A favorite idiotic claim of warmists is that it is too cold to snow in Antarctica
Heavy snow occurs at frontal boundaries, where cold air collides with warmer humid air. The colder the air, the more snow is going to fall. That is why ski areas invariably report more snow at the (colder) top of the mountain than at the bottom.
The reason that it doesn`t snow much in the interior of Antarctica, is that humid air never makes it there. The oceans around Antarctica are frozen and air masses precipitate out almost all their moisture before they reach the interior. If a humid air mass ever did miraculously make it all the way to Vostok, they would get a lot of snow.
When they aren’t claiming that it is too cold to snow, they are busy claiming that Antarctica is melting.
I don’t know anyone who claims it’s too cold to snow. What they do claim is that if it’s very cold, you’ll get very little snow.
I think I’m going to post in my blog about how all deniers eat green bananas. It’s not true, but since when does truth matter to you guys?
Who are the real “climate change deniers”? Other than sounding like a whiny child, you pull the argument of ignorance fallacy. You vehemently deny any evidence to the contrary and brush it all off.
“What does truth matter to you guys?” – Obviously very much, as you’re trying too hard.
Try some Encyclopedia Dramatica.
BAWWWWWWWW BAWWWWWWWW DENIER DENIER DENIER DENIER BAWWWWWWWW NO ONE AGREES WITH ME SO INSTEAD OF DOING ANYTHING I’LL JUST WHINE ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME!!!!!! DENIER DENIER!
Us ‘deniers’ have noticed the lack of truth in official view of AGW (aka climate change). Computer model do not reflect what is truly happening, there results are being used for political reasons alone.
True climate change is not man made, it is hubris to think so.
Say wot, have you noticed the recent peer-reviewed research which shows the Antarctic has not warmed up AT ALL, and that the MWP was actually a bit warmer there than it is now? Eh, wot?
“I don’t know anyone who claims it’s too cold to snow. What they do claim is that if it’s very cold, you’ll get very little snow. ”
Means pretty much the same to me. But then again I’m not an anonymous troll.
“Means pretty much the same to me. But then again I’m not an anonymous troll.”
Then you fail at reading comprehension. “Very little snow” does not equal “No snow”
I take “No snow” to mean absolutely zerosow. What do you mean by “very little snow’? Itwasn’tthat hard to comprehend by reading it. But what exactly do you meanby “very little snow”?
Just noticed on an earlier thread that ran last night that the comments ran to 57 argueing about the temperature related to snowfall . Kind of like how many angels on a needle as the post was about the Moscow mayor controlling the weather. You warmists need to get out of the house and away from the tv . The world outside is an amazing experience. So WOT and Don Sutherland , what are your short and long term weather predictions since you represent yourselves as knowing so much about climate and weather ? Hey opportunity knocks and this is your chance to tell what you really know.
Hey , I just heard that the temperature prediction for today here in nw Oregon is for 100 degrees; if we get that temp it will be the first 100 degree day this year . I can hear the warmists already , global warming blah blah blah , more extreme blah blah blah CO2 blah blah blah. When it is cold it is weather , when it is hot it is globull warming. Hey , have you noticed ? The warmists are not making weather predictions now as they have been nailed for being wrong on every prediction they have made . I’m talking predictions beyond a few days or a couple of weeks here. We have the guys like Joe Bastardi and his cohorts making short and long term predictions within a verifieable time period but the warmists are making their predictions out beyond a lifespan.
Climate is long- and very long-term. Weather is much shorter-term in nature.
Please provide a link to the appropriate climate paper that claims “…it is too cold to snow in Antarctica.” No paper that I’m aware of makes any such claim that Antarctica should be a zero snow area.
Let me google that for you, Don.
About 105,000 results (0.17 seconds)
The first result is a National Geographic article, which says, in part, “Farther inland, most people would consider even the normal temperatures extreme. At the Pole … Literally, this is too cold to snow.”
