Remember me
▼ Content

Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally



Page 2 of 5<1234>>>
03-05-2019 05:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
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.


How do you know, Wake? Were you there?


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 05:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
dehammer wrote:
Yes, it is, if the oceans are frozen over.


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


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 05:17
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
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.
03-05-2019 05:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
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.


Water can evaporate even when it's solid ice, dude.

It's called sublimation.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 11:50
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
It can if its warmed enough, 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. IF there was much sublimation going on, it would have caused the greenhouse effect and the ice would have melted.

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

The only way co2 could reach that level is if there was no water vapor to wash it out of the air.
03-05-2019 19:18
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1507)
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.


What? The Arctic Ocean freezes every year, nice thick sheet of ice covers large portions. Even have special icebreaker ships, to keep traffic moving, rescue trapped ships, sometimes a polar bear or penguin or two...
03-05-2019 19:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
dehammer wrote:
It can if its warmed enough,

Doesn't have to be warmed at all.
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.

There is always water vapor in the air, even in the driest deserts.
Water has no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Now, like so many others before you, are not only ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, you are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
dehammer wrote:
IF there was much sublimation going on, it would have caused the greenhouse effect and the ice would have melted.

The 'greenhouse' effect is not possible, dude. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
dehammer wrote:
The reason it ended was the co2 level reach 2% of the atmosphere.

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth.
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.

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

Water vapor is always in the air. Neither water vapor nor CO2 is capable of warming the Earth.

Which argument do you want to make? The Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument?


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 19:50
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
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.
03-05-2019 20:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
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.


Both liquid water and ice absorb infrared light and become warmer, dude. That is most of the energy coming from the Sun. Absorption of infrared light results in conversion to thermal energy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-05-2019 20:10
03-05-2019 20:48
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
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.
03-05-2019 21:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
Wake wrote:Rain clouds and humidity slow the release of energy by absorbing heat from the surface and slowing its reaching the upper atmosphere.

This is a huge violation of ... of many things in physics.

1) Thermal energy cannot be trapped by any matter whatsoever so it is never "released."

2) You are attempting to describe an egregious violation of the second law of thermodynamics in which the upper atmosphere cools while the surface increases in temperature. Try getting cold water in hot coffee to freeze while the coffee gets hotter. You're describing the same problem.

3) You have not addressed any relationship to the earth's average temperature which renders this assertion meaningless.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-05-2019 21:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
dehammer wrote:It doesn't matter if it absorbs it but if it retrains it enough to melt.

You need to review Stefan-Boltzmann which governs the thermal radiation of all matter.

dehammer wrote: History says you are wrong.

Physics says you are wrong. What science do you have saying your right?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-05-2019 22:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
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.


That part of the spectrum happens to be provided by the Sun in abundant intensity. Now you are denying the intensity of the Sun!



The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-05-2019 22:12
03-05-2019 23:31
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
No, you are denying ice. The sun might be providing it, but a large percentage would be reflected back at space. 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.
04-05-2019 00:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
dehammer wrote:
No, you are denying ice.

Not at all. Ice melts because of sunlight.
dehammer wrote:
The sun might be providing it, but a large percentage would be reflected back at space.

WRONG. Ice absorbs infrared just as well as liquid water.
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.

WRONG. Ice absorbs just as well as liquid water.

Why do you think the snow melts in the mountains in the summer when the Sun rides higher in the sky?


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 00:31
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
The earth absorbs the suns energy and transfers it to the ice via conduction.

Once again, you have proven you do not know science. A typical ocean albedo is approximately 0.06, while bare sea ice varies from approximately 0.5 to 0.7. 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.

In addition, water vapor in the air absorbs some of the reflected energy and thus warms the air. This helps to melt the ice. Without water vapor, the majority of energy reflected will reach space.

Only when co2 reaches 2% of the atmosphere (20000 ppm) goes it become enough of a ghg to melt the ice, thus releasing ho2 into their air which increases the atmospheres ability to absorb more energy to the level that it melts off the ice.
Edited on 04-05-2019 00:35
04-05-2019 02:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
dehammer wrote:
The earth absorbs the suns energy and transfers it to the ice via conduction.

Nope. The Earth is covered by ice, remember?

Ice absorbs energy directly from the Sun.
dehammer wrote:
Once again, you have proven you do not know science.

And now you will deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
dehammer wrote:
A typical ocean albedo is approximately 0.06,

The albedo of the ocean is unknown. It also varies. It is not possible to measure a global albedo.
dehammer wrote:
while bare sea ice varies from approximately 0.5 to 0.7.

The albedo of sea ice is unknown. It also varies. It is not possible to measure a global emissivity (or albedo, which is the inverse of emissivity).
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.

The emissivity of the ocean is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. We don't have enough thermometers.
dehammer wrote:
In addition, water vapor in the air absorbs some of the reflected energy and thus warms the air.

