Snowfall Is a Thing of the Past

[OldLady]

Well, as everyone knows, climate change is measured world wide, over a number of years, not how much snow they get in the mountains of the western US only.
So this is the typical climate change denier thread every time we have a cold day somewhere which has absolutely nothing to do with global warming or climate change.

You again ignore the 2001 IPCC report projections for snow and ice, where they stated that there would be a marked REDUCTION of snow and ice, and more rain/freezing rain into the future. It is now 18 years later with no sign of such reduction as projected.

That is the reality YOU can't deny.

There's no reduction of snow/ice as demonstrated by the disappearing glaciers?
I know local weather isn't real "evidence" of anything, but this past winter in Maine was just like that--rain/freezing rain. We never had a single storm with an accumulation of over 11 inches. And that was only one storm all winter. Very unusual.

Really?

Here is the official Snow cover source showing that over 90% of the state was average to well above average snow for the winter:

Here is the actual snow totals:

SOURCE for the charts

My Ex-wife lives near Fort Kent, she sent me photos of deep snow there, says a few days ago it is finally melting down.

You are waaay off!

I'm on the far eastern tip of the coast. You're right about the weather inland. I forget about all of them. But it doesn't matter--it's all about averages. I've been living in this same spot for 15 years and it is the least snow here I can remember.

Ok, but even your .000001% of the state doesn't show such deficit according to the map that is in front of you. Does this mean you concede that over 90% of the State had average to above average snowfall totals?

Back off, asshole. I began that by admitting that local weather is not "evidence" of anything and then I reported what MY weather had been this past winter. You can flash around all the maps you like, but I know what was happening here and although we had piddly amounts of snow often enough to keep the plow guys happy, there were no major storms and a good deal of the snow we did have was a mix of snow and rain, or in our neck of the woods was only rain while Bangor got snow.
If you want to talk about the rest of the state, go for it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You again ignore the 2001 IPCC report projections for snow and ice, where they stated that there would be a marked REDUCTION of snow and ice, and more rain/freezing rain into the future. It is now 18 years later with no sign of such reduction as projected.

That is the reality YOU can't deny.

There's no reduction of snow/ice as demonstrated by the disappearing glaciers?
I know local weather isn't real "evidence" of anything, but this past winter in Maine was just like that--rain/freezing rain. We never had a single storm with an accumulation of over 11 inches. And that was only one storm all winter. Very unusual.

Come on Lady, YOU have seen the Rutgers Snow Labs charts before, here is AGAIN!

Winter:

Fall:

These are clear evidence of INCREASE over recent decades.

As for Glaciers such as Arctic and Antarctica, they are cyclic in nature. Already posted for Arctic Sea Ice HERE today in the forum.

When will you once again" forget" this reality?

It isn't just about weather in the Northern Hemisphere. We know the glaciers are cyclic, but they've never melted this fast before, is what I've read.

That is unsupported propaganda, here are the latest Greenland data, showing INCREASING growth of snow and ice, from POLAR PORTAL

The circles on the map show current weather conditions, all of them below freezing at the time I posted the map.

The media and a few warmist scientists will say anything to prop up a long dead AGW conjecture, don't be so gullible!

You hang onto that glacier; it's about the only one you got. Most are melting.

While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.
Are glaciers growing or retreating?

For Greenland:

800,000 Years of Abrupt Climate Variability
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51635458_800000_Years_of_Abrupt_Climate_Variability

Ha ha ha, another use of unsceptical science who are well know for mangling information to fit an obvious failed narrative that the rate CO2 bogeyman did it, plus most of it is 10 years old!

Over 90% of Antarctica never get above freezing year around, which is always ignored since any snow falls there never melts away, they become ice after a while.

