Is "global warming" driving the very snowy winters we've seen in recent years?

So no scientists, or anyone with valid scientific knowledge , ever post on blogs?

 

Not the ones with no academic referencing, no validation of sources and certainly not those riddled with hilariously ridiculous conspiracy theories. But then those are usually contracted into referenced websites

But if you want to trot out what you consider to be a scientific blog just make sure that it conforms to academic standards

 

And what do you understand? You do nothing but cut and paste with minimal commentary, and then spend the rest of the thread either awarding stars to your sycophantic buddies, or telling people they are 'very mistaken', supported by more cut and paste from right-wing blog sites.

 

Blogs are little more than opinion pieces. By its very nature a blog is agenda-driven and cannot be relied upon as an impartial source.

 

Human-caused global woarming, or more accurately, human-controlable global warming is about the transfer of wealth. It's not about the weather or the rash on Aunt Martha's tukas.

And, the sicentists. I'm old. I can remember scientists telling us that smoking was good for you. I can remember scientists telling us that if we didn't disarm unilaterally a nuclear war and nuclear winter was inevitable. I even remember scientists telling us that DDT was deadly to humans. My favorite are the scientists from sociology, psychology, and gender studies signing on to global warming statements.

 

Human-caused global warming, or more accurately, human-controllable global warming is indeed about the transfer of wealth.

These conclusions were very good. The "warmines" are clearly being used and manipulated by globalists and corporatists to advance their world agenda to make billions of profits for their shareholders by selling and trading "carbon credits" for the Obama administration.

 

So what makes Dr. Mann an expert on trees and statistics? If you read the current batch of climategate e-mails a real dendrologist rips Dr. Mann a new one because he knows jack (*)(*)(*)(*) about trees.

Thats the rub. Many of these people are self appointed experts who aren't qualified.

 

Yes like the Oregon petition that right wing denialists love to trot out to "prove" that the "majority" of scientist do not believe in global warming

As for your contention that some scientists were wrong then so they have to be wrong now -

A) so not confuse bad journalism with good science

and
b) why deny scientific progress - we were wrong back in the 70's when we thought anthropogenic CO2 was not going to have a major impact - we now know betters

 

How about a link of that drivel? I have read the so called "climate gate" emails and the latest batch were a very poor attempt at quote mining and cherry picking

I did not see anything like what you allege

Or are you taking the word of anonymous posters on blogs again?

 

Not sure of this but global warming could lead to more snow (in some places). Warmer air can hold more moisture. If it is somewhat warmer, but still below freezing, this could mean more snow.

 

Not really, Rollo.

The "warmies” in this group are sorcerers. They want you to believe global warming is responsible for everything that can possible go wrong with the earth’s weather.

Here is the actuly truth, as determined by recent scientific studies. (See the source listed on page one.)

 

I think that one of the big points about this snowfall is that it also is a thermoregulator. The increased snow cover serves as a large negative feedback as the albedo from the snow reflects shortwave radiation back out into space.

Who would have thunk it, a system that has been stable for billions of years has strong negative feedbacks. Oh thats right anyone with a modicum of education is systems analysis that's who, i.e. non-climate scientists.

The earths climate is a system. How people without one minute of proper education in system's analysis can claim to be experts is beyond me. No one with even the slightest knowledge of systems analysis would ever believe that the earths atmosphere could have a net positive feedback.

 

Very good, Windigo.

I can tell you have an excellent engineering background.

The "warmies" in this group know absolutely nothing about systems engineering and negative feedback loops.

The earth has always has a temperature control system that is self-regulating. This is why the global surface temperature returned to normal after the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.



When the earth warms and Arctic ice melts, much more water evaporates from the large surface of the Arctic Ocean. This added moisture produces lots of snowfall at the mid and lower latitudes. Snow and clouds have a very high Albedo (they reflect most the incident solar energy). This causes more solar energy to be returned to space, and the surface of the earth cools. These lower temperatures allow more ice to form in the Arctic which causes the snow at the mid and lower latitudes to stop.

This is exactly how the earth corrects and self-regulates its surface temperature when its temperature becomes too high or too cold.

If the "warmies" understood systems engineering and negative feedback loops they would understand these rather simple concepts.

By the way, the "warmies” in this group are sorcerers. They want you to believe global warming is responsible for everything that can possible go wrong with the earth’s weather.

 

Engineers are a lowly bunch. You cant invent your own field and call yourself an expert.

 

So less snow is bad right?

And you are all claiming that there was more snow overall in the Northern Hemisphere - not worldwide, just parts of the Northern Hemisphere, snow that is on land and transient i.e. does not last all year, somehow is mitigating global warming while the sea ice, that is diminishing in volume enough to precipitate the snow "(see OP this this thread) is not having a positive effect on the feedback mechanism of global warming

When agreeing with some of the posts on this board I would recommend careful reading and thought because, as with the OP here there are clear duplicitous statements that more often than not, contradictory

 

Here is the correct explanation you are looking for. It all has to do with nature's use of negative feedback loops. The feedback loop has to be negative. It cannot be positive. It it were positive, the total entropy of the system would decrease, and this is forbidded by the second law of Thermodynamics.

When the earth warms and Arctic ice melts, much more water evaporates from the large surface of the Arctic Ocean. This added moisture produces lots of snowfall at the mid and lower latitudes. Snow and clouds have a very high Albedo (they reflect most the incident solar energy). This causes more solar energy to be returned to space, and the surface of the earth cools. These lower temperatures allow more ice to form in the Arctic which causes the snow at the mid and lower latitudes to stop. After the snow stops and melts and the cloud cover goes away, the earth warms again and the cycle repeats itself.

