More AGW Evidence: Record Dec Snowfall in Central Park

[code1211]

More snow = greater precipitation = increased water vapor = more evaporation = more heat.

Oh, that's right, according to right wingers on this site, "evaporation" is a "wild theory". Sorry, I forgot.

So, if I understand the logic of this correctely...

If if each of these things equals the next thing

and if a=b and b=c, then a=c,

what you are proposing is that more snow = more heat.

Interesting hypothesis.

Cue the Circus music.

 

[code1211]

More snow = greater precipitation = increased water vapor = more evaporation = more heat.

Oh, that's right, according to right wingers on this site, "evaporation" is a "wild theory". Sorry, I forgot.

Sure deanie, tell that to YOUR experts! This was what they had to say justa couple of years ago and amazingly enough they don't mention it getting colder at all. In fact they state the exact opposite. You guys really should get on the same page as reality some day don't you think?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/148236-this-was-the-consensus-a-few-years-ago.html

C'mon now, West. You're breaking the rules. The rules are that you must stop thinking, not remember what was said in the past, not critically analize any AGW statement, ignor anything that is actually happening in the real world and accept what is offered as is without question or hesitation.

Oh, yeah! You also have to be afraid. Be very afraid.

 

[code1211]

The trend for our sun is down, down, down!

Figure 2: Total Solar Irradiance as measured by satellite from 1978 to 2010

Measuring this from 1978 to current is disingenuous. The TSI has been moving upward pretty consistantly since the Little Ice Age ended. We are currently in a range that is higher than it has been for a consistant period in thousands of years.

One Chart on the attached link labels the current period as the "Modern Maximum". The period during the Little ice Age was the Maunder Minimum.

Solar Variation Gallery - Global Warming Art

 

[code1211]

Manmade global warming theory is no more than a horoscope reading

I can read my wifes horoscope and say, "hey that is like, so what I been, like, thinking lately."

The theory is failing apart right before our eyes

The theory is in Great Shape! It's reality that is falling apart. Just because the actual results do not match the theory is no reason to think that the theory is wrong, weak or useless.

Every model inside a computer confirms that there is no snow in New York. It's only because you're a Right Wing loon that you don't believe in computers.

 

[code1211]

More snow = greater precipitation = increased water vapor = more evaporation = more heat.

Oh, that's right, according to right wingers on this site, "evaporation" is a "wild theory". Sorry, I forgot.

Problem with that little equation is that more heat would mean more RAIN, not snow.

Dumbass.

Damn. You fellows just keep posting stupidity. In the winter at high latitudes, more heat means that the air containing the heat and moisture gets cooled and falls as snow.Have you ever heard of the lake effect;

Lake-effect snow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the Nature series on
Weather

Weather Portal
v • d • e

Lake-effect snow is produced in cooler atmospheric conditions when cold winds move across long expanses of warmer lake water, providing energy and picking up water vapor which freezes and is deposited on the leeward shores. The same effect over bodies of salt water is called ocean effect snow, sea effect snow, or even bay effect snow. The effect is enhanced when the moving air mass is uplifted by the orographic effect of higher elevations on the downwind shores. This uplifting can produce narrow but very intense bands of precipitation, which deposit at a rate of many inches of snow each hour, often resulting in copious snowfall totals. The areas affected by lake-effect snow are called snowbelts. This effect occurs in many locations throughout the world but is best known in the populated areas of the Great Lakes of North America, and especially Western New York, northwestern Pennsylvania, northeastern Ohio, southwestern and central Ontario, northwestern and northcentral Indiana (mostly between Gary, IN and Elkhart, IN), western Michigan and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, which can average over 200 inches (5 meters) of snow per year and averages the most snow of any non-mountainous location within the continental U.S.[1]

Did they leave out New York City?

 

[Big Fitz]

The trend for our sun is down, down, down!

Figure 2: Total Solar Irradiance as measured by satellite from 1978 to 2010

Measuring this from 1978 to current is disingenuous. The TSI has been moving upward pretty consistantly since the Little Ice Age ended. We are currently in a range that is higher than it has been for a consistant period in thousands of years.

One Chart on the attached link labels the current period as the "Modern Maximum". The period during the Little ice Age was the Maunder Minimum.

