Reply With Quote
"you will have more frequent extreme events"
I read this point 30 years ago. "weather" .does.not.equal "climate"
but the corps have duped the stupids into the denial game.
Get This: Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow
by Christopher Joyce
February 15, 2010
Listen to the Story
Morning Edition
February 15, 2010
With snow blanketing much of the country, the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes.
Climate skeptics built an igloo in Washington, D.C., during the recent storm and dedicated it to former Vice President Al Gore, who's become the public face of climate change. There was also a YouTube video called "12 inches of global warming" that showed snow plows driving through a blizzard.
For scientists who study the climate, it's all a bit much. They're trying to dig out.
Most don't see a contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow. That includes Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.
"The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were, say, 30 years ago means there's about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was, say, in the 1970s," he says.
Warmer water means more water vapor rises up into the air, and what goes up must come down.
"So one of the consequences of a warming ocean near a coastline like the East Coast and Washington, D.C., for instance, is that you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warming," he says.
And Trenberth notes that you don't need very cold temperatures to get big snow. In fact, when the mercury drops too low, it may be too cold to snow.
There's something else fiddling with the weather this year — a strong El Nino. That's the weather pattern that, every few years, raises itself up out of the western Pacific Ocean and blows east to the Americas. It brings heavy rains and storms to California and the south and southeast. It also pushes high-al ude jet streams farther south, which bring colder air with them.
Trenberth also says El Nino can "lock in" weather patterns like a meteorological highway, so that storms keep coming down the same track.
True, those storms have been record breakers. But meteorologist Jeff Masters, with the Web site Weather Underground, says it's average temperatures — not snowfall — that really measure climate change.
"Because if it's cold enough to snow, you will get snow," Masters says. "We still have winter even if temperatures have warmed on average, oh, about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years."
Masters say that 1 degree average warming is not enough to eliminate winter. Or storms.
A storm is part of what scientists classify as weather. Weather is largely influenced by local conditions and changes week to week. It's fickle — fraught with wild ups and downs.
Climate is the long-term trend of atmospheric conditions across large regions, even the whole planet. Changes in climate are slow and measured in decades, not weeks.
Masters and most climate scientists say a warming climate would be expected to affect the weather, sometimes drastically, but exactly where and when is hard to predict.
"In that kind of a climate, you will have more frequent extreme events, heat waves and so on, but again, none of those individual events is proof itself that climate is changing," Masters says.
Climate scientists say they can't prove any single weather event is due to climate change. Thus, they say, Hurricane Katrina or the heat wave in Vancouver that's dogging the Winter Olympics isn't proof that climate change is happening. Nor can southern and eastern snowstorms prove that it's not.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=123671588
"you will have more frequent extreme events"
I read this point 30 years ago. "weather" .does.not.equal "climate"
but the corps have duped the stupids into the denial game.
is this another thread to laugh at the stupid mofos that deny scientifically proven global warming?
I'm in
Is this recent snow from the warming of 1998?
The temperature has been pretty flat for the last 12 years.
"flat for the last 12 years"
planet just finished its hottest decade on record. Which oil/coal/gas corp press releases do you read for your "climate science"?
"flat for the last 12 years"
planet just finished its hottest decade on record. Which oil/coal/gas corp press releases do you read for your "climate science"?
Was it hotter than the Medieval Warming Period?
Of all the so-called Climategate emails that have been leaked, this one has to be the most disturbing:
Why is there pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming" and who is applying this pressure?
It's obvious. They were not out for the truth, but to push an agenda.
Get this: anything can be attributed to global warming if you try hard enough
(fart)
I think I just contributed to global warming...
Key words being "on record". Just how far back does this "record go?"flat for the last 12 years"
planet just finished its hottest decade on record. Which oil/coal/gas corp press releases do you read for your "climate science"?
Seems to me if the population has grown by say 3 or 4 billion people over that time, the body heat alone would be enough to "warm" the climate.
That IS a great question. Got to make the warmers blush a little.
If there is ANY pressure on the scientists for whom all credit is given; how in the are we supposed to roll over and beg for expensive, painful regulation in all things carbon?
Does this not give ANY of you pause? Or are you simply too busy with "Go team, Yeah Team RAAAHHH TEEEAAAAMMMM!!!"
(now don't respond to the thread: hijack the thread pointing out hypocricy from the right on a completely unrelated subject; CIA and WMD, for instance?)
Unlike AGW advocates, skeptics don't think the opposite side is bat crazy. We just want to study it longer before taxing everyone into the next Great Depression. Seems like an especially bad idea given the current economic conditions.
I've noticed the AGW threads are rolling off page 1 a lot faster than they used to. Either the AGW religionists are giving up or, they haven't yet settled on a response (read, they haven't been given their talking points).
I think they've been frozen stiff.
or found a blog to spell their thoughts out for them..
Not so, they are bat crazy.
Get this: You curb our emissions, we will have a problem.
30 years ago you were reading about global warming?
Holy , who knew a guy who posts like an angry fifth grader may very well be in his 50's?
30 years or so ago the concern was global cooling.
Anyways, does the planet warm and cool? Yes. Might man impact that somewhat? Sure. Would I prefer global warming if that means a few billion third world residents have an improved standard of living? Sure. Global warming is a rich man's concern.
You are assuming of course that taking steps to mitigate the problem would be draconian.
That is not exactly the case.
I would, and, have posited that the economy would benefit in the long run, especially comparatively, from those that take no such steps to limit dependency on hydrocarbons.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
