╌>

BRRR ... More global warming coming our way!

  

Category:  Environment/Climate

Via:  petey-coober  •  10 years ago  •  142 comments

BRRR ... More global warming coming our way!

LINK :
http://news.yahoo.com/alaska-storm-pushing-cold-air-toward-lower-us-090835038.html

Alaska storm brings frigid weather to swath of US

Associated Press
By BECKY BOHRER 6 hours ago

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) A massive storm fueled by the remnants of Typhoon Nuri did not do much damage in Alaska's sparsely populated Aleutian Islands, but forecasters say it's anchoring a system that will push a frigid blast of air into the mainland United States and send temperatures plunging early this week.

Parts of the lower 48 states could see temperatures between 20 and 40 degrees below average, the National Weather Service said Sunday.

Snow was expected to move over the northern high plains and into the upper Great Lakes by Monday evening, with accumulations of close to a foot in parts of Minnesota and Wisconsin and up to 2 feet in the upper peninsula of Michigan, forecasters said.

The storm peaked Friday with sustained winds of 70 mph and gusts up to 96 mph on Alaska's Shemya Island. While it has weakened, it also is helping change the jet stream flow and anchoring a cold pattern that will send a surge of arctic air from the northern high Plains into the central Plains, said Bob Oravec, lead forecaster with the College Park, Maryland, weather service office.

On Alaska's Shemya Island, where 120 civilian contractors staff an early warning radar installation for the U.S. military, only minor facility damage was reported at Eareckson Air Station on the island 1,500 miles southwest Anchorage, Alaskan Command public affairs officer Tommie Baker said.

The corners of a roof were bent back and some dumpsters moved around, but no roof was torn off and the dumpsters didn't slam into any vehicles or buildings, Baker said. Workers locked themselves inside to wait out the storm.

Workers there are accustomed to extreme weather, including 100-mile winds. The community averages six weather-related lockdowns a year.

Baker said operations were back to normal Sunday morning, with planes able to come and go and people free to move outside of buildings. He said a crew conducting a damage assessment had not reported anything of concern.

The weather was cold, dreary and rainy with winds blowing like they typically do this time of year, Baker said.

While other parts of the country were expecting their first big winter storms, parts of south-central and southwest of Alaska could see windy, warmer and wet conditions, said Shaun Baines, a meteorologist for the weather service in Anchorage, Alaska. Temperatures along the Gulf of Alaska coastline were in the 40s.

Winter storm warnings were in effect Sunday for parts of Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota, with 4 to 5 inches of snow across the plains of Montana and up to 10 inches possible in the mountains.

Snow totals in areas could be hard to measure, though, because of the wind, said meteorologist Chris Zelzer, of the weather service's Great Falls, Montana, office.

"The big news for us will be the combination of really cold temperatures and really breezy conditions," he said.

Highs, which are typically in the low 40s for the Great Falls area this time of year, are forecast to dip to 7 degrees early this week and stay below freezing into the weekend. Sub-zero lows are also expected.

Further east, Delta Air Lines issued a winter weather waiver that allows travelers to avoid change fees if they rescheduled flights set for Monday to and from Minneapolis; Rochester, Minnesota; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and Green Bay, Wisconsin. Rebooked trips must begin no later than Wednesday or a fare difference may apply.

"After last year's hard winter, people don't seem to be messing around this year," David Lansing, assistant manager at Frattallone's Ace Hardware in Burnsville, Minnesota, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune. "We're selling a few shovels here and there, but they're mostly going right for the snow blowers."

View Comments ( 769 )

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

This is fair warning to readers of all political stripes to be prepared for the big freeze that is forecast . If you live in the midwest make sure you have a snow shovel ready or even better , a snowblower .

 
 
 
Aeonpax
Freshman Silent
link   Aeonpax    10 years ago

This is an idiot thread. A week or so ago I found out, viewing NOAA reports, that the typhoon that hit hit Japan, (Nuri) had changed course and was heading for the Bearing sea. Even a child knows that when a warm mass of air hits the cold mass air, storms develop and in the case of Nuri, it was still a powerful storm...strong enough to affect the jet stream and as a result it dipped rather low in the US, ushering in a cold wave from the north.

This is called weather not climate change.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov    10 years ago
The theory is that these scientists only get funded if their work is sexy or scary. They exaggerate consequences to get more money for their work.
 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

Obviously many don't understand what causes the polar vortex. And I believe that many will thing it a refutation of global climate change.

And they'd be wrong here's why.

Have you ever walked by an opened doorway on a hot day, a doorway where inside, the air conditioning was running full blast?

Did you notice that you didn't have to go to through the doorway and enter the store, etc. to feel the cool air? That's because the molecules of the warmer outside air were moving faster than the molecules of the cooler air inside thus leaving more space between each molecule.

As a result, the cooler, more crowded air molecules rushed in the direction of the warmer, less crowded molecules.

Pretend the cooler air at the north pole is the air conditioned store and the latitudes south of the pole, the hot sidewalk outside the store. Of course, the much, much larger air masses generate much more energy and we have, in recent years, seen the potentially catastrophic results of a planet that is warming.

Yes! There's still cold air in the extreme latitudes; that's because of the earth's curvature (a lesson for another day). But the overall warming is creating droughts, floods, bigger storms

And the deniers who sell the bullshit to a willing-dupe political base

Will, in time, fuck them over along with the rest of us.

Why is that the right-wing has gone to "I'm not a scientist so I don't know if GCC is man-made or not," a major, bullshit hedge BUT LAST WEEK THEY WERE ALL MEDICAL EXPERTS WITH REGARD TO EBOLA?

Let's see if anyone can refute my explanation with specifics instead of off-handed dismissals.

 
 
 
Aeonpax
Freshman Silent
link   Aeonpax    10 years ago

The topic of climate change is not a hot topic with me. I'm of the belief that the world is ripe enough for another inter-continental war...we'll kill each other off before the climate can.

Other than that, I just don't like seeing idiotic threads.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.    10 years ago

The theory is that these scientists only get funded if their work is sexy or scary.

ALS is pretty damn scary. Ebola is pretty damn scary. Where was the funding?

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

What a passionate guy ! Its fuck this , fuck that . Logical ? Not so much ...

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

This is an idiot thread.

Actually what I think you mean to say is this thread has an idiotic title . The thread itself is merely a report of the news ...

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

No one said " fuck this , fuck that ", rather, it's about who will be figuratively fucked by denying the inconvenient truth.

As for

Logical ? Not so much ...