National Geographic is not a peer-reviewed journal. At extreme low temperatures, air moisture holding capacity is very low. The air moisture holding capacity is not uniform throughout Antarctica and it is not unchanging, as temperatures change.
Say Don , you are one of the few defenders of the warmist agenda I’ve incountered that is actualy courttious and calm . I do have to commend you on that as it is refreshing. As a farmer I have to have knowledge in several areas in order to succeed so it takes an active thoughtful brain. I soon noticed that the global warming agenda was largely based on assumption and speculation , and outright deception in some cases. I think the continueing attempt on the part of the warmists to propagate propaganda instead of science is deceitfull and even contemptable . To think that a trace gas that makes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere can controll the temperature of the earth is outside rational thinking. And then to think that the tiny percentage of man caused CO2 makes a difference in the scheme of things is outragous.
Well said.
When I was a kid (in Alaska) I often heard ‘it’s too cold to snow’. The explanation was usually that below a certain temperature the water in the air would simply freeze into tiny crystals and fall to the ground. (I suspect this saying came about because cloudless nights are considerably colder; it doesn’t snow if it’s not cloudy.)
Let’s assume what the climate clowns say is all true,what should we do about it right away? Take cars off the road? Shut down all coal plants? Fill in swamps? What’s the plan? Why don’t a few of the warmists totally change their life style and show us what needs to be done and it can be done. When Gore stops buying mansions and moves into a cottage, maybe people might notice and take it seriously.
It’s the greatest crisis mankind ever faced according to McKibble , Gore, Hansen, but the Prez never mentions it and the only time it’s mentioned by other leaders is when they ask for the money to be sent for the new hotels and airports.
As the German, Edenhoffer, said paraphrasing, “It’s not global warming or climate change, it’s about global wealth redistribution.” How many more decades are people going to keep pretending there’s a problem? How long can Hansen get away with adjusting temperatures? And the big question, when will they decide they have sucked up enough taxpayer money and will quietly fade from the scene and ease into the next catastrophic fiction of oceans boiling from “acidification?”
We already know what the weather/climate is like at the CO2 “safe” level? Why has nobody, except Steve, shown the “safe” level is not “safe” at all and some of history’s worst weather occurred in the period prior to 1988? The whole debate is moot and a waste of human capital and energy. History will show Hansen and the rest alongside Lysenko. If the internet had been widely available, there would be no Montreal Protocol and that massive waste of money. Now they want to do away with HFCs and do it all over again. Maddening.
Google?
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2051/does-it-ever-get-too-cold-to-snow
“Can it be too cold to snow? People from warm climates might be forgiven for thinking that’s a crazy question. After all, it only snows when it’s cold, so the colder it is, the snowier it must be. Right? Wrong. Arctic climates often get surprisingly little snow. Barrow, Alaska, for example, gets less snow than Chicago in an average year, despite having winters that average 39°F (22°C) colder. So does that mean it can be too cold to snow? Well, people from cold climates might be forgiven for thinking it can, since they have lived through a lot of cold winters and may have noticed that the coldest weather of any given year has never been associated with snow. That isn’t really because it’s too cold to snow, but because it’s too dry. (The coldest weather is almost always associated with very high pressure and very dry air.) The truth is that it can never be too cold for snow, barring a drop in temperature all the way to absolute zero (-460°F or -273°C), in which case snow or lack thereof should be the least of your concerns. But even at balmier temperatures than absolute zero, below, say, -20°F (-29°C), it can be too cold for a lot of snow to fall. “
How many times do I have to explain this to you? With a frozen Arctic ocean, where is the moisture going to come from in Barrow in the winter?
If I explain it ten more times, will it help? Deserts occur in places where there is a lack of moisture, whether that be the Sahara or Antarctica
“How many times do I have to explain this to you? With a frozen Arctic ocean, where is the moisture going to come from in Barrow in the winter? ”
From elsewhere. The winds in barrow don’t blow out of the North 100% of the time. Here we get plenty of moisture from the gulf of mexico, but we also get moisture from the Atlantic, Pacific, and even the Great Lakes.