Meanwhile looking at a much bigger slice of time show over all increase in snow and Ice in Antarctica region:

Regional Antarctic snow accumulation over the past 1000 years
CP - Regional Antarctic snow accumulation over the past 1000 years

and,

Evidence from Antarctic ice cores for recent increases in snow accumulation
Evidence from Antarctic ice cores for recent increases in snow accumulation

and,

Increased snowfall over the Antarctic Ice Sheet mitigated twentieth-century sea-level rise
Increased snowfall over the Antarctic Ice Sheet mitigated twentieth-century sea-level rise

and more sources showing that loss and increase are mostly subject to ocean variability and Volcanic effects.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You again ignore the 2001 IPCC report projections for snow and ice, where they stated that there would be a marked REDUCTION of snow and ice, and more rain/freezing rain into the future. It is now 18 years later with no sign of such reduction as projected.

That is the reality YOU can't deny.

There's no reduction of snow/ice as demonstrated by the disappearing glaciers?
I know local weather isn't real "evidence" of anything, but this past winter in Maine was just like that--rain/freezing rain. We never had a single storm with an accumulation of over 11 inches. And that was only one storm all winter. Very unusual.

Really?

Here is the official Snow cover source showing that over 90% of the state was average to well above average snow for the winter:

Here is the actual snow totals:

SOURCE for the charts

My Ex-wife lives near Fort Kent, she sent me photos of deep snow there, says a few days ago it is finally melting down.

You are waaay off!

I'm on the far eastern tip of the coast. You're right about the weather inland. I forget about all of them. But it doesn't matter--it's all about averages. I've been living in this same spot for 15 years and it is the least snow here I can remember.

Ok, but even your .000001% of the state doesn't show such deficit according to the map that is in front of you. Does this mean you concede that over 90% of the State had average to above average snowfall totals?

Back off, asshole. I began that by admitting that local weather is not "evidence" of anything and then I reported what MY weather had been this past winter. You can flash around all the maps you like, but I know what was happening here and although we had piddly amounts of snow often enough to keep the plow guys happy, there were no major storms and a good deal of the snow we did have was a mix of snow and rain, or in our neck of the woods was only rain while Bangor got snow.
If you want to talk about the rest of the state, go for it.

Wow a nasty reply to a completely civil response where I said OK to your spot weather, which I didn't argue over. What I did was to show that the OFFICIAL state data shows that at least 90% of the state was average to well above average, really around 70% was well above average for the 2018-2019 snow season.

You need to come to terms that by data supported replies destroyed your silly .00001% argument. The State got above average snowfall totals in indisputable!

 

[mudwhistle]

They just had a blizzard come thru the Rockies last week. They've had more snowfall than they've had for 100 years back home.

Well, as everyone knows, climate change is measured world wide, over a number of years, not how much snow they get in the mountains of the western US only.
So this is the typical climate change denier thread every time we have a cold day somewhere which has absolutely nothing to do with global warming or climate change.

You again ignore the 2001 IPCC report projections for snow and ice, where they stated that there would be a marked REDUCTION of snow and ice, and more rain/freezing rain into the future. It is now 18 years later with no sign of such reduction as projected.

That is the reality YOU can't deny.

There's no reduction of snow/ice as demonstrated by the disappearing glaciers?
I know local weather isn't real "evidence" of anything, but this past winter in Maine was just like that--rain/freezing rain. We never had a single storm with an accumulation of over 11 inches. And that was only one storm all winter. Very unusual.

Come on Lady, YOU have seen the Rutgers Snow Labs charts before, here is AGAIN!

Winter:

Fall:

These are clear evidence of INCREASE over recent decades.

As for Glaciers such as Arctic and Antarctica, they are cyclic in nature. Already posted for Arctic Sea Ice HERE today in the forum.

When will you once again" forget" this reality?

It isn't just about weather in the Northern Hemisphere. We know the glaciers are cyclic, but they've never melted this fast before, is what I've read.

Well here's the problem.....can you trust a media that is guilty of one hoax after another?
They wait till Summer to claim that the Glaciers are melting.....but then the icepack at the Southpole is thicker than it's been ever recorded.