Actually, it's completely logical the scientific explanation of a meteorological phenomenon expressed in layman's terms so all can understand it.

And you mock it.

No rebuttal, no counter-arguments just empty-rhetoric, mockery and a personal attack.

2973_discussions.jpg

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

Obviously many don't understand what causes the polar vortex. And I believe that many will thing it a refutation of global climate change.

Ya lost me :
Think what is a refutation of global warming ?

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick    10 years ago

LOL!

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick    10 years ago

All I know is the climate change is going to be in Charlotte Thursday and I'm not looking forward to it at all.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago
I feel a degree of sadness for those who have reached their adult years but cannot read and comprehend.The inconvenient truth is always more difficult to accept than a convenient untruth.I have explained the phenomenon of the polar vortex. You can trust me or the energy companies to tell you the real deal.
 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov    10 years ago
Flame, I have no links. I don't support those claims, but you asked what their basis was. I suggestyou rresearch a non-AGW site.
 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

Polar vortex is caused by the tilting of the axis and shift in the jet stream.

It's the WOBBLING of the AXIS -- called PRECESSION -- which causes a gradual change in climates LATITUDINALLY over the earth over a period of thousands of years.

In astronomy , axial precession is a gravity-induced, slow, and continuous change in the orientation of an astronomical body's rotational axis . In particular, it refers to the gradual shift in the orientation of Earth 's axis of rotation, which, similar to a wobbling top, traces out a pair of cones joined at their apices in a cycle of approximately 26,000 years. [1] The term "precession" typically refers only to this largest part of the motion; other changes in the alignment of Earth's axis nutation and polar motion are much smaller in magnitude.

Of course the jet stream and other meteorological phenomena are affected by the precession, the jet stream alone does not create polar vortices.

A polar vortex is a large pocket of very cold air that sits above the polar region during the winter months.

During winter this air chills and contrasts with the warmer temperatures further away from the pole.

WHAT IS A POLAR VORTEX?

During winter, this air gets cold, and contrasts with the temperatures further away from the pole.

Pressure contrasts between these temperatures create fast winds that swirl around the pocket of cold air.

The polar vortex is weakest during summer, because there is less of a contrast between temperatures.

...

Warm air being less dense that colder air causes the greater density colder air to rush towards it. The rushing motion is manifested in a whirling or vortex motion like a hurricane.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov    10 years ago
Sorry. I'm not a lunatic.
 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

From your Dailymail link :

In turn they found this causes the northern jet stream to weaken and move further south, taking cold, polar air with it.

Correlation is not causation . If this is the best proof you've got its not convincing ...
What you need to be more convincing : A scholarly journal article that goes into the explanation of cause & effect for the above .

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago
The ultimate driver of the phenomenon is Global Climate Change; that is the cause and the generator of the logistics leading to the effect.
 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

Stop parroting liberal talking points . There is quite a lot not known about climate , so much that arriving at such broad conclusions now is unwarranted . For example :


New Research Reveals the Missing Piece of the Climate Puzzle

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

Petey,

From the linked article

The paper is not challenging the physics of climate models; its value lies in helping the community interpret their output.

While this study does not change our understanding of the fundamentals of global warming, it is always useful to have simpler models that help us understand why our more comprehensive climate models sometimes behave in superficially counterintuitive ways, says Isaac Held, a senior scientist at NOAAs Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory who was not involved in this research.

It still comes down to Global warming.

Sometimes the correct conclusion is reached albeit some partially incorrect premises attributed along the way.

Lyme Disease for example is attributed to a vector carried by a tic commonly called the "Deer Tic;" the reality is, the White-footed Mouse is more likely to host the tic vector-host than is the White-tailed Deer. Either way, the vector causes the disease. Identifying the more likely host of the vector carrier is significant, but, it doesn't in any way change the cause and effect of how the disease is transmitted. That's how one scientific puzzle evolved -- others have evolved as well.

Instead of limiting deer populations to reduce Lyme Disease infections, by watching the acorn production of certain oak trees -- a primary food source of the mouse population -- etc., etc., etc. .

Your puzzle analogy is dead on I just don't agree with how you think it fits re: Polar Vortices.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

it is always useful to have simpler models that help us understand why our more comprehensive climate models sometimes behave in superficially counterintuitive ways, says Isaac Held, a senior scientist at NOAAs Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Such models MAY be useful for further analysis . But to base government policy & taxation on them now is lunacy . Climatology is NOT YET A SCIENCE . Until it is these "expert" opinions have little to no validity ... but they make great fodder for the media and for liberal talking point blogs .

It still comes down to Global warming.

In your unknowledgeable opinion ...

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago
And of course, you are the last word and punctuate it with a condescending remark.See ya'.
 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

punctuate it with a condescending remark.

Your inflated sense of your own knowledge is a constant issue on this site . "Opinions are like assholes . Everyone has one . " But all they produce is shit ... Instead of stomping off in a huff and acting as if I should feel guilty about my words , here's a novel idea : how about supporting your opinions with some evidence ...

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago


....
The mercury may have dropped, but the worst of the cold is already priced in, analysts at Morgan Stanley said in a note Wednesday.

After last years deep freeze, dubbed the polar vortex, its no surprise the market is quick to react to any sign of cold, the Morgan Stanley analyst said.

But unless there is a pronounced change in longer-term winter forecasts, the potential for upside for natural-gas futures is limited, they added. Not only the cold may have already boosted prices, headwinds abound.

 
 
 
Aeonpax
Freshman Silent
link   Aeonpax    10 years ago

...Climatology is NOT YET A SCIENCE...

"Climatology is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time. This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences and a subfield of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences ." - Source

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

And the marketplace is God

No further comments.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

"Global climate change" is achieved through the tilting of the axis putting colder climates into warmer zones and warmer climates into colder zones.

True but over the course of thousands of years

And not significantly since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to the present.

What has naturally occurred for eons is exacerbated and accelerated by the activities of humans.

The complete cycle you refer to Gunny, is

an astrophysical event occurring over a period of 25,000 years!

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
link   Robert in Ohio    10 years ago

First major lake effect snow storm underway in NE Ohio.

Temperatures falling through the 30's today

Not terribly unusual to have snow this early, but the predicted accumulations in the next couple of days are a little higher than usual

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

RIO,

The episodes of Lake Effect Snow have increased due to Global Warming.

Explanation: Large bodies of water that, in the past have frozen over in most winters, now stay warm enough in winter to remain liquid, surface to depths. When frigid air blows across these bodies of water, molecules of the surface water enter the atmosphere and are transformed to snow. The increased events and the increased volume of snow are because the unfrozen lakes' surfaces add moisture to the air that would ordinarily not be of such a quantity.