Solar Variation Gallery - Global Warming Art

Once again you prove that it's not man's fault by your own statement. Or are you claiming that mankind's industrialization and burning of wood has been driving up temps since 1000AD now?

Whatta surprise.

 

[skookerasbil]

More snow = greater precipitation = increased water vapor = more evaporation = more heat.

Oh, that's right, according to right wingers on this site, "evaporation" is a "wild theory". Sorry, I forgot.

So, if I understand the logic of this correctely...

If if each of these things equals the next thing

and if a=b and b=c, then a=c,

what you are proposing is that more snow = more heat.

Interesting hypothesis.

Cue the Circus music.

 

[k2skier]

Lake effect or not, you need COLD AIR to get snow.

Ergo, the warmer ambient air temperatures you Chicken Little know-nothings keep wringing your hands about would naturally translate into more rain and less snow....Dipschitt.

Not IN WINTER you fool.

Something to chew on...
weather.com - Storm Encyclopedia - Winter Precipitation: Freezing Rain, Snow, Sleet

All precipitation starts out as ice or snow crystals at cloud level. When this frozen precipitation falls into a layer of sufficiently warmer air (with temperatures above freezing) it melts into rain. If this warm air extends all the way to the surface of the earth, rain will fall at ground level.

I thought of the fools like you, dudball, skook, PB, west, CF...when I read this...

Geez........another k00k has evidently joined this forum.............


Well.........welcome aboard s0n. Prepare for public humiliation on an epic scale!!!

I state a fact about precipitation and you respond like that...huh...wow, quick temper and short fuse, completely missing the statement I made, assumptions without an original thought.

BTW-you are absolutely ******* clueless about my position on AGW & GW, a fuckstain left by rotten **** you are...try reading with comprehension moron.

add-you have yet to answer my serious question; how many below average snow years has NY had in the last 35 years?

 

[skookerasbil]

Not IN WINTER you fool.

Something to chew on...
weather.com - Storm Encyclopedia - Winter Precipitation: Freezing Rain, Snow, Sleet

All precipitation starts out as ice or snow crystals at cloud level. When this frozen precipitation falls into a layer of sufficiently warmer air (with temperatures above freezing) it melts into rain. If this warm air extends all the way to the surface of the earth, rain will fall at ground level.

I thought of the fools like you, dudball, skook, PB, west, CF...when I read this...

Geez........another k00k has evidently joined this forum.............


Well.........welcome aboard s0n. Prepare for public humiliation on an epic scale!!!

I state a fact about precipitation and you respond like that...huh...wow, quick temper and short fuse, completely missing the statement I made, assumptions without an original thought.

BTW-you are absolutely ******* clueless about my position on AGW & GW, a fuckstain left by rotten **** you are...try reading with comprehension moron.

add-you have yet to answer my serious question; how many below average snow years has NY had in the last 35 years?

nobody cares s0n.......only the strong right brained science oddballs even go there. The only thing I give a rats ass about is the prevailing politics as they relate to goofball science. Right now.........politically.........climate change is in the shitter,, where it should be.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes, yes, yes....When I think "global warming", freezing temperatures and six-foot snow drifts are the first things that spring to mind.

First of all you don't think. Global warming refers to the Ocean Temperatures, not local micro climates.
Secondly, if you were honest you would admit that human beings create environmental problems which harm every living thing.
Finally, if you thought and were honest you would admit that efforts to control acid rain have been largely successful, removing lead from gasoline was a good thing for the environment and efforts by the government supporting green energy makes sense; such efforts create jobs, protect the planet and wil make our country less dependent on foreign oil.
Given that your not very bright and dishonest you are now free to post one of your glib idiotgrams. Be sure to use your thesaurus so the really dumb shits (such as crusaderfrank) are able to echo your foolish response even if they don't recognize the words.

 

[skookerasbil]

People that hail from SanFransisco should not be allowed to post in this forum due to pronounced levels of naive.

 

[Wry Catcher]

People that hail from SanFransisco should not be allowed to post in this forum due to pronounced levels of naive.

Interesting. So you believe it is appropriate to censor other Americans because of the region in which they reside?
What does that make you S Kook?