This is exactly how the earth corrects and self-regulates its surface temperature when its temperature becomes too high or too cold. The earth has always has a temperature control system that is self-regulating. This is why the global surface temperature returned to normal after the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

 

Eh???

Let me play dumb blonde here for a minute (and yes I am blonde I am allowed)

Your contention is that current albedo of sea ice is less than or rather will be less than the albedo of the clouds that will form from a warmer, melted polar ice cap, Is that right??

I would like to believe you but.........

 

Please look up the values.

A typical ocean albedo is approximately 0.06, while bare sea ice varies from approximately 0.5 to 0.7. This means that the ocean reflects only 6 percent of the incoming solar radiation and absorbs the rest, while sea ice reflects 50 to 70 percent of the incoming energy. The sea ice absorbs less solar energy and keeps the surface cooler.

The albedo of snow and the tops of clouds is very high. Snow has an even higher albedo than sea ice, and so thick sea ice covered with snow reflects as much as 90 percent of the incoming solar radiation. This serves to insulate the sea ice, maintaining cold temperatures and delaying ice melt in the summer. After the snow does begin to melt, and because shallow melt ponds have an albedo of approximately 0.2 to 0.4, the surface albedo drops to about 0.75. As melt ponds on the ice grow and deepen, the surface albedo can drop to 0.15. As a result, melt ponds are associated with higher energy absorption and a more rapid ice melt.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html

 

Forbidded? Okay - moving right along - the second law applies to closed systems yes? Earth and radiation is an OPEN system. If we absorbed ALL of the radiation from the sun we would all be little Vegemite toasts. We don't. We reflect a lot of it back into space - and this is where CO2 comes into it. It stops that radiation back into space

But the snow that is falling does not make up for the loss of ice and snow from the Arctic in the first place. Think it through logically

A) the Arctic is COLD to get the amount of evaporation you are claiming we would have to transpose the whole tropics up there
b) Arctic sea ice has already shrunk by an amount equivalent to Western Australia - that ice was also covered usually in snow and it used to be there all year round
b) Snowfall on land MELTS far more rapidly than snowfall on ice so it does not have the staying power of Arctic sea ice as far as long term reflection and albedo increase is concerned
c) low clouds have an increased albedo - high clouds trap heat - the evidence is favouring heat trapping

Yes! and it is why if we continue to warm it will get out of kilter and go into a tipping point

 

Yerrrssss The Arctic is melting that is sort of the point

Unfortunately the clouds will not make up for it and despite the re-radiation of light if the atmosphere is warm enough the ice is still going to melt. Think of it this way you can stick an ice cube in a silver coated thermos and leave it out in the sun - most of the light will be reflected but heat will still be conducted through the walls of the thermos until it reaches the same temperature as the surrounds. We can slow that conduction but we cannot stop it. It does not matter if the refection off of snow was 100% if the atmosphere surrounding the snow is warm then the heat will be transferred and the snow and ice will melt

 

You are mistaken, Bird.

The actual satellite data show just the opposite conclusion is true.

Unfortunately, you are being misled by charlatans who have an obvious “political” agenda.

Their livelihoods, which consist mostly of government study grants, motivate them to say and publish many untrue and misleading conclusions!

By the way, only some (not all) of the Arctic ice is melting. The part that is melting is melting because of warm water introduce into the the region by the Thermohaline Circulation (look it up!) and the warm Gulf Stream.

What gave you the idea a warmer atmosphere was causing the Arctic ice to melt? What is your reliable source for this information?

I would like to see and read it.




1979 was the peak year for Arctic ice, yet 2012 has more ice around Greenland and Alaska than 1979 did.

The only year which had more ice in Baffin Bay was 1983, but that year had a lot less ice in the Bering Sea.

Scientists have been busy telling us that missing Arctic ice is causing record cold in many places this winter.

http://www.real-science.com/greenland-alaska-ice-1979

 

Hey guess what snow in the great diving range in MARCH as a monsoonal trough with 2 now central continental ex cyclones which may meet up ,climate change ,what climate change ,hey global warming is very wet ,like RECORD tropical High Rainfalls for March with snow in Australia.[The Dryest continent on the Planet is bloody wet for the last 3 years straight ,just saying PROOF .

God thinkurs,get out of Government ,science is coming to clean up the Religo\Capituialist crap,lets cleanse humanity of Capitialism and Money fetish ,get back to church Faith thukin'climate Change deniers .

Last warning stupid

UNRECORDED in over 200plus years of European Occupation.

me humbly thinks we is in a Unstable period of planetary climate change .Accelerated by stinking Polluting Nationally divided Capitialist production WASTEFUL ,inefficent as well Capitialist production for Profit and market distribution system ,is so 19th century Nationally based ,that even the PLANET is Rebelling.

 

Of course. Wet, dry, cold, hot, windy, still, violent, mild, it doesn't matter. It's all driven by an undesirable, for the socialists, tax system that doesn't redistribute income between successful, capitalist, countries and others.

 

Let's first rid the world of stupid Leftists and misguided, fanatical "warmies"!

Conservative = You don't work; you don't eat.
Libertarian = You work, you eat, you live in peace.
Democrat = You don't work until you eat.
Liberal (Progressive) = I deserve a ‘handout’ before I eat or work.

 

there has been no global warming in the past 15 years so I doubt it