FYI.

Now I'll wait for the hair-splitting and poo-pooing from those who like to tell the energy companies' version.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
link   Robert in Ohio    10 years ago

A Mac

Lake Erie pretty much freezes every year and the cycles of lake effect snow have been going on in pretty predictable and repeated patterns for generations

Nothing really new here

It is supposed to snow and snow a lot in the winter in northern Ohio and that has been the case for many, many generations

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

The increase in the volume of snow and the greater frequency is what I'm referencing.

If there is a reduction in lake ice or lake ice starts forming later in the winter season, these factors can help to increase the area along the lakeshore that experience snow in a given lake-effect snow event, he explained. If the lake surface temperature begins to significantly increase above normal values seen during the winter season, the overall amount of snowfall increases as well as how far inland the snowfall is seen. This shows (one way) how climate change can begin to impact the distribution of precipitation and intensity in future climate scenarios.

Global Climate change does not result in new phenomena, it exacerbates what was more-or-less the norm prior to the Industrial Revolution.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

I remember walking to school in the early 60s in snow almost to my 7 yr old waist. We lived in Cleveland at the time. By the way the energy companies didn't pay me to make that story up either.

You were shorter then, Mike. (Partly said in jest)

Again

Global Climate change does not result in new phenomena, it exacerbates what was more-or-less the norm prior to the Industrial Revolution.

It's the extremes of frequency and volume. It's like, eat more, gain more weight and sit on the pot more often, etc., drink more beer, pee more, add more pollutants to the air, increase the heat

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

I can't classify an only 1 1/2 degree temp increase in the last 100 years as a very exacerbated condition.

You can't, but maybe portions of the atmosphere and biosphere can.

Global Warming Fast Facts

Updated June 14, 2007

Global warming, or climate change, is a subject that shows no sign of cooling down.

Here's the lowdown on why it's happening, what's causing it, and how it might change the planet.

Is It Happening?

Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change.

Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly meltingfor example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleachingor die-off in response to stressever recorded in 1998 , with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires , heat waves , and strong tropical storms , is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

they should regulate the community development aspect of this, and rethink how they permit a 50 acre asphalt parking lot every 1/4 mile.

No argument that too is a human-created factor. And the heat absorbed by those surfaces superheat the air above them adding to the carbon emissions

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

Gotta laugh, artic ice has tripled in the late 10 years. yeah its melting fast. and the sky is falling.

When you finish laughing, begin understanding.

The ice surface expands laterally as it melts and refreezes the amount of ice has decreased. Put an ice cube on a table top. Trace its "footprint" then watch it melt and spread as a liquid. The foot print will greatly expand laterally but the volume will diminish because in liquid form, some will evaporate before it refreezes.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

A study is not identical to a science . For one thing a science requires the methodology of controlled experiments . Climatology obviously does not have that . But even worse , it lacks clearly demarcated correlation between its big theory [CO2 caused AGW ] and measured temperature changes .

Someday they may produce useful results but not today . Today they are strictly about political maneuvering for control . The odd thing is they don't think the public is on to them ...

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

due to Global Warming

frigid air

What an odd juxtaposition to have in one's mind . Can U say delusional ? I can .

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

And the heat absorbed by those surfaces superheat the air above them adding to the carbon emissions

That statement is absurd . Heated air would reduce carbon emissions if only due to lowered building heating requirements

 
 
 
Dowser
Sophomore Quiet
link   Dowser    10 years ago

A. Mac,I agree with your scientific explanation. May I also add:

Global Warming and/or Climate Change is about weather and temperature extremes.

Does anyone think that temperatures 20o below normal temperatures are extreme? Then, yep, it's climate change...

 
 
 
Dowser
Sophomore Quiet
link   Dowser    10 years ago

climatology

noun \ kl-m- t-l-j\

: the scientific study of climates

link

Petey, the further you go with this, the more stupid you look. And I say that fondly, and with all kindness. I mean you no harm, no ill will, no anything detrimental, etc.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

Apparently Dowser thinks that if the globe enters an ice age it will be due to atmospheric CO2 emissions ...

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

Melt an ice cube on a table you still have the volume of the ice cube. whether lateral or in thickness. melt and ice cube in a glass of water the volume stays the same. Simple science. learned that in grade school.

Only initially; as the ice (a solid) liquifies, the thus warmer liquid evaporates along its exposed-to-air surface and escapes as water vapor into the atmosphere; every molecule of the ice>water>vapor that leaves the polar surface diminishes the mass but expands the volume.

"Simple science" only if you understand the phenomenon; your understanding is incomplete. Now you're up-to-speed.

I don't mean to use mass and volume interchangeably the mass is diminishing because the melt water evaporates. The melt water extends laterally occupying more surface area.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

every molecule of the ice>water>vapor that leaves the polar surface diminishes the volume.

That is going to be a very tiny fraction of the volume :

2974_discussions.png?width=721

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

Even if the mass were the same down to the molecule, it's not an INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF ICE, RATHER A LATERAL SPREAD DUE TO MELTING. The MASS IS NOT INCREASING melting is extending the volume -- the molecular spacing increases as molecules heat up

sea ice around Antarctica has expanded in recent years. [3] The reasons for this are not fully understood, but suggestions include the climatic effects on ocean and atmospheric circulation of the ozone hole , [3] and/or cooler ocean surface temperatures as the warming deep waters melt the ice shelves . [4]

I don't mean to use mass and volume interchangeably the mass is diminishing because some of the melt water evaporates and H2O molecules leave, going into the atmosphere. The melt water extends laterally occupying more surface area. Objects expand as they are heated.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

Brilliant argument Dowser & I mean that with all the sarcasm you can imagine . Repeating myself : climatology is not yet a science . Until it can come up with a reliable predictive model for the future of the global climate it is still just a bunch of wankers scratching themselves on the news .

These fools can't predict what will happen next year but they are claiming they can predict what will happen in 2100 . They are full of it .

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

The reasons for this are not fully understood

Yup , this is not yet a science . QED .

Objects expand as they are heated.

Water expands when it freezes ... and because of that the melt water contracts relative to the ice it melted from .

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

It expands because ice must contain enough air to be buoyant in its own liquid lest its density would cause it to sink and crush/suffocate all aquatic/marine organisms, etc. . It's still H2O chemically.