 

[code1211]

Yes, yes, yes....When I think "global warming", freezing temperatures and six-foot snow drifts are the first things that spring to mind.

First of all you don't think. Global warming refers to the Ocean Temperatures, not local micro climates.
Secondly, if you were honest you would admit that human beings create environmental problems which harm every living thing.
Finally, if you thought and were honest you would admit that efforts to control acid rain have been largely successful, removing lead from gasoline was a good thing for the environment and efforts by the government supporting green energy makes sense; such efforts create jobs, protect the planet and wil make our country less dependent on foreign oil.
Given that your not very bright and dishonest you are now free to post one of your glib idiotgrams. Be sure to use your thesaurus so the really dumb shits (such as crusaderfrank) are able to echo your foolish response even if they don't recognize the words.

Acid rain is a different problem than Global Warming and is much more provable. Acid rain, in terms of proving the connection to the bad effects, is more akin to river water pollution by dumping sewage than it is to the effect of CO2 on a particualr wave length of Solar Radiation.

Connecting green intitatives to energy independance and job creation is like connecting Ethanol to energy independance and to job creation. Oh, wait! It's exactly the same thing, isn't it? Another failure being rolled out by those who previously failed.

One problem with Liberal Solutions to problems is the way that they market their solutions. Every program is a panacea. It turns out that every program is not a panacea. Liberals never seem to recall the past debacles and just continue to be both holier and smarter than thou.

If you want to create jobs, then create jobs. If you want to create energy independance, then do that.

The Big 0 talked about a Sputnik moment and then took off on a flight of fancy unrelated to anything but his own Unicorn Ranch. He could have said, ala Kennedy, that he was initiating a program by which he would lead us into and through a program to be energy independant by the end of this decade and laid out the methods by which he intends to do it.

Kennedy said that he was leading us to "land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth before the end of this decade." He said what he wanted to accomplish, set the goal, laid out the means to measure the success or failure of his program, set a deadline and went on to say it would be hard to do and that only Americans could do it.

Kennedy was a visionary with courage and determination. Sadly, Obama is the Big 0.

The difference is not in the greatness of the challenge. It is in the greatness of the leader.

 

[IanC]

well said Code.

political agendas very often run afoul of 'The Law of Unintended Consequences'. raising corn for ethanol drives up the price of food, therefor (the fear of) global warming really does do damage.

and as for San Fran being censored, I am all for it. did they manage to pass their laws against circumcision and happy meals? seems like they want to censor freedom of choice AND religion.

 

[idb]

Yes, yes, yes....When I think "global warming", freezing temperatures and six-foot snow drifts are the first things that spring to mind.

First of all you don't think. Global warming refers to the Ocean Temperatures, not local micro climates.
Secondly, if you were honest you would admit that human beings create environmental problems which harm every living thing.
Finally, if you thought and were honest you would admit that efforts to control acid rain have been largely successful, removing lead from gasoline was a good thing for the environment and efforts by the government supporting green energy makes sense; such efforts create jobs, protect the planet and wil make our country less dependent on foreign oil.
Given that your not very bright and dishonest you are now free to post one of your glib idiotgrams. Be sure to use your thesaurus so the really dumb shits (such as crusaderfrank) are able to echo your foolish response even if they don't recognize the words.

Most GW skeptics only believe what they see and are unable or unwilling to grasp more complex concepts and causations.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes, yes, yes....When I think "global warming", freezing temperatures and six-foot snow drifts are the first things that spring to mind.

First of all you don't think. Global warming refers to the Ocean Temperatures, not local micro climates.
Secondly, if you were honest you would admit that human beings create environmental problems which harm every living thing.
Finally, if you thought and were honest you would admit that efforts to control acid rain have been largely successful, removing lead from gasoline was a good thing for the environment and efforts by the government supporting green energy makes sense; such efforts create jobs, protect the planet and wil make our country less dependent on foreign oil.
Given that your not very bright and dishonest you are now free to post one of your glib idiotgrams. Be sure to use your thesaurus so the really dumb shits (such as crusaderfrank) are able to echo your foolish response even if they don't recognize the words.

Acid rain is a different problem than Global Warming and is much more provable. Acid rain, in terms of proving the connection to the bad effects, is more akin to river water pollution by dumping sewage than it is to the effect of CO2 on a particualr wave length of Solar Radiation.