 

[gipper]

Why is it that lefties generally believe in AGW, while righties generally don’t? Could it be that AGW is politics and not science?

It's science which for some reason has been heavily politicized.

Yes and who benefits from AGW? Big government does. Hence, one could conclude this is why the Left promotes AGW.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Who got a Nobel Prize with its $1M award for saying Katrina was due to man controlling the weather?

I don't know? It wasn't a scientist, not for saying that, since every valid scientist SAID that it would be many years before they could say what kind of changes in hurricanes could be attributed to climate change. It is elementary school science to realize that warmer surface ocean temperatures will fuel a growing hurricane to greater velocity.

Again another silly claim that is unsupported by actual NOAA data, which show no increase in hurricanes. Last year was the first time on record that ZERO Category 3+ Tornadoes were recorded, while there have been a real decline in total number of Tornadoes in the last few decades. Heck until two years ago, we had the longest landfalling hurricane drought on record, that was finally ended by Harvey in Texas.

It is amusing how little warmists remember recent past weather events.

Read my post again a little more slowly. No one said an increase in hurricanes.

Read my post again, made a correction that effectively does away with your unsupported claim.

That's your problem.

Actually it is YOUR utter failure to follow the science and data that continually show natural variation (Cycles) in climate trends. There is no AGW signal that stands out in the weather and climate records over long stretches of time.

It was a lot warmer than now early in the Interglacial period, while CO2 was below the 300 ppm level.

Sea Levels were a much higher than now during the middle of the Interglacial period, while CO2 was below the 300 ppm level.

There were much colder periods of time during the interglacial period than now, while the CO2 levels STAYED around the 280 ppm level.

There were large swings in temperature in the Northern Hemisphere during the Interglacial time while CO2 stayed around the 260-280 level, which is around 10,000 years of time:

SOURCE

I am barely scratching the surface, do I have to post HUNDREDS of published science papers showing that CO2 doesn't have the ability to change the energy balance enough for it to show up?

Heck most scientists know long ago that the INCREASING outflow of energy from the planet greatly exceed the postulated warm forcing effect of CO2 in a given slice of time. CO2 doesn't promote warming at all.

Please don't continue to be stupidly ignorant of the topic, relying on propaganda sites for their made up bullcrap.

 

[skookerasbil]

Global gheyness. Another poke in the eye for the climate hystrical. All over the news this am about snowstorms in northern regions today.....almost May s0ns!. Top story on DRUDGE right now!

The climate obsessed say, " But its weather idiot!". Yep....tell that to the millions slapping their snow tires back on today in Michigan!

@www.whosnotwinning.com

 

[mudwhistle]

Why is it that lefties generally believe in AGW, while righties generally don’t? Could it be that AGW is politics and not science?

It's science which for some reason has been heavily politicized.

Yes and who benefits from AGW? Big government does. Hence, one could conclude this is why the Left promotes AGW.

The dead giveaway is the carbon taxes and other taxes they claim will fix the problem.
Nevermind the Green New Deal that nobody voted for.

 

[IanC]

There's no reduction of snow/ice as demonstrated by the disappearing glaciers?
I know local weather isn't real "evidence" of anything, but this past winter in Maine was just like that--rain/freezing rain. We never had a single storm with an accumulation of over 11 inches. And that was only one storm all winter. Very unusual.

Really?

Here is the official Snow cover source showing that over 90% of the state was average to well above average snow for the winter:

Here is the actual snow totals:

SOURCE for the charts

My Ex-wife lives near Fort Kent, she sent me photos of deep snow there, says a few days ago it is finally melting down.

You are waaay off!

I'm on the far eastern tip of the coast. You're right about the weather inland. I forget about all of them. But it doesn't matter--it's all about averages. I've been living in this same spot for 15 years and it is the least snow here I can remember.

Ok, but even your .000001% of the state doesn't show such deficit according to the map that is in front of you. Does this mean you concede that over 90% of the State had average to above average snowfall totals?

