Climate Alarmist Physics

A typical response I get from climate alarmists when I point out that winter snow cover has been increasing over time.

5:47 AM · Nov 21, 2022

Increased snow cover means the area covered with snow is extending further south. The freeze line is moving to lower latitudes because Arctic air is penetrating further south.

More snow falls during cold winters than during warm winters. Warm winters are either dry or the precipitation falls as rain.  Precipitation typically occurs at the boundary of cold air masses because cold air can’t hold as much moisture, and water vapor condenses. If the air is “holding the moisture” then precipitation is not occurring.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Climate Alarmist Physics

  1. Solar Mutant Ninjaneer says:

    According to the Charney report (1979), the global warming modeling basis,
    doubling CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere results in a 3 degrees C +/- 1.5 C increase in earth’s average temperature. One degree of warming is a direct result of CO2, 1 degree is from amplification by increased water vapor, (they assume constant relative humidity), and 1 degree is from increased solar absorption due to reduced snow/ice cover near the poles.
    Putting aside the fact that the direct contribution of CO2 is greatly over estimated (the Charney analysis violates both the first and second laws of thermodynamics), the reduced snow/ice coverage is obviously wrong.
    I believe the data shows that the constant relative humidity assumption is also wrong.
    In other words, the underlying analysis is wrong, the constant relative humidity assumption is wrong, and the reduced snow/ice coverage assumption is wrong. No wonder they have to falsify the data to match the theory!

    • Changing the relative humidity changes the local temperature lapse rate, providing very strong NEGATIVE feedback on the temperature, not the absurd positive feedback assumed by this pathological addiction to the ‘greenhouse effect’. Why else is the Sahara Desert hot, but the Atlantic Ocean at the same latitude is cooler? ‘Water vapour enhancement’ would have the opposite effect. These charlatans smugly declare their nonsense to be ‘irrefutable settled science’. What a joke.

      • rah says:

        It is just like the BS about the Arctic being virtually ice free during the summer months. They talk about the loss of albedo never factoring in the albedo from the cloud cover that naturally ensues when the ice and snow is warmed by the sun.

    • sofa king what says:

      Average dew points are up as a whole so there at least seems to be a correlation with the net water vapor content in the atmosphere and the excess snowy conditions.

      • conrad ziefle says:

        The dew point is just 100% relative humidity at that temperature. If you are seeing higher than normal dew points, then you are seeing higher than normal relative humidity, more water vapor in the air. My relative, a climate hysterical, told us that Portland just had the longest stretch of days above 80 F for October. I looked it up on ClimateTools, and the early 1950’s had the MOST October days above 80F. So which is the more important indicator? To me, it sounds like things have not changed significantly since the 1930-50s. We are experiencing the same general condition, but the randomness of weather changes how it presents itself, i.e. consecutive days vs most days. It’s like you took a deck of cards and said our climate in no Queens, 8s, 9s. and then shuffle the deck and deal out 5 cards for your current weather.

  2. conrad ziefle says:

    This is the result of someone understanding science concepts but not understanding the quantitative aspects of it. Warmer air CAN hold more moisture, but it does not always do so. That’s why we also measure relative humidity. In any case, regardless of how much warm moist air you have, it takes a much larger blast of colder air to cool it so rapidly that it snows all of the moisture out. This probably happens when a huge northerner hits moist air over a large body of water in the fall, and the body of water hasn’t cooled down much already. If the cold comes on slowly, then it will rain as the temperature slowly drops down the saturation line, the moisture in the air just matching the saturation amount at that temperature. When you reach 32 F you will have only as much moisture in the air as 32+F can hold, and then it will snow as you follow the saturation line down further. In either case, you have to explain where the cold came from, which is the big question, not the properties of moist air, which are well documented.

  3. Robertvd says:

    So the Ice sheets that dominated the planet during nearly 80 000 years and made oceans fall 120 m could only have been created because of global warming. You need a lot of energy to evaporate all that ocean water.

    This summer Europe’s warm weather was mainly caused by warm air coming from Africa. But the reason for that weather patron were cold fronts going much more north installing themselves infront off the coast of Portugal where we normally would have a high depression system over the Azores.

  4. rah says:

    So Mark says: “Warmer air holds (much) more water so greater precipitation should have been predicted”

    But it wasn’t! And in fact the exact opposite is what they predicted for winter. And they still are doing so when ever and where ever a drought or wild fire occurs.

    They also predicted that the glaciers in Glacier National Park would be gone by now and that globally the ski industry would be destroyed to due to lack of snow and that the kids of Southern England would not know what snow is. And that the Arctic would be virtually ice free during the summer months by now. And that the Greenland ice sheet would be melting causing catastrophic sea level rise and a catastrophic change in ocean currents. None of that has happened and in fact the exact opposite has happened in some cases.

    So the question is Mark. I mean the whole modeled catastrophic climate change house of cards is predicated on permanent hot spots appearing in the mid to high troposphere over the tropics and not a one has so far been discovered.

    So the question is why do you, or anyone else, still believe in anything they tell you?

    • paul courtney says:

      Mr. h: I saw that, too. Mark says what shoulda been predicted, spares him the difficulty of thinking about why they didn’t predict better, irrefutable science and all that. They predicted more warmth, too, and adjustments confirm that. More snow refutes that it’s warmer? Hmmmmm.

  5. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Yeah, the Snow Cover Extent Anomaly data is the zero Celcius geographic isotherm. Basically the snow line.

    If you graph the UAH NH temperature data with the snow cover data the peaks and troughs line up, as you would expect.

    But there’s no trend at all in the snow cover data, which means the rising trend in UAH is likely an artefact. Not real, or snow cover would be trending downwards.

    (The graph has the temperature scale inverted so it’s easier to see the peaks line up: warmer temperature = less snow cover and vice versa).

  6. Crispin Pemberton-Pigott says:

    So Mark says: “Warmer air holds (much) more water so greater precipitation should have been predicted”

    So what? If there is “global warming” the hot side and cold side are both warmer. It is not the higher temperature that matters, it is the delta T involved in the precipitation.

    If it is “warmer and holds more water” when it is hotter, it is also “warmer and holds more water” when it cools, after all, there is global warming, not only “higher highs” warming.

    Mark’s claim is false. Warmer air holding more water doesn’t matter if it cannot dump it at the same temperature as it used to, due to warming.

    Next, the observed trend is to have cooler highs and warmer lows with a net higher average, where warming is taking place at all – that is a trend very clear on the USA mainland. In short, there are lower highs and warmer lows reducing the Delta T available to condense water vapour. The models certainly didn’t predict that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.