Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally

Hayduke wrote:None of these citations provide evidence to support the above contention of the casue of snow fall variability. There is no observable connection between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and snow fall.

It's been an observed fact over over 150 years, you stupid shit. Increased atmospheric temperature results in increased water vapor. As tjhe links I posted above demonstrate, IT'S AN OBSERVED FACT.

Sheeeish.

Hayduke wrote:
I do not respond to ignorant personal attacks.

Is there no moderator on these forums to enforce behavior? If not, I will have no part of this.

Hayduke wrote:
Desertphile wrote:
The regional increase in snow fall is chiefly due to CO2-induced global warming; globally, snow fall has been and will continue to decrease. Some of the papers on the subject:

None of these citations provide evidence to support the above contention of the cause of snow fall variability. There is no observable connection between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and snow fall.

Desertphile wrote:
The regional increase in snow fall is chiefly due to CO2-induced global warming; globally, snow fall has been and will continue to decrease. Some of the papers on the subject:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1062.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-2-1.html

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1525-7541/5/1/pdf/i1525-7541-5-1-64.pdf

http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/global_extremes_for_jgr.pdf

http://www.drinetwork.ca/extremes/documents/Groisman_et_al_2005_Global_Intense_precip.pdf

http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap3-3/sap3-3-final-all.pdf

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1558-8432/45/8/pdf/i1558-8432-45-8-1141.pdf

http://www.mtu.edu/alumni/favorites/snowfall/snowfall.html

http://web.unbc.ca/%7Esdery/publicationfiles/2007GL031474.pdf

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1062.html

dehammer wrote:
Its funny that they acknowledge that the snow is decreasing and then cant figure out why the glaciers are retreating.

dehammer wrote:Its funny that they acknowledge that the snow is decreasing and then cant figure out why the glaciers are retreating.

dehammer wrote:
I don't know personally, but this is what the scientist are reporting.

I have heard that since the sunspots are disappearing again, the glaciers are expanding again.

dehammer wrote:
Its funny that they acknowledge that the snow is decreasing and then cant figure out why the glaciers are retreating.

dehammer wrote:
As the alarmist. Its their paradox.

Wake wrote:

dehammer wrote:
Its funny that they acknowledge that the snow is decreasing and then cant figure out why the glaciers are retreating.

https://icelandmag.is/article/icelandic-glaciers-expand-first-time-over-20-years

Psst - this was in 2015 and has continued. Most of the other Arctic glaciers also have been expanding with a few exceptions.

dehammer wrote:
As the alarmist. Its their paradox.

Look, regardless of what you think you know, the climate is cyclic.

the 100,000 it requires to cool.

dehammer wrote:
I have heard scientist say that all glaciers are retreating.
I have heard scientist say that some glaciers are expanding.

There is no paradox on my side. What I find a paradox is how you can write as if you know science and at the same time prove you don't.

Wake wrote:

dehammer wrote:
As the alarmist. Its their paradox.

Look, regardless of what you think you know, the climate is cyclic.

Wake wrote:
The NASA and NOAA people have been operating under the mistaken models that there is a large climate sensitivity.

Wake wrote:
Lord Monckton took their models apart and showed that in fact the climate sensitivity is very low. I'm not going to hand that reference to you for the 100th time so you can look it up.

Wake wrote:
Furthermore, NONE of the models of global warming could possibly exist for several reasons - 1. CO2 has absolutely no effect on the atmosphere retaining any more heat than normal

Wake wrote:
2. Since the climate sensitivity is so low the only thing that can effect it is the actual solar constant and that is effected ONLY by the Earth's orbital variations and the small variations in solar output.

Wake wrote:
Now to put paid to these false Gods of the True Believers, NASA and NOAA have actually lied about the long term temperature records.

Wake wrote:
This is easily enough proven now that without Obama in office, scientists are no longer afraid to speak up

Wake wrote:
- and they are showing that the temperature records

Wake wrote:
have been continuously modified by people we were supposed to be able to trust, to fit their own purposes.