Connecting green intitatives to energy independance and job creation is like connecting Ethanol to energy independance and to job creation. Oh, wait! It's exactly the same thing, isn't it? Another failure being rolled out by those who previously failed.

One problem with Liberal Solutions to problems is the way that they market their solutions. Every program is a panacea. It turns out that every program is not a panacea. Liberals never seem to recall the past debacles and just continue to be both holier and smarter than thou.

If you want to create jobs, then create jobs. If you want to create energy independance, then do that.

The Big 0 talked about a Sputnik moment and then took off on a flight of fancy unrelated to anything but his own Unicorn Ranch. He could have said, ala Kennedy, that he was initiating a program by which he would lead us into and through a program to be energy independant by the end of this decade and laid out the methods by which he intends to do it.

Kennedy said that he was leading us to "land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth before the end of this decade." He said what he wanted to accomplish, set the goal, laid out the means to measure the success or failure of his program, set a deadline and went on to say it would be hard to do and that only Americans could do it.

Kennedy was a visionary with courage and determination. Sadly, Obama is the Big 0.

The difference is not in the greatness of the challenge. It is in the greatness of the leader.

Green energy creates jobs. To quote another, it is really that simple. And, to quote another, "you are unable or unwilling to grasp more complex concepts and causations".

 

[idb]

First of all you don't think. Global warming refers to the Ocean Temperatures, not local micro climates.
Secondly, if you were honest you would admit that human beings create environmental problems which harm every living thing.
Finally, if you thought and were honest you would admit that efforts to control acid rain have been largely successful, removing lead from gasoline was a good thing for the environment and efforts by the government supporting green energy makes sense; such efforts create jobs, protect the planet and wil make our country less dependent on foreign oil.
Given that your not very bright and dishonest you are now free to post one of your glib idiotgrams. Be sure to use your thesaurus so the really dumb shits (such as crusaderfrank) are able to echo your foolish response even if they don't recognize the words.

Acid rain is a different problem than Global Warming and is much more provable. Acid rain, in terms of proving the connection to the bad effects, is more akin to river water pollution by dumping sewage than it is to the effect of CO2 on a particualr wave length of Solar Radiation.

Connecting green intitatives to energy independance and job creation is like connecting Ethanol to energy independance and to job creation. Oh, wait! It's exactly the same thing, isn't it? Another failure being rolled out by those who previously failed.

One problem with Liberal Solutions to problems is the way that they market their solutions. Every program is a panacea. It turns out that every program is not a panacea. Liberals never seem to recall the past debacles and just continue to be both holier and smarter than thou.

If you want to create jobs, then create jobs. If you want to create energy independance, then do that.

The Big 0 talked about a Sputnik moment and then took off on a flight of fancy unrelated to anything but his own Unicorn Ranch. He could have said, ala Kennedy, that he was initiating a program by which he would lead us into and through a program to be energy independant by the end of this decade and laid out the methods by which he intends to do it.

Kennedy said that he was leading us to "land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth before the end of this decade." He said what he wanted to accomplish, set the goal, laid out the means to measure the success or failure of his program, set a deadline and went on to say it would be hard to do and that only Americans could do it.

Kennedy was a visionary with courage and determination. Sadly, Obama is the Big 0.

The difference is not in the greatness of the challenge. It is in the greatness of the leader.

Green energy creates jobs. To quote another, it is really that simple. And, to quote another, "you are unable or unwilling to grasp more complex concepts and causations".

Oh...I see what you've done there...very clever!

 

[rdean]

More snow = greater precipitation = increased water vapor = more evaporation = more heat.

Oh, that's right, according to right wingers on this site, "evaporation" is a "wild theory". Sorry, I forgot.

Sure deanie, tell that to YOUR experts! This was what they had to say justa couple of years ago and amazingly enough they don't mention it getting colder at all. In fact they state the exact opposite. You guys really should get on the same page as reality some day don't you think?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/148236-this-was-the-consensus-a-few-years-ago.html

It's the left that changes it's position as is learns and grows from studying the real world.

The right wing already knows everything. It's all in the Bible. It's why they don't need school or science.