But the expansion of frozen water (ice) does not increase its mass; in an enclosed space the expansion, depending on the material of the enclosure, will stretch or rupture the container. But on a surface, the melt water will spread radially -- distributing the volume horizontally. And with ice, that can only happen when temperatures exceed 32 degrees F or O degrees C.

The "bigger" ice cap is not "bigger" because it has added mass; it's "bigger" because it is literally fluid.

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick    10 years ago

Obviously many don't understand what causes the polar vortex.

And the weather reported yesterday it wasn't caused by a polar vortex, so I guess we can forget that as they said it was just a big system and nothing to do with polar vortex.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

If one sees global warming everywhere one looks it just HAS to be a polar vortex ...

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

Whether or not this mega-storm is a polar vortex doesn't mean we can't talk about polar vortex storms.

"Just a big storm" is an understatement when comparing this storm to others; GCC may still be a factor.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

If one sees global warming everywhere one looks it just HAS to be a polar vortex ...

That's a pronouncement, hyperbole and a straw man a trifecta.

Because GCC is seen where manifestations cause it to be seen, doesn't mean it's seen everywhere. But, seeing-people-seeing-GCC-everywhere implies that the seer HAS to accuse anyone who sees it anywhere of seeing it everywhere.

Ironic.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

That's a pronouncement, hyperbole and a straw man a trifecta.

Actually the use of "if" makes it a hypothetical , not a pronouncement nor hyperbole nor a straw man ...

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

"If" also implies "a condition or supposition."

If one sees global warming everywhere one looks it just HAS to be a polar vortex ...

No one in this thread posited that raising the subject of the "polar vortex" was inseparably tied to seeing global warming everywhere except for you doing so "hypothetically."

Whether this storm is a cause and effect situation, that is Global Warming>Polar Vortex, it's a possible scenario nevertheless.

But I accept your "if" qualifier.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

I put a reply right here many hours ago . It disappeared . It was something to the effect that you have repeated so many " marks around "bigger" that your meaning is completely obscured . Apparently you are comparing the pre-melted ice cap with the refrozen ice cap . Was that where you were going ?

Also you are mistaken about dissolved air being the cause of the buoyancy of ice . Where do you get this stuff from ?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago
  1. As water is cooled down, however, the molecules have less energy and hydrogen bonding takes over. The molecules form an ordered crystal through hydrogen bonding that spaces the molecules farther apart than when they were in a liquid. This makesiceless dense than water allowing it tofloat.
    Yes, I misspoke -- should have explained in terms of "oxygen" not "air" my error. And, should have said empty "space" instead of air being responsible for ice's lower density than that of water.
    As for "bigger" - the implication that the polar "expansion" means "more" ice (thus a bigger/greater mass of ice) is not what's happening.
    Apparently you are comparing the pre-melted ice cap with the refrozen ice cap . Was that where you were going ?
    I am saying that a broader i.e. circumference, a wider, greater coverage of ice around the polar surface is not an indication of more mass, rather, the same or lesser mass spread over a larger than previous area due to melting and refreezing. Liquids conform to the shape of their containers and or surfaces beneath them when not contained.
    NOTE: Disappearing comments; it's an annoying quirk of the site of which Perrie is aware. It's a good idea to copy a comment before leaving it in the event it either disappears or comes up truncated.
 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

And that that is turned to vapor returns either as rain or snow or ice. Now you are up to speed.

comment removed due to context

The water vapor does in fact return as some form of precipitation, BUT, the GCC causes water to melt and evaporate in accelerated rates and amounts thus CAUSING DROUGHTS IN SOME PLACES, AND, BECAUSE OF THE GREATER AMOUNTS OF EVAPORATED MOISTURE IN THE ATMOSPHERE MORE FLOODS and MAJOR STORMS.

Regarding the "smart ass" comment why must all of your comments be snarky?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

Talking factually is not "looking down one's nose" nor is it "condescending."

And dont ask me to list them there are too many to list.

All you need is one that wasn't in response to one that threw the first punch.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

Just post one, Gunny.

And who won't debate with me?

You have a nice day as well.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika     10 years ago

I read though all the comments and don't see one that is condescending. Simply a debate on Mac's part.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika     10 years ago

Idoubt if Mac needs outside help.

''not your place to come between myself and Amac's discussion''.

Is that a rule in NT? If it is a rule, then it's violated by most everyone on NT.

If I choose to make a comment, as long as it doesn't violate the CoC I shall do so.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika     10 years ago

Gunny, I made an observation on the comments. That's it, it was you that told me it wasn't my place to comment.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

BRRRR ! Nothing says global warming quite like a frozen waterfall if you insist on having your cake & eating it too ...

2975_discussions.jpg

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

The land mass of the United States (including Alaska) is a small fraction of the earth's surface. To cite cold weather in a small portion of the earth as a disproof of Global Climate Change is indicative of either a myopic view, an agenda, or both.

The more massive snowstorms, the more frequent flooding, the more areas of drought are manifestations of the warming atmosphere due to carbon emissions. The warmer atmosphere holds more moisture and when that moisture condenses, depending on the temperatures at which it condenses, precipitation comes in the form of rain or snow and in greater amounts than "normal."

The significance of "greater than normal" is in the fact that human populations have built their dwellings and lives based on "normal" meteorological patterns over time. The period we call the Industrial Revolution and coming into the present, the cumulative effects of years of carbon emissions and resultant weather extremes puts "normal" in jeopardy and that means property, food, water sources and life in general.

The energy companies have bought the legislators who shill for them and Boobus americana watches reality TV with its head up its ass and skips REALITY.

  1. With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature averaged across the world's land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at0.74C(1.33F) above the 20 th century average.
 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

Read the article at the link Mike

Here's part of it it explains why the ice is getting thicker

But the Antarctic sea ice is being buffeted by strong winds, which are being made even stronger by global warming. So it's getting broken up and pushed up on top of itself, making room for more ice to form.

It's not getting thicker due to more freezing/colder climate, it's getting thicker because of Global Warming and the resulting winds!

Good night and happy Thanksgiving.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

From the article :

The ever-growing winter sea ice isn't entirely surprising . But working out which factors are driving this growth will help scientists figure out what will happen in the future.

Yup , that's how science works ... not publishing headlines to national media that declare that "the science is settled" . It is obviously not settled or they could already predict the future of such events . It's nice to see someone like Williams admit publicly that they don't yet understand what the factors are . That's real science , not alarmist headlines .

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

To cite cold weather in a small portion of the earth as a disproof of Global Climate Change is indicative of either a myopic view, an agenda, or both.

