Precipitation events.

[Old Rocks]

This winter and spring, we have seen far more than normal precipitation events. From the unusual snow falls, to the present flooding in Tennessee. These are precisely the type of events that the scientists have been predicting will occur.

As the atmosphere warms, it picks up more water. And that water is going to come out somewhere, usually rather rapidly. So expect more of the same.

 

[Mr. H.]

A very precipitous scenario.

 

[Little Daddy]

I'm here in the middle of it. Yes it is historical in scope for our area. Yes 11 lives or more have been lost. No it is not due to global warming or climate change or whatever, it was just our turn.

 

[konradv]

No it is not due to global warming or climate change
--------------------------------

You know this how? People claim that AGW data is sketchy, but here we have someone that would have us believe the opposite with NO DATA AT ALL!!! Any wonder those that know the subject would want to ignore the deniers??? They've become a broken record with NOTHING to add to the scientific debate, hence their focus on convincing us it's a political issue.

 

[Big Fitz]

This winter and spring, we have seen far more than normal precipitation events. From the unusual snow falls, to the present flooding in Tennessee. These are precisely the type of events that the scientists have been predicting will occur.

As the atmosphere warms, it picks up more water. And that water is going to come out somewhere, usually rather rapidly. So expect more of the same.

One out of the ordinary flood! Oh noes!

It r teh endz uv teh wurrld!

I thought we weren't supposed to look at short term data... or was that long term data. I can't remember anymore cause you keep changing the reasons so you can say the same thing:

It's all mankind's fault. We must install global fascism to stop it!

 

[Big Fitz]

This winter and spring, we have seen far more than normal precipitation events. From the unusual snow falls, to the present flooding in Tennessee. These are precisely the type of events that the scientists have been predicting will occur.

As the atmosphere warms, it picks up more water. And that water is going to come out somewhere, usually rather rapidly. So expect more of the same.

One out of the ordinary flood! Oh noes!

It r teh endz uv teh wurrld!

I thought we weren't supposed to look at short term data... or was that long term data. I can't remember anymore cause you keep changing the reasons so you can say the same thing:

It's all mankind's fault. We must install global fascism to stop it!

 

[gslack]

This winter and spring, we have seen far more than normal precipitation events. From the unusual snow falls, to the present flooding in Tennessee. These are precisely the type of events that the scientists have been predicting will occur.

As the atmosphere warms, it picks up more water. And that water is going to come out somewhere, usually rather rapidly. So expect more of the same.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Where is all that science you claim to bring??? Sure looks like speculation based on current weather patterns to me.... And that is not science and no indicator of climate..... Remember? That was your argument over a few years of cooling temps..... how convenient you decide its now okay to use this kind of BS.....HAHHHAAHAHAHA!

THe chore of having to cover for the fakes, phonies and liars who leave you hanging out to dry at every turn getting to you isn't it... yeah can't even motivate yourself to give your usual propaganda laden posts... Yeah I feel for ya man.....HAHAHAHHAA!

 

[Little Daddy]

Nothing humans did could have possibly caused the jet stream to dip and pull warm moist air from the gulf region. This is why it rained. It rains in a lot of places. It always has.

 

[westwall]

Oh please,

This is just more AGW BS. They first claimed that GW would cause desertification on a scale "unprecedented" in scale. Then when none of that was occuring it was the Himalayan glaciers (and all of the others) were going to melt by 2035 and according to a Met Office nimrod "children would not know what snow is in the very near future". Well he was proven ridiculously wrong now wasn't he?

Now the temperature is rising and storing more water. First off the temp hasn't risen since 1998 and secondly for snow to fall IT HAS TO BE COLD YOU FOOL!

AGW via CO2 as a GHG is a FAILED theory. It has no basis in fact and is very quickly being abandoned by all but a few "flat earth" types who can't see the forrest for the trees.

