Europe, US to see snowy, cold winters: expert

Then it's no longer global warming, but regional warming and regional cooling.

If it ends up snowing more throughout the temperate zones, that would increase the earth's albedo significantly more than the existing ice caps do, which means the earth would quickly cool back off anyway...

These clowns change the story every time cold reality crashes their pathetic theories.

These clowns change the story every time cold reality crashes their pathetic theories.

That's known as "the scientific method".

@Quantum_Conundrum,

If it ends up snowing more throughout the temperate zones

Only in the winter.

that would increase the earth's albedo significantly more than the existing ice caps do

Why so? Note that most of Europe, Asia, and North America is already covered in snow during winter.

which means the earth would quickly cool back off anyway

Heating something has the effect of cooling it down? Hmm, I guess a pot of water over a fire will turn into ice, because the vapor coming off the top is cooling it:

"The region is warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the planet, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification.

Resulting ice loss is significantly greater than earlier climate models predicted."

There will be more snow in the winter, but it will melt off faster in the warm spring rains and generally warmer winds (resulting in more flooding), and for the rest of the year there'll be warmer temperatures and heat waves.

I have to agree, the extra snowfall is most likely meltwater from the polar caps.
Still, it would be nice to see a white christmas again.

Just wait till the gulf stream shuts down- then it'll get really cold.

Hard Times ahead (sigh)... Except in New Mexico! Colder, wetter winters? Heeyaaa, bring it on!

Hard Times ahead (sigh)... Except in New Mexico! Colder, wetter winters? Heeyaaa, bring it on!

Don't forget- "arroyo" is anasazi for FLOOD PLAIN!
I joke.

Just wait till the gulf stream shuts down- then it'll get really cold.

Only for Europeans who already live outside the temperate zone. Serve folks rights, trying to live at those ungodly latitudes.

At the start of the lesser Dryas cooling event the Southern coast of England went from deciduous forest to tundra in less than 30 years.

Cheers

These clowns change the story every time cold reality crashes their pathetic theories.

The only reason you would believe this is because you really have no clue what the current theory predicts. This is all in line with current thinking about climate change effects. Heat transport affects how heat moves from warmer to colder regions. Affecting this will cause some regions to cool while others get much warmer. Do a little investigation before spewing please.

"For Marxism {or AGW}, Popper believed, had been initially scientific, in that Marx had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. However, when these predictions were not in fact borne out, the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which made it compatible with the facts. By this means, Popper asserted, a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma."
http://plato.stan.../popper/

Can you believe this clown is on a government salary?

Vast conclusions from half-vast data.

Even if some of their models have valid concurrence with future climate patterns, they've screwed up the politics and public trust so badly that nothing they say will ever get seriously listened to.

How can you tell the difference between cold snow winters not caused by global warming and cold snowy winters caused by global warming?

Grant money!

@ PinkElephant, Skeptic Heretic, and Caliban:

The irony has just got to be killing you about now!

@PE:

There will be more snow in the winter, but it will melt off faster in the warm spring rains and generally warmer winds (resulting in more flooding), and for the rest of the year there'll be warmer temperatures and heat waves.

As I've already clearly demonstrated in the comments here:

http://www.physor...052.html

...this is false. Snow can't melt where is hasn't snowed, and snow being an insulator, it lasts a long time on the ground even in direct sunlight - as seen here:

(note: must be seen during U.S. Pacific Time daylight hours)

@PE,

Oops, the lower link didn't survive the edit. Here it is again:

http://www.sierra...-cam.asp

(note: must be viewed during U.S. Pacific Time daylight hours)

Climatology: The Geocentric model of modern times. Every time something unexpected or "counter-intuitive" happens with the weather, they have to wiggle the data around and rearrange the models yet again to make room for it. Whatever happened to Occam's razor?

"...the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which made it compatible with the facts."

Post hoc ad hoc qualification of an assertion make it tautologically true and trivial in the limit.

In northern latitudes, more snow means warmer winters, which is fine with me. Snow is an issue in Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida, not Michigan. More snow means lower heating costs for us. Less snow means clear February skies and low temps of 10-20 below zero. So far, the climate science guys have got it right.
I am of the opinion that this warming is unlikely to change as a result of natural variation, but don't worry, I also believe that our modern civilization is not long for the history books. We are too fat, too lazy,and as a rule, pretty fairly stupid. I'm rooting for the killer flu, but an asteroid would do in a pinch.

@ PinkElephant, Skeptic Heretic, and Caliban:

The irony has just got to be killing you about now!

No, this is exactly what is predicted by current climatology. Try reading a few things on the subject.