Wake wrote:
As to those that do not understand the atmospheric reactions I will only pass this on for the final time: https://physicsabout.com/conductionconvection-and-radiation/

Wake wrote:
As you can see - conduction and convection are simply different names for the physical transfer of heat energy through matter. Radiation is the transfer of energy via electromagnetic waves.

Wake wrote:
This means that it is the DENSITY of the atmosphere and not the composition that causes the mean global temperature.

Wake wrote:
This has ONE exception - the atmospheric amount of H2O in it's three phases.

High ice crystal clouds

Wake wrote:
reflect solar RADIATION and allow less solar energy to reach the ground.

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

Wake wrote:
Because this is physical conduction the average humidity in the atmosphere is very important.

Wake wrote:
We are presently at the upper peak of temperature and this means that the energy falling on the Earth is being reduced by the largest percentage of H2O that the atmosphere would normally hold.

Wake wrote:
This reduces the solar constant

Wake wrote:
and the Earth's temperature will slowly fall.

Wake wrote:
The atmosphere is VERY large so the H2O contents will remain very high for a very long time.

Wake wrote:
The Earth's temperature will slowly fall in a somewhat chaotic manner due to the movement of clouds

Wake wrote:
but it WILL continue to fall until it reaches the point where most of all of the water is frozen out of the atmosphere.

Wake wrote:
At this point there is no or very little high altitude clouds

Wake wrote:
and the Earth's surface is wide open to solar radiation and the warming begins again.

Wake wrote:
This re-warming is relatively fast because the up-take of water back into the atmosphere is as slow as the freezing out of it.

Wake wrote:
So while we have a very slow falling temperature from a warm period at the temperature peak to the ice age, the other way about is rather rapid and only takes 10,000 years to warm again vs. the 100,000 it requires to cool.

dehammer wrote:
What ever you think mr nye.

dehammer wrote:
Ayep, that is Bill Nye the fake science guy.

You also entered another paradox:
1) clouds warm the surface
2) clouds cool the surface

dehammer wrote:

Look, regardless of what you think you know, the climate is cyclic.

What I know is that no one knows enough to say what is man made and what is not. All the REAL evidence says that co2 is not the driver many people claim it is.

the 100,000 it requires to cool.

Not according to the ice cores. Interglacial periods last about 25k years. The first 8000 or so is warming, with the majority in the first 2000. This is followed by a slow decrease to the glacial period, usually lasting 17000 years or so. We are 12000 years into that last period. So the glacial period should start in 5000 years.

dehammer wrote:
It depends on what part you call the glaciation and the interglacial period. According to your definition, its all interglacial. There is a point where they no longer call it interglacial, and yes, even in that period there will be warming periods, but not enough to be called interglacial.

What I was referring to is the beginning of the glacial period.

dehammer wrote:
If it was all frozen out of the air, there would be no snow to cover the glaciers. The only time there is no rain or snow is in a snowball earth period.

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.

dehammer wrote:

You also entered another paradox:
1) clouds warm the surface
2) clouds cool the surface

Here is a bit of real science for you. Low level clouds cool the surface by allowing infrared to escape and blocking sunlight from being absorbed by the earth.
High level clouds help keep the earth warm by absorbing more sunlight and reflecting infrared back to the earth.

Again, more proof you do not know anything about science.

Wake wrote:

dehammer wrote:

Look, regardless of what you think you know, the climate is cyclic.

What I know is that no one knows enough to say what is man made and what is not. All the REAL evidence says that co2 is not the driver many people claim it is.

the 100,000 it requires to cool.