Here is a nice little article about the reality of CO2 and it's impact on the atmosphere.
Eliminating all Man-Made CO2 -- Earth gets Warmer?
2.2.10 Bob Ashworth, Sr. VP



Article Viewed 5650 Times
159 Comments




Email This Author

Comment On Article

About The Author

More Articles By This Author



Do you realize that CO2 emissions created by man's activities, combustion of fuels, etc. (called anthropogenic emissions) is miniscule compared to the emissions of CO2 from nature? Table 1 was developed by the IPCC. It shows annual CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from both nature and man and how much of the CO2 emitted is re-absorbed by nature.




Using the table above in combination with a total concentration of 385 ppmv of CO2 seen in the atmosphere in January 2008, one sees that the increase in CO2 caused by all of man's activities amounted to only 11.5 ppmv. The amount of CO2 from man is a mouse milk quantity compared to nature's emissions. If we eliminated all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, we would go back to the level we had in January 2003. Oh yes, when it was warmer then than it is now. Isn't this the first thing one would look at when evaluating the effect of man-made CO2; that is if they had any common sense? It is clear that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has nothing to do with the earth temperature. If there is an effect it is so small it is not worthy of discussion.
Global warming advocates say that CO2 builds up in the atmosphere over a 50 to 250 year period, but this is not true. Figure 1 below shows that the CO2 concentration oscillates based on the growing season in the Northern Hemisphere. The ratio of land to ocean in the Northern Hemisphere is about 1 to 1.5 and in the Southern Hemisphere is 1 to 4. Therefore, the Northern Hemisphere with much more land mass has a growing season that dominates the Southern Hemisphere growing season with respect to absorption of CO2.

Does a correlation exist between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature? No! Does an increase in CO2 cause the earth's temperature to increase? No! Figure 1 below was developed by Joseph D'Aleo, certified meteorologist. Even a non-scientist can see there is absolutely no correlation between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature. If there were a correlation, they both would rise and fall together. The CO2 has been on a continuous upward trend - not true for the earth's temperature.




In Figure 1, each year around April, increased CO2 absorption by plants in the Northern Hemisphere starts reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere and the reduction continues until around mid to late August when plants start to go dormant. The cycles occur on a regular yearly basis and the swing in CO2 concentration is in the 5 to 8 ppmv range. If CO2 stayed in the atmosphere for long periods before being consumed, the season to season cyclic effect would not be seen. It is clear that nature reacts very fast in its consumption of carbon dioxide.
The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Two sets of temperature measurements are shown, one set by NASA's Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) for the troposphere and the other by the UK's Hadley Climate Research Unit for the land and sea. Both show declining temperatures over time even as CO2 has increased from 366 ppmv in January 1998 to 385 ppmv by January 2008. Note that the land-sea and lower troposphere temperatures in January 2008 were some 0.7 Degrees C cooler than in January 1998.

This winter and spring, we have seen far more than normal precipitation events. From the unusual snow falls, to the present flooding in Tennessee. These are precisely the type of events that the scientists have been predicting will occur.

As the atmosphere warms, it picks up more water. And that water is going to come out somewhere, usually rather rapidly. So expect more of the same.

 

[gslack]

Oh please,

This is just more AGW BS. They first claimed that GW would cause desertification on a scale "unprecedented" in scale. Then when none of that was occuring it was the Himalayan glaciers (and all of the others) were going to melt by 2035 and according to a Met Office nimrod "children would not know what snow is in the very near future". Well he was proven ridiculously wrong now wasn't he?

Now the temperature is rising and storing more water. First off the temp hasn't risen since 1998 and secondly for snow to fall IT HAS TO BE COLD YOU FOOL!

AGW via CO2 as a GHG is a FAILED theory. It has no basis in fact and is very quickly being abandoned by all but a few "flat earth" types who can't see the forrest for the trees.

Here is a nice little article about the reality of CO2 and it's impact on the atmosphere.
Eliminating all Man-Made CO2 -- Earth gets Warmer?
2.2.10 Bob Ashworth, Sr. VP



Article Viewed 5650 Times
159 Comments




Email This Author

Comment On Article

About The Author

More Articles By This Author



Do you realize that CO2 emissions created by man's activities, combustion of fuels, etc. (called anthropogenic emissions) is miniscule compared to the emissions of CO2 from nature? Table 1 was developed by the IPCC. It shows annual CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from both nature and man and how much of the CO2 emitted is re-absorbed by nature.