As global temperature continues its downward trend, the claim that cooling represents warming is going to become increasingly absurd. The AGW hypothesis, already thoroughly discredited, is having its last gasp. Those who contiue to cling to the wreckage of the AGW ship will be pulled under. I have spoken.

As global temperature continues its downward trend, the claim that cooling represents warming is going to become increasingly absurd.

No one is saying that cooling represents warming. Localized weather patterns are a result of climatic conditions, not the opposite.

The AGW hypothesis, already thoroughly discredited,

False

is having its last gasp. Those who contiue to cling to the wreckage of the AGW ship will be pulled under. I have spoken.

And you have spoken incorrectly.

Hilarious that you end with the ultimate argumentum ad hominem.

Claudius,

Show us the evidence that the globe is cooling. Evidence, not just unsupported assertions.

Roderick: Show us evidence that the globe is warming. Evidence, not just demonstrably cooked data and simulations.

Roderick: Show us evidence that the globe is warming. Evidence, not just demonstrably cooked data and simulations.

In order to state that the data is cooked you would need to actually show us how it was cooked and allow us a repeatable manner in which to cook it again and derive the same result, ie: Mann's hockeystick error and the example that the Hockey stick was a falsifiable calculation (very good work to whoever did it btw).

The NOAA, NASA, UEA, and HADCRUT datasets exemplify the statistical record utilizing multiple relevant noise correction methods and all reach the same conclusion.

So before you move the goal posts again, show us your evidence to refute the statement that the globe is warming or discredit those datasets by applying the noise correction methods to red noise data deriving the same result within statistical significance. Many have tried, all have failed. If you can show errors in the calculations I'm all ears.

Again and again people stumble over the problematic term "Global Warming" and more descriptive term "Climate Change".
Yes, the average overall temperature of the planet is rising, but this does not mean that every square inch of the planet will become warmer. In fact, some places will become much warmer and others will become somewhat cooler. On average, the global temperature is continuing to to rise.
More significantly, the 'climate is changing'. Agricultural patterns will be forced to adapt, while ecosystems struggle under yet another man-made challenge.
Let's not stumble on semantics and instead make necessary changes.

Let's not stumble on semantics and instead make necessary changes.

That is the devil is it not. What 'necessary' changes? How must such changes be implemented and by whom?

In northern latitudes, more snow means warmer winters, which is fine with me. Snow is an issue in Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida, not Michigan. More snow means lower heating costs for us. Less snow means clear February skies and low temps of 10-20 below zero. So far, the climate science guys have got it right.
I am of the opinion that this warming is unlikely to change as a result of natural variation, but don't worry, I also believe that our modern civilization is not long for the history books. We are too fat, too lazy,and as a rule, pretty fairly stupid. I'm rooting for the killer flu, but an asteroid would do in a pinch.

Sounds like you need to see a specialist. Have you talked with your doctor about your suicidal feelings?

@ PinkElephant, Skeptic Heretic, and Caliban:

The irony has just got to be killing you about now!

No, this is exactly what is predicted by current climatology. Try reading a few things on the subject.

That's not what you said in the other article's comments. Funny that.

Next, you'll be telling me that it was you that suggested warmer oceans make more snow!

@Roderick

Claudius,

Show us the evidence that the globe is cooling. Evidence, not just unsupported assertions.

Here you go, evidence the globe is cooling:

http://en.wikiped...ures.png

As can clearly be seen, temperatures spiked in 1998. Since then, temperatures have stabilized and in the last three years, they've been trending downward. Will this trend last? Who knows?

In order to state that the data is cooked you would need to actually show us how it was cooked and allow us a repeatable manner in which to cook it again and derive the same result, ie: Mann's hockeystick error and the example that the Hockey stick was a falsifiable calculation (very good work to whoever did it btw).

The NOAA, NASA, UEA, and HADCRUT datasets exemplify the statistical record utilizing multiple relevant noise correction methods and all reach the same conclusion.

So before you move the goal posts again, show us your evidence to refute the statement that the globe is warming or discredit those datasets by applying the noise correction methods to red noise data deriving the same result within statistical significance. Many have tried, all have failed. If you can show errors in the calculations I'm all ears.

Been there, done that.

http://en.wikiped...ures.png

Of course, you'll later tell me I never provided any evidence...

Again and again people stumble over the problematic term "Global Warming" and more descriptive term "Climate Change".
Yes, the average overall temperature of the planet is rising, but this does not mean that every square inch of the planet will become warmer. In fact, some places will become much warmer and others will become somewhat cooler. On average, the global temperature is continuing to to rise.
More significantly, the 'climate is changing'. Agricultural patterns will be forced to adapt, while ecosystems struggle under yet another man-made challenge.
Let's not stumble on semantics and instead make necessary changes.

