Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally

Wake wrote:

dehammer wrote:
You should check out something called snowball earth. Evidence exist that suggest that the earth has had to periods where even the oceans froze over. This happened because there was still water vapor in the air. This meant there was still snow falling.

This means the "maximum extension" of the ice is the equator. That has not happen in several hundred million years minimum.

That was a very poor hypothesis to explain what appear to be glacial rock-type deposits at tropical latitudes. This was from a "fixist" point of view - those that denied the theory of Continental Drift.

Presently the theory of Continental Drift is in a much stronger position and so that would answer most of these questions. Especially since 650 Myr ago the sun was MUCH hotter than it presently is.

dehammer wrote:
Yes, it is, if the oceans are frozen over.

dehammer wrote:
Something you should know Wake, the coldest the earth has ever been is about 13°c. As long as the temperature is above 0°c its possible for water to evaporate, even if only in small amounts.

Into the Night wrote:

dehammer wrote:
Yes, it is, if the oceans are frozen over.

Not possible to freeze the oceans at our present distance to the Sun.

dehammer wrote:
It can if its warmed enough,

dehammer wrote:
but the reason the earth was frozen over for so long was there was no water vapor in the air to act as a greenhouse gas.

dehammer wrote:
IF there was much sublimation going on, it would have caused the greenhouse effect and the ice would have melted.

dehammer wrote:
The reason it ended was the co2 level reach 2% of the atmosphere.

dehammer wrote:
This caused enough warming that it melted the ice which released water vapor, which cause huge storms which after a few centuries of hurricanes the size of the US, eventually got rid of most of the ice.

dehammer wrote:
The only way co2 could reach that level is if there was no water vapor to wash it out of the air.

Into the Night wrote:

dehammer wrote:
Yes, it is, if the oceans are frozen over.

Not possible to freeze the oceans at our present distance to the Sun.

dehammer wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

dehammer wrote:
Yes, it is, if the oceans are frozen over.

Not possible to freeze the oceans at our present distance to the Sun.

It has less to do with the distance, as how much of the suns energy is absorbed. If there is too much ice, the albedo would cause too much energy to be reflected. The earth could not absorb enough energy to melt the ice the formed every year so the amount of ice would increase until the earth was covered pole to pole.

Wake wrote:Rain clouds and humidity slow the release of energy by absorbing heat from the surface and slowing its reaching the upper atmosphere.

dehammer wrote:It doesn't matter if it absorbs it but if it retrains it enough to melt.

dehammer wrote: History says you are wrong.

dehammer wrote:
It doesn't matter if it absorbs it but if it retrains it enough to melt. IF too much of the energy is being reflected, there is not enough energy to melt enough of it. Ice can only absorb a small amount of infrared spectrum.

History says you are wrong. What do you have saying your right? words that prove you know nothing.

dehammer wrote:
No, you are denying ice.

dehammer wrote:
The sun might be providing it, but a large percentage would be reflected back at space.

dehammer wrote:
Insignificant amounts would be absorbed for it to do much melt and what was, would be lost at night, leaving the ice too cold to melt.

dehammer wrote:
The earth absorbs the suns energy and transfers it to the ice via conduction.

dehammer wrote:
Once again, you have proven you do not know science.

dehammer wrote:
A typical ocean albedo is approximately 0.06,

dehammer wrote:
while bare sea ice varies from approximately 0.5 to 0.7.

dehammer wrote:
This means that the ocean reflects only 6 percent of the incoming solar radiation and absorbs the rest, while sea ice reflects 50 to 70 percent of the incoming energy.

dehammer wrote:
In addition, water vapor in the air absorbs some of the reflected energy and thus warms the air.

dehammer wrote:
This helps to melt the ice.

dehammer wrote:
Without water vapor, the majority of energy reflected will reach space.

dehammer wrote:
Only when co2 reaches 2% of the atmosphere (20000 ppm) goes it become enough of a ghg to melt the ice,

dehammer wrote:
thus releasing ho2 into their air which increases the atmospheres ability to absorb more energy to the level that it melts off the ice.

dehammer wrote:
There is something you might want to look up. Its called a satellite and it can give you a lot of information if you know how to use it. Scientist have been using it for decades and all the things you say is unknown is known.