To declare that the science is settled is the clearest example of an agenda . See this comment :

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

Global Warming is causing Global Climate Change.

So ... you're saying that statement is "intelligent" ? Anyone who understands how science is done knows it is based on measurement . The global warming alarmists have changed from a measurable phenomenon [actual warming ] to "climate change" which hasn't even been quantified . It's nothing but a dodge to evade the reality that warming has ceased for almost 2 consecutive decades .

thinks a bad start to the winter on the East coast means there is no global warming

It certainly does not disprove it . It suggests that maybe there is no warming ... which the actual records show a cessation in . To not accept that is a sign of a fucking idiot ... or a deluded fool .

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

Global Warming causes abnormal weather trends.

In that case we should be having no unusual "weather trends" . Even the most diehard AGW alarmists now admit that warming has plateaued .

For instance I was just in LaPaz on the Baja peninsula and the people who were living there were saying they were having to move more North every year because it's getting much hotter there every year

That is an example of weather , not climate . But I expect someone as hungup on accepting alarmist views as yourself can't be bothered with distinctions like that .

To deny Global Climate Change puts one on at the same acceptance of science level as those who still believe that the Earth is flat or is only 6,000 years old.

If you had even the slightest inkling of what science is about you wouldn't be saying that . You are being bamboozled by the climatology "community" . There are many actual researchers who don't buy into this "climate change" claptrap . And there are NO researchers who can predict even one year into the future about "weather trends" let alone more than the 80 years to the end of the century . But chicken littles like yourself love to beat yourself up on this topic . Do you want to ask for even one name of a researcher who does not buy what theses charlatans are selling ? Of course not . You would be horrified w/o your blinders on ...

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

If you had even the slightest inkling of what science is about you wouldn't be saying that .

And your degree is in what area of science?

And there areNO researchers who can predict even one year into the futureabout "weather trends" let alone more than the 80 years to the end of the century .

Not moment-to-moment over the course of years but they can certainly predict weather (turn on the news and see for yourself) and measure atmospheric changes and the likely weather patterns (which over time represent "climate"), cite physical and meteorological changes that occur in parallel, and demonstrate on a small scale how those parallels play out.

Do you want to ask for even one name of a researcher who does not buy what theses charlatans are selling ? Of course not . You would be horrified w/o your blinders on ...

I'll ask. Name one-at-a-time and I'll find the credentials and post them.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

Not moment-to-moment over the course of years but they can certainly predict weather

Yes they can . Did you ever notice that many meteorologists are the most ardent attackers of the theory of AGW ?
Here is a bone of contention between the 2 groups :
Meteorologists say that cloud cover at night holds the day's heat in .
Climatologists don't care about cloud cover , only CO2 levels . Can you find even one climatologist who admits to that effect for clouds at night ?

I'll ask. Name one-at-a-time and I'll find the credentials and post them.

Dr. Williams quoted here :

is one of many examples . His statement was a clear admission that the science still lacks understanding about climate .

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

Did you ever notice that many meteorologists are the most ardent attackers of the theory of AGW ?

Actually, there are many on both sides of the issue but I believe, more who believe that GCC is due to human activity.

I checked the link and followed a link within and found this

Given that winter sea ice in Antarctica is growing, is the alarm about the Arctic overblown?
That's how it is being spun on blogs promoting the climate sceptic narrative, with one post accusing the mainstream media of being deaf and dumb to the changes down south.

This not only glosses over the different mechanisms in play, but also ignores their different magnitudes. According to the US National Snow & Ice Data Center , the Arctic summer ice minimum is declining at a rate of about 91,600 square kilometres per year, while the upwards trend for the Antarctic winter maximum is just 16,000 square kilometres per year.

We know relatively little about the thickness of Antarctic sea ice, but the differences for ice volume are probably even more dramatic. The Arctic is switching from a system dominated by thick, multi-year ice to one in which a thin crust of ice forms and melts each year. By contrast, the exposed conditions in the Southern Ocean have always meant that most of the sea ice around Antarctica breaks up each summer.

Can we at least be fairly relaxed about the changes in the southern hemisphere?
That would be unwise. The main concern is the long-term future of the much larger volume of ice on the continent of Antarctica itself, and in the ice shelves that form where its glaciers meet the sea especially when the ozone hole heals and its cooling influence is diminished. The evidence points to continuing loss of Antarctic ice, which will lead to continuing sea level rise, says Sharon Stammerjohn of the University of Colorado at Boulder.

In an article posted by MIG, I found the explanation as to why the polar ice is increasing in volume; IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF DROPPING TEMPERATURES, RATHER, THE OPPOSITE. WINDS GENERATED BY GLOBAL WARMING IS PUSHING ICE AND PILING IT ON TOP OF ITSELF.

Anyway Petey, name the scientists who debunk the GCC idea, one-at-a-time and I will check their credentials and writings.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

Yup , that was the correct link . But I guess you can't be bothered to look at or respond to what I said as follows .

Dr. Williams quoted here :

is one of many examples . His statement was a clear admission that the science still lacks understanding about climate .

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

Petey,

Please post the quote to which you refer(and Williams' full name)because the linked article is filled with comments like this

What's happening in the Arctic?

Put simply, global warming is exerting its strongest effect at the North Pole. Climate models have long predicted that the Arctic would warm faster than the rest of the globe. This "Arctic amplification" is largely due to a positive feedback effect caused by melting snow and ice. As darker sea and land is exposed, more of the sun's energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface rather than being reflected back.

Still,the loss of sea icein the Arctic summer is happening faster than climate models predicted , and looks set to change the region fundamentally leading to increased extraction of minerals and other commercial activities and an altered ecology.

If I'm missing something, tell me.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

Mac ,

I just quoted the relevant quote . Here it is a 3rd time :

The ever-growing winter sea ice isn't entirely surprising . But working out which factors are driving this growth will help scientists figure out what will happen in the future.

And here is a link to Dr. Williams bio :

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    10 years ago

Petey,

I responded to the quote earlier

Here's part of it it explains why the ice is getting thicker

But the Antarctic sea ice is being buffeted by strong winds, which are being made even stronger by global warming. So it's getting broken up and pushed up on top of itself, making room for more ice to form.

It's not getting thicker due to more freezing/colder climate, it's getting thicker because of Global Warming and the resulting winds!

This came from the same publication to which you linked.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    10 years ago

HOLY crap . I just got kicked out of my reply . Try re-reading the Dr. Williams quote again . It clearly indicates theycurrently do NOT understand what factors are doing what . The rest of what he said is just propaganda from the climatology mafia .