Not according to the ice cores. Interglacial periods last about 25k years. The first 8000 or so is warming, with the majority in the first 2000. This is followed by a slow decrease to the glacial period, usually lasting 17000 years or so. We are 12000 years into that last period. So the glacial period should start in 5000 years.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=A47BF2FDB6EC838D0F38E128E6839FB80019FEDD&thid=OIP.EYvZZ4hmKb8iUWfPnOHGOwEsCn&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnosullivan.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fvostok-ice-data.jpg&exph=335&expw=599&q=vostok+ice+core+results&selectedindex=0&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6

Wake wrote:

dehammer wrote:
It depends on what part you call the glaciation and the interglacial period. According to your definition, its all interglacial. There is a point where they no longer call it interglacial, and yes, even in that period there will be warming periods, but not enough to be called interglacial.

What I was referring to is the beginning of the glacial period.

The glacial period starts when all of the free water is frozen out of the air.

Wake wrote:

dehammer wrote:
If it was all frozen out of the air, there would be no snow to cover the glaciers. The only time there is no rain or snow is in a snowball earth period.

Huh? The glaciers are frozen to the maximum extent before it ever gets to that point. As it gets colder and colder the air holds less and less moisture. It will carry less moisture and more and more deposition on glaciers comes from frost until all of the atmospheric humidity is gone With that there are no longer any high altitude clouds. These are the clouds that reflect the solar emissions.

Wake wrote:
All of these downward steps lasts a hell of a long time. What you can bet is that on any one of these steps that people will be claiming that it has never been warmer than it is on a hot day at X latitude and longitude. But that is only surface temperatures.

Wake wrote:
At the stratopause right now it is slightly below 0 degrees C - freezing. But this is FAR warmer than the layers beneath. Remember that warm air rises. So between the ground and the tropopause the temperature drops dramatically with air density.

Wake wrote:
Then from there to the top of the stratopause the air warms as the warm air rises and the cooler air drops.

Wake wrote:
It can only act in this manner because of the lower atmospheric density in the stratosphere.

Wake wrote:
In the troposphere the weather generated convection winds would cause too much mixing.

Wake wrote:
In the stratosphere and the mesosphere the winds are VERY fast.

Wake wrote:
But because the atmospheric density is so low all it causes is mixing and not convection.

Wake wrote:
This allows a smooth layering of temperatures from around -60 C to nearly 0 C.

Wake wrote:
Above the stratopause the temperature in the mesosphere drops dramatically but that is because the air density is almost undetectable.

Wake wrote:
How do you measure the temperature of open space?

Wake wrote:
But now another strange thing occurs - you enter the thermosphere and there is essentially NO atmosphere.

Wake wrote:
The individual molecules are so far apart that what little there are can absorb UV radiation.

Wake wrote:
It doesn't require a lot of energy to cause them to start radiating energy

Wake wrote:
since they cannot get rid of it through conduction.

Wake wrote:
There is no atmosphere at that point to support convection.

Wake wrote:
This radiation is in all directions but because of the altitude, most of the radiation misses the Earth and flies into open space.

Wake wrote:
Though some of it does return and begins its pathway back to heaven.

Wake wrote:
In any case there is a LOT of energy in the UV band

Wake wrote:
even though the actual width of that band is narrow and the vast majority of energy is in the visual bands.

Wake wrote:
Time for Nightmare to start quoting the Stefan-Boltzmann Law again

Wake wrote:
as if he knew what it meant.

Wake wrote:
I never could get it through his head that all that tells you is the precise color of the emissions at any temperature.

Wake wrote:
So even though the far upper reaches of the atmosphere absorb a tiny amount of the UV, the Ozone Layer absorbs most of what else comes through.

Wake wrote:
Not all though and be sure to wear your sunblock on sunny days.

Wake wrote:
As I said, while the climate is really complex and every single part of it can take an entire book to cover, the overall principles are pretty simple.

Wake wrote:
It is not within the capacity of most people to understand all of the complex workings of atmospheric physics but most people can understand the general theory.

Wake wrote:
The point of all of this is simply that it is only atmospheric density that counts and not the gases that compose that atmosphere.