Back off, asshole. I began that by admitting that local weather is not "evidence" of anything and then I reported what MY weather had been this past winter. You can flash around all the maps you like, but I know what was happening here and although we had piddly amounts of snow often enough to keep the plow guys happy, there were no major storms and a good deal of the snow we did have was a mix of snow and rain, or in our neck of the woods was only rain while Bangor got snow.
If you want to talk about the rest of the state, go for it.

Wow a nasty reply to a completely civil response where I said OK to your spot weather, which I didn't argue over. What I did was to show that the OFFICIAL state data shows that at least 90% of the state was average to well above average, really around 70% was well above average for the 2018-2019 snow season.

You need to come to terms that by data supported replies destroyed your silly .00001% argument. The State got above average snowfall totals in indisputable!

You sound reasonable to me.

Most people give extra credence to data, conclusions and opinions that agree with them. And discount anything that doesn't.

That is why it is so hard to change someone's mind once it is made up.

As an aside...Berkeley BEST actually programs in bias towards higher temperature readings by giving higher reliability ratings to data that meets expectations, on a scale from 1/13 to 2 (26x). There is no way that the one third of cooling stations could stand against the two thirds warming ones. After homogenization thete are exactly zero cooling syations left in the dataset.

 

[OldLady]

I don't know? It wasn't a scientist, not for saying that, since every valid scientist SAID that it would be many years before they could say what kind of changes in hurricanes could be attributed to climate change. It is elementary school science to realize that warmer surface ocean temperatures will fuel a growing hurricane to greater velocity.

Again another silly claim that is unsupported by actual NOAA data, which show no increase in hurricanes. Last year was the first time on record that ZERO Category 3+ Tornadoes were recorded, while there have been a real decline in total number of Tornadoes in the last few decades. Heck until two years ago, we had the longest landfalling hurricane drought on record, that was finally ended by Harvey in Texas.

It is amusing how little warmists remember recent past weather events.

Read my post again a little more slowly. No one said an increase in hurricanes.

Read my post again, made a correction that effectively does away with your unsupported claim.

That's your problem.

Actually it is YOUR utter failure to follow the science and data that continually show natural variation (Cycles) in climate trends. There is no AGW signal that stands out in the weather and climate records over long stretches of time.

It was a lot warmer than now early in the Interglacial period, while CO2 was below the 300 ppm level.

Sea Levels were a much higher than now during the middle of the Interglacial period, while CO2 was below the 300 ppm level.

There were much colder periods of time during the interglacial period than now, while the CO2 levels STAYED around the 280 ppm level.

There were large swings in temperature in the Northern Hemisphere during the Interglacial time while CO2 stayed around the 260-280 level, which is around 10,000 years of time:

SOURCE

I am barely scratching the surface, do I have to post HUNDREDS of published science papers showing that CO2 doesn't have the ability to change the energy balance enough for it to show up?

Heck most scientists know long ago that the INCREASING outflow of energy from the planet greatly exceed the postulated warm forcing effect of CO2 in a given slice of time. CO2 doesn't promote warming at all.

Please don't continue to be stupidly ignorant of the topic, relying on propaganda sites for their made up bullcrap.

I don't go to propaganda sites. I am also not a scientist and I don't know enough about what you are saying to argue it. So you (think) you win.
I trust the 97% of scientists who agree that our planet is warming much faster than it did in the past and that most of the glaciers are receeding, not growing, and that the additional C02 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the only thing that would cause such a rapid warming trend.
This isn't about high temps or low temps millions of years ago. It is about the rapidity of the change and the effects--sea level rise (we can at least plan for it) and changes in weather patterns that could cause displacement of millions of people. We've seen what the immigration situation has caused in Europe and now in the US. Multiply that by 10.
It isn't propaganda to ask that people pay attention to what is happening to our planet.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Again another silly claim that is unsupported by actual NOAA data, which show no increase in hurricanes. Last year was the first time on record that ZERO Category 3+ Tornadoes were recorded, while there have been a real decline in total number of Tornadoes in the last few decades. Heck until two years ago, we had the longest landfalling hurricane drought on record, that was finally ended by Harvey in Texas.