It also absorbs incoming infrared. However, this is pretty insignificant.
dehammer wrote:
This helps to melt the ice.

WRONG. You cannot melt the ice with slightly warmer air. Apparently you are completely illiterate about latent heat.
dehammer wrote:
Without water vapor, the majority of energy reflected will reach space.

WRONG. It reaches space anyway. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
dehammer wrote:
Only when co2 reaches 2% of the atmosphere (20000 ppm) goes it become enough of a ghg to melt the ice,

The present claimed concentration that is measured is 400ppm, or 0.04% of the atmosphere. The Earth is not bound by ice. CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. Neither does water vapor. You are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics as well as the Stefan-Boltzmann law, just like the Church of Global Warming usually does.
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.

Go learn about latent heat.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 02:21
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
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.
Edited on 04-05-2019 02:22
04-05-2019 05:15
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1519)
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.


Seriously dude, satellites cannot measure the temperature of Earth.

From you favorite Wiki source.

Statement one....Weather satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands.

Statement two...Using the solar constant and given average earth temperature, determines the effective earth emissivity of long wave radiation emitted to space.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read it like this....

We measure radiance to get the temperature, but we don't know the emissivity until we plug in the given temp. WTF!!!
04-05-2019 05:30
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
They can measure things like infrared, and albedo. We are discussing albedo, so satellites are a good source of information.
04-05-2019 15:08
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1519)
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.
04-05-2019 16:28
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1507)
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.
04-05-2019 18:24
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
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.
04-05-2019 19:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
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.


Ah. The Magick Satellite argument.

No, dude. Satellites are not magick. No satellite can measure the temperature of the Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. No satellite can measure the emissivity of the Earth because to measure that you have to accurately know the temperature of the Earth.

Satellites can measure light, but that's all. It is not possible to determine if that light is reflected, refracted, or emitted from Earth's surface.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 19:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
dehammer wrote:
They can measure things like infrared, and albedo. We are discussing albedo, so satellites are a good source of information.


No, they can't. To measure emissivity (the inverse of albedo), you must first accurately know the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have enough thermometers.

Measuring infrared light does not give you any of this information. You have no idea whether that infrared light reflection of sunlight off the Earth, scattering effects (refractions) through Earth's atmosphere, or whether it's actually emitted by Earth due to Earth's temperature.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 19:17
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
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.
04-05-2019 19:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
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.


To make a cloud precipitate (either rain or snow), you need water vapor to rise sufficiently to form a dense enough cloud. That takes energy to do that, in the form of thermal energy (temperature). Without that, the cloud doesn't become dense enough to snow.

This temperature to do this will vary for different areas, since it's about difference of temperature, not the temperature of a single location. This is convective heating in action (and visible because of the formation of clouds).

So in a certain sense, it can get too cold to snow. It is when convective activity in that area simply isn't strong enough to form the clouds and make them dense enough fast enough.

Even more rare is thundersnow because of the same reason.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 19:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
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.


It is not possible to measure global snowfall accumulations either, just as it's not possible to measure the depth of ice from a satellite.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 19:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
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?


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 19:20
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
They have instruments that can measure changes in the size of ice fields. That tells them how much accumulated.
04-05-2019 19:20
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
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.
04-05-2019 19:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
dehammer wrote:
They have instruments that can measure changes in the size of ice fields. That tells them how much accumulated.


No, it tells them the area of the ice field, not it's volume.

A satellite cannot see the depth of ice.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 19:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
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.


Nope. Nothing magickally marks it as coming from any particular source.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 20:16
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Once again, you prove you do not know science.
04-05-2019 20:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
dehammer wrote:
Once again, you prove you do not know science.


Once again, you turn to a false authority. NASA can't measure it either. They are making it all up, just like they make up the global temperature 'data'.

NASA is a government agency. They are committed to the religion of Global Warming. They are ignoring science just as much as you are.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 20:41
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
oooooohhhhh kkkkaaaayyyy
05-05-2019 19:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
dehammer wrote:
oooooohhhhh kkkkaaaayyyy

So you have shown (as I already have known) that you worship government. You think they are infallible. You think NASA is God.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-05-2019 19:15
05-05-2019 19:44
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
No, I know they cook their books, but that doesn't mean they do not know science.
05-05-2019 19:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
dehammer wrote:
No, I know they cook their books, but that doesn't mean they do not know science.


Not a science question, dumbass. This is math, not science.


The Parrot Killer
05-05-2019 20:37
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Albedo and satellites are science.
Page 2 of 5<1234>>>





Join the debate Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Where's the Snow?912-11-2019 17:18
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?208-11-2019 18:45
money is the cause of CO2 increase918-09-2019 05:16
CO2 increase10019-08-2019 09:18
Burning fossil fuel reduce O2 and increase CO2 and CO2 is a cooling gas so why420-06-2019 06:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact