Last decade is snowiest on record!!!

desperate.
Newspaper interviews of effectively three scientists = all the gurus saying we had seen the last of snow in Britain and most of America. And really only one, Viner.

The only scientific article measured reduced snow now. That's the trouble with getting away from media reports.
 
Last edited:
I was just thinking this morning when I woke up to 10 degrees, WHERE THE FUCK IS MY GLOBAL WARMING?!?! :uhh:
I think the way it works is that higher temperatures - and this decade has been the warmest on record - mean that more moisture is held in the atmosphere, which then translates to more precipitation/snow when temperatures drop. So one would expect increased snow levels with increased global temperatures.

Well holy AGW Batman! It's snowy!





And, if water vapor didn't have a residence time of 9 days you might have had a point. However, from the time the "warm" days have passed is weeks, if not months. And of course it's cold as hell. So, that "theory" don't hunt.
 
yeah, go with that one!!! where'd you pull that from?
What, are you saying warmer air can't hold more moisture than cooler air?

You know, I think I'd believe you'd say that.

Only one problem, relative humidity has been dropping for over 20 years globally.. a result of the cooling atmosphere.

NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif






Hmmmm, reducing humidity implies cooler atmospheric temps. Who to believe.....NOAA who has admitted they have been altering data, or the Earth?
 
Hmmmm, reducing humidity implies cooler atmospheric temps. Who to believe.....NOAA who has admitted they have been altering data, or the Earth?
How does reducing relative humidity in atmosphere not imply increasing temps? Relative humidity increases when the temperature decreases and the amount of moisture in the air has not changed.
 
And, if water vapor didn't have a residence time of 9 days you might have had a point. However, from the time the "warm" days have passed is weeks, if not months. And of course it's cold as hell. So, that "theory" don't hunt.
How long does a storm take to run its course?
 
Ah, here we go, atmospheric temperatures. Well who'd have thought, not me, they're actually trending up at the lower levels, reasonably static at the middle level, decreasing at 17km, the average depth of the troposphere at the middle latitudes. I don't think there's a whole hell of a lot of water vapour floating around there in comparison to lower altitudes.

MSU%20RSS%20DifferentAltitudesGlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif


climate4you GlobalTemperatures

So relative humidity could quite well decrease at lower levels while the amount of moisture in that atmosphere increases. Interesting. Of course a corollary is that if relative humidity stays the same with a temperature increase then the amount of moisture in the atmosphere has increased. And relative humidity has stayed reasonably flat at lower levels in the last twenty years or so. According to this, anyway...

NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif


climate4you GreenhouseGasses
 
Last edited:
Imagine my surprise to find that specific humidity at lower levels, the amount of moisture in the air, is trending up over the last twenty years. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif


climate4you GreenhouseGasses
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm, reducing humidity implies cooler atmospheric temps. Who to believe.....NOAA who has admitted they have been altering data, or the Earth?
How does reducing relative humidity in atmosphere not imply increasing temps? Relative humidity increases when the temperature decreases and the amount of moisture in the air has not changed.






For the aforementioned fact. A warmer world is a more humid world. There are very well known cold/dry, warm/wet climate cycles. I'm surprised you've never heard of them. They have phases (obviously) and there are periods of cold/wet as well as warm/dry.



Cycles Research Institute Research Weather Wheeler
 
And, if water vapor didn't have a residence time of 9 days you might have had a point. However, from the time the "warm" days have passed is weeks, if not months. And of course it's cold as hell. So, that "theory" don't hunt.
How long does a storm take to run its course?




It depends on the storm. Waaaay back in 1862 California and the western States were hit with an "atmospheric river" that poured rain for over a month. The entire Central Valley of CA was a lake.
 
For the aforementioned fact. A warmer world is a more humid world.
Well the data does show specific humidity and temperature at lower levels of the atmosphere are trending up so it's hard to disagree.
 
Last edited:
It's past midnight here. Still comfortable outside in a hoody.

California has been warm. That's not the issue. The issue has more to do with the drought.

Personally, I like the drought. Every day is sunny, and new development is thwarted.
 
Last edited:
It depends on the storm. Waaaay back in 1862 California and the western States were hit with an "atmospheric river" that poured rain for over a month. The entire Central Valley of CA was a lake.
I don't think this present snow storm will exceed nine days.
 
Hmmmm, reducing humidity implies cooler atmospheric temps. Who to believe.....NOAA who has admitted they have been altering data, or the Earth?
How does reducing relative humidity in atmosphere not imply increasing temps? Relative humidity increases when the temperature decreases and the amount of moisture in the air has not changed.

You were just saying the global warming causes the humidity to increase. Now you're saying it causes the humidity to decrease. You dumb trolls never seem to realize that you're stepping on your own dicks. You are always contradicting the arguments you used previously in your "sky is falling" rants.
 
desperate.
Newspaper interviews of effectively three scientists = all the gurus saying we had seen the last of snow in Britain and most of America. And really only one, Viner.

The only scientific article measured reduced snow now. That's the trouble with getting away from media reports.

You said there were no such claims. I proved there were, and they were abundant.
 
You were just saying the global warming causes the humidity to increase. Now you're saying it causes the humidity to decrease. You dumb trolls never seem to realize that you're stepping on your own dicks. You are always contradicting the arguments you used previously in your "sky is falling" rants.
Relative humidity is a measure of how much moisture is in the air expressed as a percentage of the total moisture that can be held as vapour at that air temperature and pressure.

Specific humidity is a measure of the amount of moisture in the atmosphere expressed as grams of moisture per kilogram of air, for example.

I think I have been clear in my labelling of the two.
 
Last edited:
You said there were no such claims. I proved there were, and they were abundant.
Yeah? Where did I say that?

As for abundant: one scientist repeated twice saying snow would be rare in a few years, another scientist forecasting reduced snow in twenty years, a third saying if certain temperatures were attained snow would be rare and a fourth scientist measuring reduced snow at the moment. Two irrelevant links.

That is not all the gurus saying we had seen the last of snow in Britain and most of America, which was the claim. The claim is unproven, not to mention false. There, I've said it now.
 
You said there were no such claims. I proved there were, and they were abundant.
Yeah? Where did I say that?

As for abundant: one scientist repeated twice saying snow would be rare in a few years, another scientist forecasting reduced snow in twenty years, a third saying if certain temperatures were attained snow would be rare and a fourth scientist measuring reduced snow at the moment. Two irrelevant links.

That is not all the gurus saying we had seen the last of snow in Britain and most of America, which was the claim. The claim is unproven, not to mention false. There, I've said it now.

The fact that I posted 5 quotes doesn't mean that's all there were. Furthermore, your splitting hairs. They were all forecasting a vast reduction in snowfall. Now they are claiming global warming causes snowfall to increase. They' re speaking out of both sides of their mouths, which is one way we know the whole AGW thing is a scam.
 
You said there were no such claims. I proved there were, and they were abundant.
Yeah? Where did I say that?

As for abundant: one scientist repeated twice saying snow would be rare in a few years, another scientist forecasting reduced snow in twenty years, a third saying if certain temperatures were attained snow would be rare and a fourth scientist measuring reduced snow at the moment. Two irrelevant links.

That is not all the gurus saying we had seen the last of snow in Britain and most of America, which was the claim. The claim is unproven, not to mention false. There, I've said it now.

The fact that I posted 5 quotes doesn't mean that's all there were. Furthermore, your splitting hairs. They were all forecasting a vast reduction in snowfall. Now they are claiming global warming causes snowfall to increase. They' re speaking out of both sides of their mouths, which is one way we know the whole AGW thing is a scam.
It does pretty much mean there are no more. Two of the cites were irrelevant where a scientist did not predict snow conditions. That Viner quote gets hauled up all the time because it's the only one people can find from a scientist and he gave it in a casual newspaper interview without qualifying 'few'. All the other scientists put numbers on their estimates. Note the scientist from recent times had measured reduced snow coverage.

They are claiming there may well be more heavy snowfalls than the previous level of heavy snowfalls, not that snowfall will increase. There is a significant difference in the two statements, if you either can't understand that or consider it splitting hairs there's nothing I can do about that.
 
You said there were no such claims. I proved there were, and they were abundant.
Yeah? Where did I say that?

As for abundant: one scientist repeated twice saying snow would be rare in a few years, another scientist forecasting reduced snow in twenty years, a third saying if certain temperatures were attained snow would be rare and a fourth scientist measuring reduced snow at the moment. Two irrelevant links.

That is not all the gurus saying we had seen the last of snow in Britain and most of America, which was the claim. The claim is unproven, not to mention false. There, I've said it now.

The fact that I posted 5 quotes doesn't mean that's all there were. Furthermore, your splitting hairs. They were all forecasting a vast reduction in snowfall. Now they are claiming global warming causes snowfall to increase. They' re speaking out of both sides of their mouths, which is one way we know the whole AGW thing is a scam.
It does pretty much mean there are no more. Two of the cites were irrelevant where a scientist did not predict snow conditions. That Viner quote gets hauled up all the time because it's the only one people can find from a scientist and he gave it in a casual newspaper interview without qualifying 'few'. All the other scientists put numbers on their estimates. Note the scientist from recent times had measured reduced snow coverage.

They are claiming there may well be more heavy snowfalls than the previous level of heavy snowfalls, not that snowfall will increase. There is a significant difference in the two statements, if you either can't understand that or consider it splitting hairs there's nothing I can do about that.
When did they start stating that? Show me a link!
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top