because it´s summer ice acts as a huge solar reflector. When it goes into a down spiral feeding upon itself, it becomes unstoppable.”
Well, I’ll try briefly,…….. pool night!
I’ll divide your statement into 2 parts. The second part being easy to refute, because reality happened. Explain 2007 and the subsequent years. It is exactly contrary to your explanation. 2007 saw the lowest amount in recorded history. It didn’t spiral down. It rebounded.
To your first part…….to start, imagine the earth’s tilt. Understand how little direct sunlight is occurring compared to lower latitudes. Further, there has been a recent thought posited that the less ice, the more heat is allowed to be released by the ocean.(think Kelvins) You actually think a very small area of the world for less than 1/4 of time acts as a regulator for the rest of the world for 100% of the time?
14.056 million sq km/510.072 mil sq km ~2.75% of the earth’s surface.
Yeh, that much is the earth’s solar reflector. But only 25% of the time. So, .25 x .0275 = 0.006875 or 0.6875% of an impact on earth’s reflective nature………assuming the ice is 100% reflective(its not) and the ocean being 100% absorption (its not) and other regulating mechanisms (such as the above mentioned heat release) don’t kick in.
Arctic ice is about as important as my refrigerator to global temperatures.
Baffled, I’d love to stay and play, but I’ve other fun-n-games to do. Leave a response, I’ll get back to you.
Dang, forgot……… Hallelujah!!!!!
Baffled???……..Baffled24………Baffled24?????? hello?
Well, Gavin and minions went to Curry’s site and spewed bullshit…….If Baffled won’t play, maybe they can come here?………Gavin? Can you explain why I’m wrong?
Well, that wasn’t near as much fun as I’d hoped……..I didn’t even shoot……..well, not in the league. Spheres……they’re fun! Angles……they’re important to spheres! Trajectory and force! Reflection and rotation(spin)!…….layman’s physics and calculus………Pool!!!!
There is nothing in the IPCC reports or in Al Gore’s movie about snow possibly happening in locations like San Francisco. There is only talk of flooding. These explanations about snow are new to this global warming movement. You fail to convince, baffled24. You do not have enough thumbs for your dyke.
Baffled,
In case suyts well resoned explaination (great job suyts) isn’t “substaintial” enough for you, here is something else to ponder.
We will all agree that arctic ice extent is down aprox. 10% from the 1979-2000 average. This fact may “alarm” you but in reality what does the 1979-2000 avg have to do with anything?
Did you know that in 1971, George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. (Time magazine-June 24, 1974) He also wrote a letter to then President Nixon warning of the dire consequences of “a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon. The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age.”
So if we were aprox 12% higher than avg. in 1971 and are now 10% lower than 1979, doesn’t it stand to reason we’re pretty close to normal climatologically speaking?
Also, HERE is a graph of Arctic Sea Ice that actually goes back a little further than the 70’s showing we have MORE ice currently than in the 40s? Did it go”into a down spiral feeding upon itself, it becom(es)ing unstoppable. ” I would appreciate your explanation of why it didn’t and why this time is different.
The graph above is referenced from this peer reviewed paper.
I hope a paper from leading scientists at the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks is deemed”substantial” enough for you to read. I would hate to be accused of being ignorant “blissful or otherwise“
Thanks Robb, and you, too!
It amazes me how much information is simply kicked to the curb because it doesn’t fit the modern narrative. Before satellites, it is assumed we had no way of measuring masses on the earths surface. Where accurate geo/political maps (circa anytime before Google maps) came from remains a mystery.
baffled24 says:
February 24, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Try reading this, you may actually learn something……….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/17/regarding-thermodynamics-and-heat-transfer-why-al-gore%E2%80%99s-comments-to-bill-o%E2%80%99reilly-at-fox-news-are-wrong/
Or remain in”blissful” ignorance, if you prefer.
ZZZZzzzz….
Was my comment `Was it a dream´ snipped? Or did I forget to hit the send button?
I never snip anything
Or blissfully baffled.
Bring me something more substantive to read. The ignorant rarely recognise ignorance, blissful or otherwise.
Your kindness is sure to gain converts.
Nobama says:
February 24, 2011 at 9:50 pm
####
Read my comment toNobama says:
February 24, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Seeing how a “Puppet” only knows to respond to the commands of those who pull the strings, There is no point attempting to communicate as it is equal to talking to a block of wood. I talk to my trees because they are alive but a block of wood is the memory of a once living thing.
Pick your favorite definition:
baf·fle (bfl)
tr.v. baf·fled, baf·fling, baf·fles
1. To frustrate or check (a person) as by confusing or perplexing; stymie.
2. To impede the force or movement of.
n.
1. A usually static device that regulates the flow of a fluid or light.
2. A partition that prevents interference between sound waves in a loudspeaker.
As you are using the term as a “Tag” that makes it a noun and your contribution provides evidence of your being “Static and attempting to divert” Intellectual conversation. You are trying to divert the flow of ideas related to natural weather patterns by claiming your fantasy is real! Just like the IPCC!
And correct me if I’m wrong Mike, but doesn’t noun definition #2 require that partition to be dense to absorb the sound waves?
So it could fit as well.