By the time any Pacific air mass makes it to Barrow in the winter, it has lost almost all of its moisture.
Being a skeptic, I actually checked on that claim, “Barrow, Alaska, for example, gets less snow than Chicago in an average year, despite having winters that average 39°F (22°C) colder.”
It’s not true.
http://thestraighterdope.blogspot.com/2015/03/more-snow-in-chicago-than-barrow-alaska.html
Are all your posts this vapid?
Is there some point you have other than displaying a profound inability to think?
gofer:
“Let’s assume what the climate clowns say is all true,what should we do about it right away?”
We can’t stop the laws of physics in order to stop bullets from killing people, so I guess we shouldn’t bother with gun control, or gun safety, or anything like that.
Don’t mix science with politics.
Summarily, since the laws of physics are used to kill people, then they can’t possibly be true… right?
You must have something better to do?
Yes gun control kills people.
Had one person in the theatre in Aurora had a pistol, they could have saved a lot of wrecked lives. Unfortunately the city of Aurora and Cinemark theatres have policies which made James Holmes secure in the knowledge that he would be the only armed person in the theatre.
I don’t normally go to Cinemark theatres because they won’t let me bring my CCW.
Armed Utah citizen stops knife attack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-WnRHjY4r0&feature=player_embedded
Nice diversion. I asked just what should we do. You want to outlaw SUVs? What?
What will the weather be like when we move back to the Stone Age and a safe level of CO2? Oh wait, we already know, so lowering CO2 isn’t going make the weather any better so what next?
“Had one person in the theatre in Aurora had a pistol, they could have saved a lot of wrecked lives”
You didn’t think this through did you? Person A opens fire. Persons B through E have weapons. Person B opens fire to counter Person A. Who does persons C through E shoot? A or B? Keep in mind they probably didn’t see who started it.
I guess your logic is ‘shoot them all and let god sort it out’.
The shooter in Aurora had all of his weapons legally, by the way.
That is just plain stupid. Shooters always choose gun free zones (camps schools theatres) precisely because they know that no one is armed. Had 20% of the people in the theatre been carrying, he never would have shown up. His head would have been blown off in seconds.
Besides which, had his AR-15 not jammed he would have killed just about everyone in the theatre. You live in a fanstasy world.
I would shoot the one that keeps firing at other people and doesn’t stop even though I’m pointing my gun at him and telling him to stop. Why would I shoot anyone else?
Hoplophobics always have this weird idea that if you would give somebody a gun, he would immediately start blasting indiscriminantly everywhere and it would be wild west all over.
You know what – even the wild west wasn’t wild. Everyone was armed, but people were killed much less often – even per capita! – than today at “gun-free” cities like New York, Detroit or San Francisco.
About 99% of all mass murders in the last couple of decades have been done by somebody who have taken SSRI -class drugs and then stopped taking them few weeks or months before the incident. We have had five of these cases in the last 10 years in Finland (population: 5 million), and our gun control is much stricter than in the US. Also the Norwegian gunman Breivik had been taking SSRI-drugs and I would bet the Aurora shooter had been taking them also.
Even the drug insert warns that stopping the use too quickly causes depression, feelings of hopelessness, intense hate, aggression and violent thoughts.
I would much rather ban SSRI -class drugs than guns. They may help some individuals cope with their depression, but their effect on the liberties of everyone else (not to mention loss of life) is too high price IMO.
WOT’s scenario would not have happened. People who have CC are trained for such scenarios as are the military and as Steve pointed out, the shootings always happen in gun free zones. Chicago has tough gun control and now is the murder capitol of the world. Nobody is allowed to own guns in Mexico and we all know how that’s working out for them.