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

Here we go again ... more global "warming" !

U.S. East Coast braces for 'historic' blizzard on Monday

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

Here's what happened in NYC in 1888 :

The Great Blizzard of 1888

Terrific slide show . Will it happen again this year ?

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

New York May Get Three Feet of Snow Starting Monday

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    9 years ago

Last time I explain this I do it every time because you refuse to acknowledge the reality/phenomena.

The earth, while warming, does not warm uniformly for geological, atmospheric and disparate manifestations of civilization such as latitudinal, urban vs. rural and wilderness disparities.

That said, the warming has caused many areas of the earth to experience drought -- which means that ground and surface area waters evaporate and accumulate in huge volumes in the atmosphere. As this over-saturated air circulates, based on air masses it encounters, when precipitation results in the form of rain or snow there tends to be FLOODS OR THREE-FOOT SNOW STORMS!

I don't know what your and Sean's science bona fides happen to be OR NOT BE BUT I HAVE A DEGREE IN, AMONG OTHER THINGS, BIOLOGY! I understand population dynamics and ecological anomalies including how temperature changes affect populations of plant and animal life.

I will not engage you in this conversation any more as you, for political-agenda reasons ignore the clearly stated explanation while orgasming over the lengthy jargon-filled "research" posted by the shills of BIG ENERGY.

Your various, specious "questions" are intended to generate the answers you'd like while you ignore the actual answers like

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:


  • 37_Evidence-sea-level-rise.jpg

    Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise.

    Sea level rise

    Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century. 4

    + MORE

  • 38_Global_temperature.jpg

    Global temperature rise

    All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase. 7

    + MORE

  • 39_Warming_oceans2.jpg

    Warming oceans

    The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969. 8

    + MORE

  • 40_Ice_sheets.jpg

    Flowing meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet

    Shrinking ice sheets

    The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

    + MORE

  • 41_Evidence-declining-Arctic-sea-ice320x240.jpg

    Visualization of the 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum

    Declining Arctic sea ice

    Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades. 9

    + MORE

  • 42_Evidence-glacial-retreat_Tanzania-320x240.jpg

    The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.

    Glacial retreat

    Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa. 10

    + MORE

  • 43_Evidence-extreme-weather_320x240.jpg

    Extreme events

    The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events. 11

    + MORE

  • 44_Evidence-ocean-acidification-320x240.jpg

    Ocean acidification

    Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. 12, 13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year. 14, 15

    + MORE

  • 93_snow_cover.png

    Decreased snow cover

    Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

 
 
 
Neetu2
Freshman Silent
link   Neetu2    9 years ago

Yup, here it is, in my backyard. And it is just the beginning..Frown.gif Frown.gif Frown.gif Frown.gif Frown.gif Frown.gif Frown.gif Frown.gif Frown.gif Frown.gif Frown.gif Frown.gif Frown.gif Frown.gif 2976_discussions.jpg?width=721

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

I don't know what your and Sean's science bona fides happen to be OR NOT BE BUT I HAVE A DEGREE IN, AMONG OTHER THINGS, BIOLOGY! I understand population dynamics and ecological anomalies including how temperature changes affect populations of plant and animal life.

Thanks so much for your credentials . Here is what you don't know about ... statistical analysis . And that is the ONLY SKILL SET that matters for objective discussion of climatology . It's the one thing you lack . Therefore every cut & paste you put up has NO deep understanding behind it on your part . You paste propaganda with NO comprehension . I'm not gonna bother to refute your paste job since you don't understand it yourself and won't be able to defend against my points . Period . However if you feel that you are capable of understanding & defending such a discussion indicate that is the case and I will respond with details BUT if you do that expect to actually back up your empty rhetoric with reading my debunking and explaining the errors in it . And don't think another cut & paste will suffice ... it won't .

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

Neetu , Brrrr !

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    9 years ago

Empirical information was posted the statistics are subjectively interpreted to satisfy an agenda.

I'm not gonna bother to refute your paste job since you don't understand it yourself and won't be able to defend against my points .

Check the information that accompanies the images.

And don't think another cut & paste will suffice ... it won't .

Think of it as "information."

Attacking the act of cutting and pasting information DOESN'T REFUTE THE INFORMATION; it's a dodge.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

Attacking the act of cutting and pasting information DOESN'T REFUTE THE INFORMATION; it's a dodge.

Refusing to support the paste job with your own words is a sure sign of not understanding the material you pasted . If you can't explain it why should anyone bother with that waste of space ? This is not some stupid union conflict . Throwing out reams of meaningless info may have worked in your career but not here . Since you are refusing to support your own paste job I'm going to label it spam ... and then it will be subject to deletion . This is your last chance to change your tactics . What's it gonna be ?

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

Maaaaan ... that's some major global warming !

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    9 years ago

Refusing to support the paste job with your own words is a sure sign of not understanding the material you pasted .

On the contrary; I post information from experts -- if you cannot comprehend their articulately stated information, that doesn't mean I can't.

This is not some stupid union conflict .

Always going to the personal; my career has nothing to do with this discussion. Your pathetic attempt to discredit me personally doesn't change the information under discussion.

Since you are refusing to support your own paste jobI'm going to label it spam

Label it whatever you want -- another tactic to evade the posted facts you are unable to refute.

and then it will be subject to deletion . This is your last chance to change your tactics . What's it gonna be ?

It's gonna be your usual threat-routine.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

That did it . Your comment is spam . I am going to demand it be deleted and all your other fancy dancing ...

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

John , I thought that picture you posted was hilarious . I DID NOT request it be deleted . Perrie has gotten trigger happy about spam unfortunately . The best I can do is to repost your picture for you as follows :

2977_discussions.jpg

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

Another interesting take on global "warming" :

Capital Hill

Political & Economic Analysis

Global Warming So Bad Great Lakes Need Another Icebreaker

323 Comments

12:41 PM ET

E arlier this month came much blubbering about 2014 being the warmest year in history. We set the record straight on that but, well, the alarmists won't give up.

They can't help themselves. They would make the same claims if 2014 had been the coldest year on record.

Remember, it's not global warming anymore. It's climate change.

The new name allows the alarmists great latitude in their claims. No matter which way the thermometer moves, no matter how much it snows or doesn't snow, or rains or doesn't rain, they will say that man's burning of fossil fuel is causing the climate to change.