It is amusing how little warmists remember recent past weather events.

Read my post again a little more slowly. No one said an increase in hurricanes.

Read my post again, made a correction that effectively does away with your unsupported claim.

That's your problem.

Actually it is YOUR utter failure to follow the science and data that continually show natural variation (Cycles) in climate trends. There is no AGW signal that stands out in the weather and climate records over long stretches of time.

It was a lot warmer than now early in the Interglacial period, while CO2 was below the 300 ppm level.

Sea Levels were a much higher than now during the middle of the Interglacial period, while CO2 was below the 300 ppm level.

There were much colder periods of time during the interglacial period than now, while the CO2 levels STAYED around the 280 ppm level.

There were large swings in temperature in the Northern Hemisphere during the Interglacial time while CO2 stayed around the 260-280 level, which is around 10,000 years of time:

SOURCE

I am barely scratching the surface, do I have to post HUNDREDS of published science papers showing that CO2 doesn't have the ability to change the energy balance enough for it to show up?

Heck most scientists know long ago that the INCREASING outflow of energy from the planet greatly exceed the postulated warm forcing effect of CO2 in a given slice of time. CO2 doesn't promote warming at all.

Please don't continue to be stupidly ignorant of the topic, relying on propaganda sites for their made up bullcrap.

I don't go to propaganda sites. I am also not a scientist and I don't know enough about what you are saying to argue it. So you (think) you win.
I trust the 97% of scientists who agree that our planet is warming much faster than it did in the past and that most of the glaciers are receeding, not growing, and that the additional C02 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the only thing that would cause such a rapid warming trend.
This isn't about high temps or low temps millions of years ago. It is about the rapidity of the change and the effects--sea level rise (we can at least plan for it) and changes in weather patterns that could cause displacement of millions of people. We've seen what the immigration situation has caused in Europe and now in the US. Multiply that by 10.
It isn't propaganda to ask that people pay attention to what is happening to our planet.

Skeptical science is not only a propaganda site, they were caught red handed in editing peoples comments without indicating it.

The 97% consensus fallacy you clearly embrace, is a non starter because it doesn't advance any science understanding or shed any light on research.

As usual warmists like you make bald statements that are false, since the IPCC, Predicted/Projected a much higher per decade rate of warming that has NEVER been close to reaching. Not only that several previous warming rates have been similar back to the mid 1800's as brought up by Dr. Jones, BBC interview:

"A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. "


That was up to year 2009, here is the update from 1975 to 2019, which show NO increase in the per decade warming rate of about .161C

There is NO evidence that the warming rate is accelerating, you fell for the obvious lie.

SOURCE

To this date, all per decade warming trends back to the 1800's are still nearly the same.

The IPCC from 1990 onwards have been projecting a MINIMUM of .2C per decade warming, which it has NEVER been close to reaching. The Satellite data show LOWER per decade warming rate of .13C per decade and no increasing.

The rest of your post is pure babble:

"This isn't about high temps or low temps millions of years ago. It is about the rapidity of the change and the effects--sea level rise (we can at least plan for it) and changes in weather patterns that could cause displacement of millions of people. We've seen what the immigration situation has caused in Europe and now in the US. Multiply that by 10.
It isn't propaganda to ask that people pay attention to what is happening to our planet.."

It is clear you have been programmed well to be willfully ignorant. I have posted everything that was based on original sources, which you claim without evidence are from "propaganda" sites.

That "propaganda" chart you ignorantly shot down, because it was from C3 Headlines blog, but the link in the post make clear the chart is all based on the Greenland GIST2 ice core data and HERE too

You are an embarrassment here.

