Climate Change And Blizzards May Be Connected, Global Warming Studies Demonstrate
With scant snowfall and barren ski slopes in parts of the Midwest and Northeast the past couple of years, some scientists have pointed to global warming as the culprit.
Not. Two winters ago New England had near record snow, which left the ground saturated when Irene arrived.
Then when a whopper of a blizzard smacked the Northeast with more than 2 feet of snow in some places earlier this month, some of the same people again blamed global warming.
How can that be? It’s been a joke among skeptics, pointing to what seems to be a brazen contradiction.
Simple. The global warming community consists of idiots and liars.
But the answer lies in atmospheric physics. A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say. And two soon-to-be-published studies demonstrate how there can be more giant blizzards yet less snow overall each year. Projections are that that’s likely to continue with man-made global warming.
Climate Change And Blizzards May Be Connected, Global Warming Studies Demonstrate
Last winter was warm and there was little snow. This winter is cold and there is lots of snow. Heavy snow falls during cold winters. The biggest snowstorm on record in the east occurred in 1888.
These imbeciles have branded their own form of moronity, which makes a Monty Python skit look like a PhD dissertation.
Speaking of stupid, Bob Berwyn is at it again:
http://mostlyharmless-room-101.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/summit-county-voice-ever-warmer.html
h/t to MostlyHarmless, of course.
Policy-based evidence-making.
Habitually, disguised as ‘stimulus’, propping up alternative greed energy that is too big not to fail….for the children of course. Never let a manufactured crisis go to waste.
>>> But the answer lies in atmospheric physics. A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say.
The greatest piece of “not the whole story” going in winter storms. I’ve had this said to me, and respond, “that explains the desert southwest, with its 120 degree temperatures and a dewpoint of 21 degrees.” Turns out physics has the response.
Just because the atmosphere “can” hold more moisture doesn’t mean that it “does.” Vapor pressure has something to say about it, which is why the hot air of the south west holds less moisture and produces less precipitation that a blast of frozen arctic air blasting over a cold (but warmer than the air) lake and dumping massive snow on placed like the UP of Michigan.
The Lake Effect is ignored by these people because it destroys their argument. Physics is against them. I wish more skeptics would point out the simple physics behind the common sense rejoinders.
Jerry, please don’t blind the alarmist with science!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FIMvSp01C8
Isn’t that ‘lowers the bar’ on stupidity?
I just scanned a few of the comments on Huffpo. Surprisingly, I’d say well more than half were skeptical of AGW science … which seems encouraging for that website. Of course, there were the standard snotty, know-it-all koolaid drinkers … my favorite was that people were ‘deniers’ because they have to have someone to hate … and because Fox told them to.
More warming => more moisture => more clouds => more cooling (less warming) => more snow
>>>The Lake Effect is ignored by these people because it destroys their argument. Physics is against them. I wish more skeptics would point out the simple physics behind the common sense rejoinders.
Could someone explain this above comment in more detail to me??
The argument every winter – every time there is a big storm – is that this is consistent with AGW because “warm air can hold more moisture than cold air.” It’s something everybody knows. But it is far from the whole story.
Because everybody also knows that Buffalo, NY often gets clobbered with snow. Specifically, they may get the Lake Effect – where very cold air blows from Canada over Lake Erie (the waters of which are warmer than the air blowing over it). Due to the relative warmth of the water and the cold air, water evaporates into the cold, dry air and warms it through convection off the lake. Meanwhile, the air at 5000 feet must be much colder – about 25 degrees colder – than the surface air.
This is why the “warm air can hold more moisture” this is a red herring. Yes it can. But icy air from Canada can cause several inches of snow per hour in Cleveland. And 120 degree air in Baker, CA can be bone dry. There is far more that goes into it that “warmer air can hold more moisture.” The answer is in the physics.
But Jerry, your explanation is a little more complicated than what I get from TV, so I’ll just stick with that!
Amazing, we have a little bit of a storm going on in Midwest and last night ABC News has to explain it away due to global warming “theory”. Then they interview an “expert”, Oppenheimer, from Princeton none the less. What has happened to our world? We NEED the scientist to help us create an easier more prosperous life for ourselves, and instead they are doing their best to turn us into idiots.
Ah, now I understand why the warm Sahara Rain forest is so covered with trees while the colder Rocky Mountains are so bare, especially in the US northwest where the majority of the folks who believe in warming have chosen to live.
Maybe it’s all the brain manure they produce that feeds the forest and not the CO2 so necessary for life on Earth.
Idiots. Not only ignorant but uneducable.
These are the modern day version of the catholic parishioners circa 1630 who believed that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun and all the planets revolved around it.
No offense to the catholic church, they are simply a proxy in this analogy for the modern religion of AGW. Doesn’t matter if it bears no reality to the truth and we are in the minority. We are guilty of heresy, not of being anti-science.
AGW Thermageddonism is religion, not science.
No offense to the catholic church taken; however, a few commenst on the use of the catholic church as an analogy. And sorry in advance for the length.
The catholic church merely accepted the Ptolemaic system or geocentrism from ancient Greece, where earth was considered the orbital center. This belief was long in existence and widely accepted before the catholic church was established. This acceptance to the Ptolemaic system wasn’t established by or exclusive to the catholic church as many believe.
Geocentrism (the Ptolemaic system) was accepted for over a millennium equally by both theological and scientific belief, by Islamic astronomers as well as European astronomers. Additionally, the order of spheres outward from the earth was not worked out by Ptolemy as many still beleive, but aligns with the ancient Seven Heavens religious cosmology, long existing before Ptolemy.
In other words, this geocentric belief was not exclusive to the Catholic Church. The position of the catholic church changed, admittedly slowly, with the advancement of science and consequently the heliocentric view that the earth was indeed not the center of the universe. By 1820 the catholic church fully supported catholic astronomer Joseph Settele’s position that the earth revolved around the sun.
As catholic theologian St Augustine astutely claimed; “Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.”
Regardless, geocentrism as a separate religious belief has never completely died out. Individual polls in the 1990s by Gallup found that 16% of Germans, 18% of Americans and 19% of Brittons still hold that the sun revolves around the earth. As late as 2005, a study by D. Miller of Northwestern University found that one in five American adults thinks the sun revolves around the earth. And according to a 2011 VTSIOM poll, 32% of Russians agree the sun revolves around the earth. Based on the above, it is easy to see how the CAGW scam is so easily accepted and perpetuated.
In short, the ongoing religion of geocentrism still practiced today would make for a better comparison to the modern day cult of CAGW than the use of the catholic church that eventually came around. Like geocentrism, the CAGW cult will probably perpetually march on much like geocentrism. The only difference, as we have already witnessed, is the name given this cult of CAGW will necessarily have to keep changing to meet the needs of the greed (not a typo) movement.
“Projections are that that’s likely to continue with man-made global warming.”
Did I miss the announcement? When was AGW proven? When was NV disproven?