Once again, you have proven a lack of knowledge of science, yet you try to define it.

dehammer wrote:
They can measure things like infrared, and albedo. We are discussing albedo, so satellites are a good source of information.

GasGuzzler wrote:

dehammer wrote:
They can measure things like infrared, and albedo. We are discussing albedo, so satellites are a good source of information.

MY bad, I thought we were discussing global snowfall.

dehammer wrote:
There is something you might want to look up. Its called a satellite and it can give you a lot of information if you know how to use it. Scientist have been using it for decades and all the things you say is unknown is known.

Once again, you have proven a lack of knowledge of science, yet you try to define it.

dehammer wrote:
They can measure things like infrared, and albedo. We are discussing albedo, so satellites are a good source of information.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Isn't there sort of a specific temperature range, for snow to fall? Obviously it has to be cold enough, but from younger years, I remember often hearing about it being too cold for snow to fall. Bad enough being cold, but least snow brought some hope of school closings. Didn't happen very often though, needed over 16" accumulation overnight. Sort of why I'm skeptical of proxy value of ice core data, there is nothing to compare them with. You can't know if thousand of years worth of ice melted at some point. You can't know how many years may have past, leaving no new layers. Tree growth rings are another sketchy proxy, various conditions effect annual growth. Hard to tell which conditions where right or wrong, for how many years. All basically a guess, and the freedom to use that data however you need. Your guess, is just as good as mine, but does a Phd on the wall add any credibility?

The satellites don't give temperature readings, with the accuracy or precision to make the man-made CO2 claims the climatologist try to sell. There are a couple of hundred miles of molecules, of varying density at any given moment, between the satellite and surface of the planet. The surface of the earth isn't of one consistent material either. Satellite measurements are useful, just depends on how you use the data. The IPCC misuses pretty much all the data they can dig up, same as the results of real research and studies. They introduce bias, and give their subjective interpretation of the material. It's hard to argue their conclusions, because that's part of science, everyone is free to draw their own conclusions, perform tests and experiments to support their views, or discount the views of others. Unfortunately, there is no quick or simple way to test Global Warming, it's a huge planet. It falls to doing it on a computer, with virtual earth, and faulty data, with biased programmers.

dehammer wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

dehammer wrote:
They can measure things like infrared, and albedo. We are discussing albedo, so satellites are a good source of information.

MY bad, I thought we were discussing global snowfall.

They can also measure snowfall accumulations.

dehammer wrote:
They measure the amount of light going in, and the amount of light coming out. That is how they measure albedo. It has nothing to do with temperature.

Into the Night wrote:

dehammer wrote:
They measure the amount of light going in, and the amount of light coming out. That is how they measure albedo. It has nothing to do with temperature.

Dead wrong. You have no idea where the light coming from Earth came from. Is it reflection? Is it the result of scattering and refraction? Is it due to temperature?

dehammer wrote:
They have instruments that can measure changes in the size of ice fields. That tells them how much accumulated.

dehammer wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

dehammer wrote:
They measure the amount of light going in, and the amount of light coming out. That is how they measure albedo. It has nothing to do with temperature.

Dead wrong. You have no idea where the light coming from Earth came from. Is it reflection? Is it the result of scattering and refraction? Is it due to temperature?

They can indeed tell the difference between what is reflected and what is from the atmosphere.

dehammer wrote:
Once again, you prove you do not know science.

dehammer wrote:
oooooohhhhh kkkkaaaayyyy

dehammer wrote:
No, I know they cook their books, but that doesn't mean they do not know science.