 

[skookerasbil]

There's no reduction of snow/ice as demonstrated by the disappearing glaciers?
I know local weather isn't real "evidence" of anything, but this past winter in Maine was just like that--rain/freezing rain. We never had a single storm with an accumulation of over 11 inches. And that was only one storm all winter. Very unusual.

Really?

Here is the official Snow cover source showing that over 90% of the state was average to well above average snow for the winter:

Here is the actual snow totals:

SOURCE for the charts

My Ex-wife lives near Fort Kent, she sent me photos of deep snow there, says a few days ago it is finally melting down.

You are waaay off!

I'm on the far eastern tip of the coast. You're right about the weather inland. I forget about all of them. But it doesn't matter--it's all about averages. I've been living in this same spot for 15 years and it is the least snow here I can remember.

Ok, but even your .000001% of the state doesn't show such deficit according to the map that is in front of you. Does this mean you concede that over 90% of the State had average to above average snowfall totals?

Back off, asshole. I began that by admitting that local weather is not "evidence" of anything and then I reported what MY weather had been this past winter. You can flash around all the maps you like, but I know what was happening here and although we had piddly amounts of snow often enough to keep the plow guys happy, there were no major storms and a good deal of the snow we did have was a mix of snow and rain, or in our neck of the woods was only rain while Bangor got snow.
If you want to talk about the rest of the state, go for it.

Wow a nasty reply to a completely civil response where I said OK to your spot weather, which I didn't argue over. What I did was to show that the OFFICIAL state data shows that at least 90% of the state was average to well above average, really around 70% was well above average for the 2018-2019 snow season.

You need to come to terms that by data supported replies destroyed your silly .00001% argument. The State got above average snowfall totals in indisputable!

Lol Tommy.....nasty responses happen all the time in here from progressives. Especially on climate change. Translation?

@www.imlosinghorribly.com

These morons still think it's about the science!

 

[westwall]

Why is it that lefties generally believe in AGW, while righties generally don’t? Could it be that AGW is politics and not science?

It's science which for some reason has been heavily politicized.

It is not science. It is science fiction. They rely almost entirely upon computer models. Those are not real, they are creations.

Only fools pay them any attention.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You again ignore the 2001 IPCC report projections for snow and ice, where they stated that there would be a marked REDUCTION of snow and ice, and more rain/freezing rain into the future. It is now 18 years later with no sign of such reduction as projected.

That is the reality YOU can't deny.

There's no reduction of snow/ice as demonstrated by the disappearing glaciers?
I know local weather isn't real "evidence" of anything, but this past winter in Maine was just like that--rain/freezing rain. We never had a single storm with an accumulation of over 11 inches. And that was only one storm all winter. Very unusual.

Come on Lady, YOU have seen the Rutgers Snow Labs charts before, here is AGAIN!

Winter:

Fall:

These are clear evidence of INCREASE over recent decades.

As for Glaciers such as Arctic and Antarctica, they are cyclic in nature. Already posted for Arctic Sea Ice HERE today in the forum.

When will you once again" forget" this reality?

It isn't just about weather in the Northern Hemisphere. We know the glaciers are cyclic, but they've never melted this fast before, is what I've read.

That is unsupported propaganda, here are the latest Greenland data, showing INCREASING growth of snow and ice, from POLAR PORTAL

The circles on the map show current weather conditions, all of them below freezing at the time I posted the map.

The media and a few warmist scientists will say anything to prop up a long dead AGW conjecture, don't be so gullible!

You hang onto that glacier; it's about the only one you got. Most are melting.

While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.
Are glaciers growing or retreating?

Who the fuck cares about a melting glacier? Glacier Bay glacier recessed SIXTY MILES IN JUST 80 YEARS. IN THE 19th CENTURY

GOOD it’s melting. You can’t grow food on ice.

