Multiple Blizzards are Proof Climate Change is REAL!

[clb09]

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html

Heavy snow events--a contradiction to global warming theory?
Global warming skeptics regularly have a field day whenever a record snow storm pounds the U.S., claiming that such events are inconsistent with a globe that is warming. If the globe is warming, there should, on average, be fewer days when it snows, and thus fewer snow storms. However, it is possible that if climate change is simultaneously causing an increase in ratio of snowstorms with very heavy snow to storms with ordinary amounts of snow, we could actually see an increase in very heavy snowstorms in some portions of the world. There is evidence that this is happening for winter storms in the Northeast U.S.--the mighty Nor'easters like the "Snowmageddon" storm of February 5-6 and "Snowpocalypse" of December 19, 2009. Let's take a look at the evidence. There are two requirements for a record snow storm:

1) A near-record amount of moisture in the air (or a very slow moving storm).
2) Temperatures cold enough for snow.

It's not hard at all to get temperatures cold enough for snow in a world experiencing global warming. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the globe warmed 0.74°C (1.3°F) over the past 100 years. There will still be colder than average winters in a world that is experiencing warming, with plenty of opportunities for snow. The more difficult ingredient for producing a record snowstorm is the requirement of near-record levels of moisture. Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events--the ones most likely to cause flash flooding--will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased by about 5% over the 20th century, and 4% since 1970. This extra moisture in the air will tend to produce heavier snowstorms, assuming it is cold enough to snow. Groisman et al. (2004) found a 14% increase in heavy (top 5%) and 20% increase in very heavy (top 1%) precipitation events in the U.S. over the past 100 years, though mainly in spring and summer. However, the authors did find a significant increase in winter heavy precipitation events have occurred in the Northeast U.S. This was echoed by Changnon et al. (2006), who found, "The temporal distribution of snowstorms exhibited wide fluctuations during 1901-2000, with downward 100-yr trends in the lower Midwest, South, and West Coast. Upward trends occurred in the upper Midwest, East, and Northeast, and the national trend for 1901-2000 was upward, corresponding to trends in strong cyclonic activity."

 

[Carole]

And this:

Daily Mail: The mini ice age starts here

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Issue_id=5cb5b9b1-802a-23ad-463d-0a3d4a72465a

January 11, 2010

 

[FrankRep]

Senate global warming hearing cancelled...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=b3e826ad-802a-23ad-45b8-8fa00c661d62

 

[paulitics]

Bullshit. This is a strong El Nino year, which is the cause behind the storminess. 90% of the time, El Nino will bring heavy rain to the I95 metropolis, and none of that would be news.

This year, there has been a stubborn polar vortex which has prevented the low pressures from moving inland, and thus keeps the air cold enough for snow. The meteorologists (not government funded sham climatoligists) even predicted this months ago, because of the rare meteorological conditions ensuing.

The mid atlantic will likely not see another year like this for decades, and that is not hyperbole.

 

[tmosley]

Of course climate change is real. It's just that the climate is always changing, and there isn't really anything we can do about it.

From my own analysis, increasing CO2 will actually DECREASE the total heat capacity of the atmosphere, since CO2 has a lower than average heat capacity compared to other atmospheric components (when atmospheric water vapor is taken into account).

The last 100+ years have been unusually warm. We will probably head back into a cooler period at some point within the next 30 years or so. None of this is caused by humans, and it would take a herculean effort to stop it (we would need to continually release compounds into the air with high heat capacity to warm the earth, and remove them to cool it).

 

[UncleFreedom76]

Totally agree, Tmosley.

The climate changes naturally.

 

[HenryAlan]

We have had almost no snow and that is very unusal. So some parts get alittle hotter and other parts alittle colder. Big deal.

 

[Dr.3D]

It won't matter what the weather does. No matter what happens, there will be those who will say we caused it.

 

[easycougar]

Front page of Yahoo right now...top story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100210/hl_time/08599196229400

 

[Dr.3D]

Front page of Yahoo right now...top story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100210/hl_time/08599196229400

Well, I guess the easy comeback for that article would be to point out we have had worse storms in the past. I remember one in particular back in the '60s when the snow was much deeper.

But if you mention that, then they will say we have had less severe storms since then because of global warming.

You can't use logic with these people.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The difference between scientists and wizards is the latter doesn't follow . . .

a philosophy.
It has long been known that one can't predict the weather because there are far too many variables involved. One doesn't need to add any more to this argument because it is the burden of those arguing that the earth is warming that one can indeed predict the weather. In other words, seasons don't just happen four times a year with an example of this being the El Nino that happens every four years and ice ages that happen every tens of thousands of years, and so on.
Now, a scientist might say something like, "Well, it is true that one can't accurately predict the weather, but one can use models to make a really good guess."
But we get rained on all the time as these models are often way off.
I can remember back when Hurricane Ike was blowing into Galveston while a lot of that Island city's citizens were still in place stranded in its path; and, how a national news commentator guaranteed that there was going to be massive amounts of destruction and loss of life. You could take it to the bank.
Not near the destruction or loss of life ever happened as was predicted.
That is the nice thing about being a scientist that they don't share with politicians who, because they are held responsible, are often prosecuted or even executed.
Because scientists and their "rigorous" scientific method aren't held accountable, we shouldn't take them seriously.

 

[Danke]

 

[Elwar]

On my way home from work yesterday I had a sweater on and that was just enough...but by night time when I stepped outside, it was A LOT COLDER!!!

The climate changed in such a short amount of time (a matter of hours!!!).

It's real folks...I'm tellin ya!

 

[dannno]

Bullshit. This is a strong El Nino year, which is the cause behind the storminess. 90% of the time, El Nino will bring heavy rain to the I95 metropolis, and none of that would be news.

That was my first thought.

 

[Carole]

See Post #2

 

[KCIndy]

blah, blah, blah...

It's essentially the same bleating we heard back in '05 after that "express train" of five hurricanes (including Katrina) went flying across the Atlantic in bang/bang/bang fashion. Everyone was declaring that hurricanes like these were going to me MUCH more common from now on thanks to global warming. Yep. Get ready for a zillion hurricanes a year...

Followed by several years of almost NO hurricanes.

 

[ctiger2]

Yes, the climate is always changing. The Sun cycles controls our climate.

 

[andrewh817]

Of course climate change is real. It's just that the climate is always changing, and there isn't really anything we can do about it.

Dude shut up! The government will make the temperature stable, just wait and see.

 

[The Patriot]

Yes, the climate is always changing. The Sun cycles controls our climate.

We ought to start taxing the Sun for it's emissions. Goldman Sachs can then start trading Sun Credits.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

We ought to start taxing the Sun for it's emissions. Goldman Sachs can then start trading Sun Credits.

The sun serves as the heart of plants. As water evaporates from the leaves of trees, for example, specifically evaporating out from the vacuoles of a plant's cell, and more specifically from the reservoir of water that exists towards the center of it, with all of this happening because of the hardness of the cell, water is drawn up through the trees branches, its limbs, its trunk, and its roots as if through a pump from the surrounding soil. The analogous paradox is how water serves as the blood of trees while it is actually chlorophyll, the green pigment found in the chloroplasts of plants, that take on the biological likeness of animal blood. I believe it is just lacking a single atom of iron in the molecule.