Using the table above in combination with a total concentration of 385 ppmv of CO2 seen in the atmosphere in January 2008, one sees that the increase in CO2 caused by all of man's activities amounted to only 11.5 ppmv. The amount of CO2 from man is a mouse milk quantity compared to nature's emissions. If we eliminated all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, we would go back to the level we had in January 2003. Oh yes, when it was warmer then than it is now. Isn't this the first thing one would look at when evaluating the effect of man-made CO2; that is if they had any common sense? It is clear that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has nothing to do with the earth temperature. If there is an effect it is so small it is not worthy of discussion.
Global warming advocates say that CO2 builds up in the atmosphere over a 50 to 250 year period, but this is not true. Figure 1 below shows that the CO2 concentration oscillates based on the growing season in the Northern Hemisphere. The ratio of land to ocean in the Northern Hemisphere is about 1 to 1.5 and in the Southern Hemisphere is 1 to 4. Therefore, the Northern Hemisphere with much more land mass has a growing season that dominates the Southern Hemisphere growing season with respect to absorption of CO2.

Does a correlation exist between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature? No! Does an increase in CO2 cause the earth's temperature to increase? No! Figure 1 below was developed by Joseph D'Aleo, certified meteorologist. Even a non-scientist can see there is absolutely no correlation between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature. If there were a correlation, they both would rise and fall together. The CO2 has been on a continuous upward trend - not true for the earth's temperature.




In Figure 1, each year around April, increased CO2 absorption by plants in the Northern Hemisphere starts reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere and the reduction continues until around mid to late August when plants start to go dormant. The cycles occur on a regular yearly basis and the swing in CO2 concentration is in the 5 to 8 ppmv range. If CO2 stayed in the atmosphere for long periods before being consumed, the season to season cyclic effect would not be seen. It is clear that nature reacts very fast in its consumption of carbon dioxide.
The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Two sets of temperature measurements are shown, one set by NASA's Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) for the troposphere and the other by the UK's Hadley Climate Research Unit for the land and sea. Both show declining temperatures over time even as CO2 has increased from 366 ppmv in January 1998 to 385 ppmv by January 2008. Note that the land-sea and lower troposphere temperatures in January 2008 were some 0.7 Degrees C cooler than in January 1998.

This winter and spring, we have seen far more than normal precipitation events. From the unusual snow falls, to the present flooding in Tennessee. These are precisely the type of events that the scientists have been predicting will occur.

As the atmosphere warms, it picks up more water. And that water is going to come out somewhere, usually rather rapidly. So expect more of the same.

Hypothetical Oldrocks response:

"thats propaganda supplied by the big oil sponsored deniers cult"

 

[konradv]

It is clear that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has nothing to do with the earth temperature.
-----------------------------

That's ridiculous and clearly violates a fundamental law of science called Conservation of Energy. If heat isn't created, where's the extra energy trapped by CO2 going? Statistically only half would be released into space. What about the other half?

 

[gslack]

It is clear that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has nothing to do with the earth temperature.
-----------------------------

That's ridiculous and clearly violates a fundamental law of science called Conservation of Energy. If heat isn't created, where's the extra energy trapped by CO2 going? Statistically only half would be released into space. What about the other half?

And the little parrot shows up. right on cue......

Hush Polly!

 

[konradv]

Did anyone notice that gslack doesn't even try to present us with counter arguments. All we get are snarky comments. What about Conservation of Energy? Why do you refuse to tackle the question? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

 

[Barb]

This winter and spring, we have seen far more than normal precipitation events. From the unusual snow falls, to the present flooding in Tennessee. These are precisely the type of events that the scientists have been predicting will occur.