But we haven't forgotten that in the beginning it was all about excessive heat, melting ice and rising sea levels. That's why we can't pass up this story about carriers asking for an additional icebreaker in the Great Lakes. Seems they want "to keep shipping lanes open on the lakes during harsh winter conditions."

This wasn't how it was predicted. The National Wildlife Federation warned that "potential global warming impacts" on the Great Lakes "include reduced water levels (due in particular to decreased winter ice cover allowing more evaporation)," and two years ago Climate Progress fretted that "last year, only 5% of the lakes froze over compared to 1979 when ice coverage was as much as 94%."

From 94% coverage 36 years ago down to 5% in 2012, then back to 34.1% so far this year . Yes, that qualifies as climate change. And there's nothing new about that.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

Oh no ...

Not again! Another storm blankets winter-weary New England

...

2978_discussions.jpg

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    9 years ago

And once again, you fail to understand the dynamics.

Where do you think all the moisture comes from prior to its encountering temperatures cold enough to turn it to snow?

And do you know the molecular dynamics of wind?

Just dropped by to tell you that huge snow storms and global climate change are related.

I won't be back until the next big snow for now

You could treat this as ordinary weather, or, you could think about it in a climate context. Counter-intuitive though it may sound, the fact remains that as I have noted previously some kinds of winter precipitation could indeed be more intense because were in a warming world.

Consider, for instance, that sea surface temperatures off the coast of New England are flashing red , showing an extreme warm anomaly. Thats highly relevant because warmer oceans have atmospheric consequences.

Sea surface temperatures off the coast of New England right now are at record levels, 11.5C (21F) warmer than normal in some locations, says Penn State climate researcher Michael Mann. There is [a] direct relationship between the surface warmth of the ocean and the amount of moisture in the air. What that means is that this storm will be feeding off these very warm seas, producing very large amounts of snow as spiraling winds of the storm squeeze that moisture out of the air, cool, it, and deposit it as snow inland.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

Where do you think all the moisture comes from prior to its encountering temperatures cold enough to turn it to snow?

So ... global warming equals more moisture ? AND global warming equals severe drought ?

Confused much ?!

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    9 years ago

Since you further revealed your lack of understanding

A warmer earth means more evaporation of surface moisture and eventually ground water all of which accumulates in the atmosphere in greater masses THAT'S THE DROUGHT PART

As the more saturated air masses circulate, when those masses condense IT RAINS/PRECIPITATES those are often the FLOODS.

When those air masses are cooled to low enough temperatures it SNOWS.

More atmospheric moisture from warming means heavier precipitation events.

Now WIND.

Warm air is less dense than cool or cold air more space between the molecules because warmer molecules move faster, collide and push each other away so, colder, more dense, more crowded air molecules will move towards warmer air to alleviate the crowding that movement is called WIND/BREEZE, etc., depending on the differential of the temperatures between the air masses. Larger warm air masses attract the colder air masses and thus, extreme wind velocities.

Unfortunately, the energy companies pay their shills to lie, and unfortunately, many lay people listen to the politicians in the pockets of the energy companies and believe the lies.

I have no ax to grind with you Petey I give you the time and effort and respect it takes to explain my positions. You are welcome to explain why you think my explanations are incorrect. But don't make it personal.

I'm far from confused.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

A warmer earth means more evaporation of surface moisture and eventually ground water

In the winter season [which is happening now in the northern hemisphere ] there should be a lot less of that evaporation going on . But you seem to insist that is still the explanation for all of this snow . I still think you are confused ...

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    9 years ago

The evaporation occurs all over the earth and the water vapor circulates with air masses moisture contributing to the current snows in New England didn't evaporate solely from the northern hemisphere in the last few weeks

The excessively large mass of this snow is in fact excessive because of the moisture that used to be in the areas, many of which are now in drought because of the increased warming of the earth.

I'm not confused.

I am taking a break. See you later.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

The excessively large mass of this snow is in fact excessive because of the moisture that used to be in the areas, many of which are now in drought because of the increased warming of the earth.

If these drought areas are as dry as they are reported to be how can they contribute moisture ? They should not be doing any such thing . You're still confused ...

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    9 years ago

If these drought areas are as dry as they are reported to be how can they contribute moisture ? They should not be doing any such thing . You're still confused ...

They became drought areas because the warming of the earth caused the ground water and surface water to evaporate and thus go into the atmosphere.

You're the one that's confused.

AFTER these areas become drought-ridden, of course they can't contribute moisture to the atmosphere; you have the sequence backwards.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

AFTER these areas become drought-ridden, of course they can't contribute moisture to the atmosphere; you have the sequence backwards.

Huh ? The snow is happening now . But the drought has been ongoing for years . You are really confused !

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

I much prefer the description they they may be able to grasp more clearly, "Global Climate Change".

Of course you do ; You and every climate octopus who squirts out concealing ink to obscure his movements . Anyone who doesn't recognize that as the con job it is deserves to be suckered ... which octopi are well equipped to supply , pun intended .

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

Global Warming

That has a specific measurable meaning ... one which has ceased to increase .

causes Global Climate Change

which has no measurable meaning nor even a definition . It is only for octopi such as yourself and the fools who get suckered by them . Actually you are the one who has been suckered here . Who was the octopus who suckered you ?

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick    9 years ago

BRRR ... More global warming coming our way!

Sorry I must correct you Sir on this one. You see it was "Global Warming", but that just didn't fit the real life situation, so they had to change it to the new and improved "Climate Change". You see, that can be used when it is hot and also when it is cold or even when it rains or drought. See how much better those two words work together rather than "Global Warming". "Global Warming" is too limited to push an agenda to promote control over the people when Boston has over 5 feet of snow and ships are getting stuck in the ice during the summer in the Antarctic.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov    9 years ago
Global climate change has been ongoing since the earth formed an atmosphere. Silly term.
 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    9 years ago

Another generic, seat-of-the-pants, no-information Koch Brothers propaganda pronouncement.

Climates are cyclical, on that score you are correct; but GCC currently incorporates the cyclical phenomena with the man-made phenomena which exacerbate the "normal," cyclicals.

GLOBAL WARMING is what induces the GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE phenomena and while the earth is warming as a whole, for geological, atmospheric and other reasons, the heating does not occur uniformly

I've explained the snows, the droughts, the floods and the winds those who don't want, for political reasons to acknowledge the explanations can't rebut them, so, they come back with empty rhetorical crap such as, "you're confused," and or attack personally.

If I were to ask you to give me the one word term for the cause of normal climate change and its periodicity, could you do it without looking it up?

If you one doesn't know the term for the phenomenon, then one is not knowledgable enough to be making declarative pronouncements on the subject of Global Warming/GCC.