 

[Sunsettommy]

There's no reduction of snow/ice as demonstrated by the disappearing glaciers?
I know local weather isn't real "evidence" of anything, but this past winter in Maine was just like that--rain/freezing rain. We never had a single storm with an accumulation of over 11 inches. And that was only one storm all winter. Very unusual.

Come on Lady, YOU have seen the Rutgers Snow Labs charts before, here is AGAIN!

Winter:

Fall:

These are clear evidence of INCREASE over recent decades.

As for Glaciers such as Arctic and Antarctica, they are cyclic in nature. Already posted for Arctic Sea Ice HERE today in the forum.

When will you once again" forget" this reality?

It isn't just about weather in the Northern Hemisphere. We know the glaciers are cyclic, but they've never melted this fast before, is what I've read.

That is unsupported propaganda, here are the latest Greenland data, showing INCREASING growth of snow and ice, from POLAR PORTAL

The circles on the map show current weather conditions, all of them below freezing at the time I posted the map.

The media and a few warmist scientists will say anything to prop up a long dead AGW conjecture, don't be so gullible!

You hang onto that glacier; it's about the only one you got. Most are melting.

While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.
Are glaciers growing or retreating?

Who the fuck cares about a melting glacier? Glacier Bay glacier recessed SIXTY MILES IN JUST 80 YEARS. IN THE 19th CENTURY

GOOD it’s melting. You can’t grow food on ice.

What is really funny is that MUIR Glacier they cry so much about is at the Northern end of Glacier Bay, but they don't know that, which is why they are so gosh darn ignorant.

SOURCE USGS

Added:



This is a real map showing how wide open the glaciers are to the Pacific Ocean.

SOURCE

 

[Weatherman2020]

Come on Lady, YOU have seen the Rutgers Snow Labs charts before, here is AGAIN!

Winter:

Fall:

These are clear evidence of INCREASE over recent decades.

As for Glaciers such as Arctic and Antarctica, they are cyclic in nature. Already posted for Arctic Sea Ice HERE today in the forum.

When will you once again" forget" this reality?

It isn't just about weather in the Northern Hemisphere. We know the glaciers are cyclic, but they've never melted this fast before, is what I've read.

That is unsupported propaganda, here are the latest Greenland data, showing INCREASING growth of snow and ice, from POLAR PORTAL

The circles on the map show current weather conditions, all of them below freezing at the time I posted the map.

The media and a few warmist scientists will say anything to prop up a long dead AGW conjecture, don't be so gullible!

You hang onto that glacier; it's about the only one you got. Most are melting.

While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.
Are glaciers growing or retreating?

Who the fuck cares about a melting glacier? Glacier Bay glacier recessed SIXTY MILES IN JUST 80 YEARS. IN THE 19th CENTURY

GOOD it’s melting. You can’t grow food on ice.

What is really funny is that MUIR Glacier they cry so much about is at the Northern end of Glacier Bay, but they don't know that, which is why they are so gosh darn ignorant.

SOURCE USGS

And the natives say it came in just as fast.

All without man being involved.

 

[jc456]

looking at 3-8" here in west suburbs of Chicago today.

Winter storm warning is in effect. lol.

our 4 year old is super jacked. we're going sledding.

#GoHomeMotherNatureYouDrunkAsHell

Ain't nuthin' like livin' on the Great Lakes, amirite?

Yep, and Monday it will be 60 degrees. Did the same thing a couple of weeks ago. Currazeee!

only it didn't get to 60 yesterday, stayed 43.

 

[Fueri]

looking at 3-8" here in west suburbs of Chicago today.

Winter storm warning is in effect. lol.

our 4 year old is super jacked. we're going sledding.

#GoHomeMotherNatureYouDrunkAsHell

Ain't nuthin' like livin' on the Great Lakes, amirite?

Yep, and Monday it will be 60 degrees. Did the same thing a couple of weeks ago. Currazeee!

only it didn't get to 60 yesterday, stayed 43.

The life of the meteorologist. lol.