As the atmosphere warms, it picks up more water. And that water is going to come out somewhere, usually rather rapidly. So expect more of the same.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Where is all that science you claim to bring??? Sure looks like speculation based on current weather patterns to me.... And that is not science and no indicator of climate..... Remember? That was your argument over a few years of cooling temps..... how convenient you decide its now okay to use this kind of BS.....HAHHHAAHAHAHA!

THe chore of having to cover for the fakes, phonies and liars who leave you hanging out to dry at every turn getting to you isn't it... yeah can't even motivate yourself to give your usual propaganda laden posts... Yeah I feel for ya man.....HAHAHAHHAA!

Its gen ed earth science for crissakes.

 

[gslack]

Did anyone notice that gslack doesn't even try to present us with counter arguments. All we get are snarky comments. What about Conservation of Energy? Why do you refuse to tackle the question? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

AWWW look Polly wants to try and challenge me on this again.... Junior this hasn't worked out for any of you so far....

I gave the exact response I get from you and your pals... All you ever do is hsow up and defend whatever oldrocks says. no matter how ignorant, no matter how much of a lie it is, you show up and defend it like a true parrot.

You have earned my disdain and disrespect junior......

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's more water vapor in the air, do we know how much more? We can tell there's more CO2 down to 10 parts per million (Or so they tell us) how much more H2O is in the air?

 

[gslack]

This winter and spring, we have seen far more than normal precipitation events. From the unusual snow falls, to the present flooding in Tennessee. These are precisely the type of events that the scientists have been predicting will occur.

As the atmosphere warms, it picks up more water. And that water is going to come out somewhere, usually rather rapidly. So expect more of the same.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Where is all that science you claim to bring??? Sure looks like speculation based on current weather patterns to me.... And that is not science and no indicator of climate..... Remember? That was your argument over a few years of cooling temps..... how convenient you decide its now okay to use this kind of BS.....HAHHHAAHAHAHA!

THe chore of having to cover for the fakes, phonies and liars who leave you hanging out to dry at every turn getting to you isn't it... yeah can't even motivate yourself to give your usual propaganda laden posts... Yeah I feel for ya man.....HAHAHAHHAA!

Its gen ed earth science for crissakes.

General earth science??

okay then tell me, is current weather (now or the short term) any valid indicator of overall climate?

Well if you say yes like the OP tries to imply, than the same answer would have to apply when the claims go the other way.

For example: A year ago we had an increase in arctic ice coverage, and along with that we had a very cold winter and lower overall temps worldwide. When we (anti-AGW crowd) mentioned this we were summarily told how this was unscientific and that current weather (now or local) was not a valid indicator of overall climate (long term or global). And if we did not provide scientific sources we were doubly corrected....

Now we have oldrocks posting a topic talking about current weather (now and local), and implying it being an indicator of overall climate (long term or global). With no scientific evidence to base this claim on in the OP at all.

So then I ask you a simple logical question.... What is the difference?

 

[Barb]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Where is all that science you claim to bring??? Sure looks like speculation based on current weather patterns to me.... And that is not science and no indicator of climate..... Remember? That was your argument over a few years of cooling temps..... how convenient you decide its now okay to use this kind of BS.....HAHHHAAHAHAHA!

THe chore of having to cover for the fakes, phonies and liars who leave you hanging out to dry at every turn getting to you isn't it... yeah can't even motivate yourself to give your usual propaganda laden posts... Yeah I feel for ya man.....HAHAHAHHAA!

Its gen ed earth science for crissakes.

General earth science??

okay then tell me, is current weather (now or the short term) any valid indicator of overall climate?

Well if you say yes like the OP tries to imply, than the same answer would have to apply when the claims go the other way.

For example: A year ago we had an increase in arctic ice coverage, and along with that we had a very cold winter and lower overall temps worldwide. When we (anti-AGW crowd) mentioned this we were summarily told how this was unscientific and that current weather (now or local) was not a valid indicator of overall climate (long term or global). And if we did not provide scientific sources we were doubly corrected....