For the record, 2014 was the warmest year in recorded history.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

I've explained the snows, the droughts, the floods and the winds

In your ideologically deluded mind only .

For the record, 2014 was the warmest year in recorded history.

That's only one year ... and it's not much of a jump from the previous decade or more . There's a word for that : weather . It is not climate ... and not even much of a change .

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
link   Robert in Ohio    9 years ago

It seems clear that average global temperatures have been increasing for a long, long time and a little more rapidly in recent decades

Average Global Temperature, 1880-2013

Let's say the average temperature in 1880 was 57 degrees F and round the average temperature in 2015 to 58.5% (according to the chart) that is an increase of 1.5 degrees F over a period of 135 years or about an .01 degrees F (1/100th of a degree) per year.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

Wow , broad brush insults . Was that supposed to be a convincing argument ? It sounded like a pathetic excuse of a rallying cry ...

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

Thanks for the graph . Does that imply warming has been due to CO2 emissions ? If so , how ?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    9 years ago

It seems clear that average global temperatures have been increasing for a long, long time and a little more rapidly in recent decades

One might think of the time frame as a hmmmmm as an Industrial Revolution!

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
link   Robert in Ohio    9 years ago

Petey

I am sure that CO2 emissions played a role in the rising temperature

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

You're sure ? Based on what ... exactly ?

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
link   Robert in Ohio    9 years ago

I should I said, I guess that it was a factor but that I do not know to what degree and it was only 1.5 degrees over 135 years

The major difference between years prior to 1880 and after is the industrialization of the world and it seems logical that CO2 emissions increased, so making the leap that they had something to do with it is not really that big a leap.

On the hand do you have definitive proof that CO emissions do not contribute to acceleration of rising average temperatures over the past 135 years?

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

it seems logical that CO2 emissions increased

That is actually empirically measured and well established .

On the hand do you have definitive proof that CO emissions do not contribute to acceleration of rising average temperatures over the past 135 years?

I will present my argument here after some background theory is discussed . Do you know what correlation is ?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    9 years ago

Present your argument now.

In advance

ENERGY 2/05/2012 @ 12:39PM 89,930 views

"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" ClimateData

/

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

Present your argument now.

Answer the question I asked RiO now . See ? 2 can play the commanding presence game . But mine isn't based on ignorant cut/paste jobs like yours .

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

That was not merely a memory . It gets more complicated when the full logic is revealed . So far everyone has avoided phase 2 ...

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

Doesn't mean a correlation exists, but doesn't negate much either.

Feronia , I disagree . Clearly you are not interested in discussion , just in presenting your opinions . There is more to this than you said ...

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

"I'm just not interested in discussing it ad nauseum when its only purpose is to rehash info that's already out there. If you have something new to add to the existing body of study, feel free to spit it out if you so choose."

Geez ! Thanks sooo much for your sarcastic enthusiasm ... Isn't anyone else interested in hearing my explanation ... or did I scare everyone else away ? Let's make it simpler . Does anyone agree with the statement :

Correlation does not guarantee causation

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

Feronia from here :

Since when have you become everyone else ? I was trying to ascertain interest from the other readers . I already know your position ... Do I have your permission to get other opinions , your majesty ?

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

You are quite the conversation hog . As I said I already got your opinion . Must you continue to repeat it ?

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

So ... you're saying you don't care if other readers want me to finish my ideas ? That's what I thought you said ... So far there are none . PS : if there is anyone else who wants to know what I meant this would be a good time to speak up .

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

It's just you ...

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

glaring intellect

Thanks for noticing !

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
link   Robert in Ohio    9 years ago

Petey

You are not a schools teacher, so enough already with background theory and definitions

I certainly regret entering what I thought could be a discussion and in fact I presented the chart to show that the temperature increase in the past 135 years (despite the Industrial Revolution) had been very small.

So answer my question or don't answer it - present your view on the point I made or don't present it - present s discussion on the difference between causation and correlation - but please cease with the attitude that you are the only one who knows anything about the subject or that has a valid opinion.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov    9 years ago
The current models are unvalidated and don't accurately predict past or future results. Immature science at best.
 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    9 years ago

temperature increase in the past 135 years (despite the Industrial Revolution) had been very small.

"Small" is a relative term, RIO.

Climate change is happening

Our Earth is warming. Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.4F over the past century, and is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5F over the next hundred years. Small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    9 years ago

The current models are unvalidated and don't accurately predict past or future results. Immature science at best.

And your bona fides consist of?

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
link   Robert in Ohio    9 years ago

"Small" is a relative term, RIO.

That is quite obvious as are most terms

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    9 years ago

"Small" is a relative term, RIO.

That is quite obvious as are most terms

It isn't obvious if it's interpreted to mean "inconsequential." In terms of GCC, a continual "small" annual increase in the earth's average temperature is of significant consequence.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
link   Robert in Ohio    9 years ago

In terms of GCC, a continual "small" annual increase in the earth's average temperature is of significant consequence.

No argument, and :significant consequence" is also a relative term in a discussion of a topic such as this wouldn't you agree?

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
link   Krishna    9 years ago

True.

The key word there is...weather.

A lot of the confusion is due to a misunderstanding of the difference between climate...and weather.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    9 years ago

No argument, and :significant consequence" is also a relative term in a discussion of a topic such as this wouldn't you agree?

Not completely; a consequence can mean "being of relevance or importance," and a "significant consequence" would be one in which the relevance was sufficiently great or important enought to be worthy of attention."

I know I'm splitting hairs with the terminology, but where the health of the earth, and, consequently that of its inhabitants are possibly at risk, erring on the side of the energy barons, their well-funded disinformation campaigns and the paid legislators who go along is, in itself, the road to consequential significance.

I find it infuriating that much of the science denial comes from those who, like Mr. Limbaugh, hope Obama fails even if it means resisting sensible (if not vital) initiatives. The ultimate "cutting off of one's nose" is to side with those involved in poisoning the planet so that they can cheer when "he fails" while the GCC damage move towards being irreconcilable.

That's my two cents.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
link   Robert in Ohio    9 years ago

But what is significant is also relative in the eyes of the beholder

There's the change for your two cents worth

Thanks for the back and forth

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

don't accurately predict past or future results

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   seeder  Petey Coober    9 years ago

Brrr ! Still more global warming ... seems to start earlier every year :

Snow Blankets Big Bear, Mountain High During Season`s 1st Major Storm

 
 

Who is online



Dig


182 visitors