Now we have oldrocks posting a topic talking about current weather (now and local), and implying it being an indicator of overall climate (long term or global). With no scientific evidence to base this claim on in the OP at all.

So then I ask you a simple logical question.... What is the difference?

Weather patterns change, and part of what drives those changes is warmer water. That doesn't mean its going to be overall colder or hotter in the immediate future, but that storms will be stronger. Any general education earth science book will explain this. Those stronger storms have happened. Additionally, when ice forms on the top, the surface, that does not mean that HUGE layers of arctic ice have not melted precedent to the event of new ice forming. That arctic ice melt added freshwater to the oceans. That brackish water warms faster than saltwater, and that warmth powers stronger storms. These storms fueled by warmer water are part of a pattern of climate change. It isn't just co2 (and yes I'm to lazy to use the script to make that look correct), but methane released by the glaciers, and that gas makes co2 look like a punk in comparison.

ANY general education earth science book, and it goes back a smidge to when I got out of high school. Did everyone here skip science class? This is NOT new people.

 

[Big Fitz]

Quote: Originally Posted by konradv View Post
It is clear that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has nothing to do with the earth temperature.
-----------------------------

That's ridiculous and clearly violates a fundamental law of science called Conservation of Energy. If heat isn't created, where's the extra energy trapped by CO2 going? Statistically only half would be released into space. What about the other half?

You do realize that infra red radiation can leave the atmosphere and be projected off into space, right? That radiation leaving the planet also cools the entire system too as it is energy lost. Not to mention that energy can be converted to other forms. Wind and ocean currents all are good examples of thermal energy being converted to kinetic. Not saying that's much, but it's still something.

Plus, you forget CO2 is still only 0.6% of atmospheric composition while water vapor, a much more POWERFUL greenhouse gas is about 4% and both heats and cools quickly thanks to the hydrological cycle.

You always assume a static system, and it's not. It's dynamic and it extends beyond the atmosphere.

As for what warms us? 2 sources: Internally it is theorized by degradation of radioactive isotopes and externally, primarily, by the sun. So we go as they go.

 

[gslack]

Its gen ed earth science for crissakes.

General earth science??

okay then tell me, is current weather (now or the short term) any valid indicator of overall climate?

Well if you say yes like the OP tries to imply, than the same answer would have to apply when the claims go the other way.

For example: A year ago we had an increase in arctic ice coverage, and along with that we had a very cold winter and lower overall temps worldwide. When we (anti-AGW crowd) mentioned this we were summarily told how this was unscientific and that current weather (now or local) was not a valid indicator of overall climate (long term or global). And if we did not provide scientific sources we were doubly corrected....

Now we have oldrocks posting a topic talking about current weather (now and local), and implying it being an indicator of overall climate (long term or global). With no scientific evidence to base this claim on in the OP at all.

So then I ask you a simple logical question.... What is the difference?

Weather patterns change, and part of what drives those changes is warmer water. That doesn't mean its going to be overall colder or hotter in the immediate future, but that storms will be stronger. Any general education earth science book will explain this. Those stronger storms have happened. Additionally, when ice forms on the top, the surface, that does not mean that HUGE layers of arctic ice have not melted precedent to the event of new ice forming. That arctic ice melt added freshwater to the oceans. That brackish water warms faster than saltwater, and that warmth powers stronger storms. These storms fueled by warmer water are part of a pattern of climate change. It isn't just co2 (and yes I'm to lazy to use the script to make that look correct), but methane released by the glaciers, and that gas makes co2 look like a punk in comparison.

ANY general education earth science book, and it goes back a smidge to when I got out of high school. Did everyone here skip science class? This is NOT new people.

OMG!!!

Did you read any of what I said???

Seriously I just explained my entire reasoning and point in an intelligable and well explained manner, and your response is to repeat and expand on what you said previously as if I said nothing????

WOW!!!! Please do not speak of science anymore... Your version of it is just the most complete display of "fingers in the ears" faith-based pseudo-science nonsense I can imagine.... You seriously not only made my entire point all the more clear, but also showed your complete lack of genuine reason and logic..