What makes you think climate change is necessarily a bad thing? So far, trees are beginning to grow where they haven't grown for centuries, and land is becoming farmable and habitable that hasn't been farmable or habitable in centuries. What's so bad about that?

@uva,

The article from wiki that you linked to does not show a cooling trend- in fact, the opposite- a continuing annual increase in average temperature, ie WARMING.

As to the notion of previously unforested areas, and non-arable areas suddenly becoming fecund- just how long do you suppose that will last, before the newly arable zone is heated out of existence?

And how does new farmland and forest in, say northern Montana help people to eat that live in the bordering areas of the sub-sahara? Are they going to hop in their cars and drive to Montana to buy some firewood and sweet corn?

You are really going to great lengths to oversimplify and play Pollyanna with the effects of this warming trend.

No matter what anyone says, AGW theory is dead. Those of us with a whole brain knew it was a Marxist weatlh-redistribution diversion all along. Now, even half-wits are no longer buying the BS. It's got to be embarrassing to still be defending this nonsense!
Case, thankfully, closed.

@Caliban,

You're talking to someone who's convinced that warming the planet makes it colder. What do you expect?

Even after presented with empirical evidence to the contrary -- i.e. inverse relationship between global temperatures and total global ice volume, as documented over the past 600,000+ years in Antarctic ice cores -- this person insists on continuing to confuse global climate change with heat redistribution cycles like the ENSO.

Isn't it wonderful that tundra permafrost is melting? Isn't it awesome that new land might become arable? Never mind the land that's currently arable will become desert; let's just focus on the positives instead. "Pollyanna" hardly begins to describe this...

@PE,

I know. Every now and then, though, someone realizes that their logic/thought process/conceptualization is out of whack, and things "click into place". It can't be predicted when, or if, it will happen, but it nevertheless does, sometimes with nothing more than a turn of phrase. Worth a try, anyway.

@Caliban:

@uva,

The article from wiki that you linked to does not show a cooling trend- in fact, the opposite- a continuing annual increase in average temperature, ie WARMING.

Apparently, you can't read a graph. Clearly, the temperatures are lower since 1998 and clearly lower still in the past three years. Denying these facts won't make them go away.

As to the notion of previously unforested areas, and non-arable areas suddenly becoming fecund- just how long do you suppose that will last, before the newly arable zone is heated out of existence?

What, you think the whole world is going to catch fire or something? Less permafrost and less arid lands means more farmable land. The drying that you're claiming simply isn't happening.

continued...

@Caliban (2 of 3)

And how does new farmland and forest in, say northern Montana help people to eat that live in the bordering areas of the sub-sahara? Are they going to hop in their cars and drive to Montana to buy some firewood and sweet corn?

Try doing a fact check before spouting off, why don't you? If anything, the Sub-Saharan region has been getting too much rain lately.

References:

http://www.earthw...n=Floods

http://maps.grida...getation

http://www.scienc...7eeb25ab

@Caliban (3 of 3)

You are really going to great lengths to oversimplify and play Pollyanna with the effects of this warming trend.

No, I'm working with current information.

You, ironically, are obviously striving to sow fear (people used to accuse me of this!). Try learning the facts. It aint all bad.

@PE:

@Caliban,

You're talking to someone who's convinced that warming the planet makes it colder. What do you expect?

Even after presented with empirical evidence to the contrary -- i.e. inverse relationship between global temperatures and total global ice volume, as documented over the past 600,000+ years in Antarctic ice cores -- this person insists on continuing to confuse global climate change with heat redistribution cycles like the ENSO.

What, and FEMA weather reports, Dr. Joseph Romm's "Climate Progress," Wikipedia (including a great picture of a snow covered Great Britain), Physorg, and live webcams aren't "empirical" enough or mainstream enough for you?

Isn't it wonderful that tundra permafrost is melting? Isn't it awesome that new land might become arable? Never mind the land that's currently arable will become desert; let's just focus on the positives instead. "Pollyanna" hardly begins to describe this...

Your fear-mongering is ludicrous.

@PE,

I know. Every now and then, though, someone realizes that their logic/thought process/conceptualization is out of whack, and things "click into place". It can't be predicted when, or if, it will happen, but it nevertheless does, sometimes with nothing more than a turn of phrase. Worth a try, anyway.

Yeah? So are you learning yet?

@Roderick

Claudius,

Show us the evidence that the globe is cooling. Evidence, not just unsupported assertions.

Here you go, evidence the globe is cooling:

http://en.wikiped...ures.png

As can clearly be seen, temperatures spiked in 1998. Since then, temperatures have stabilized and in the last three years, they've been trending downward. Will this trend last? Who knows?

12 years is not within the realm of statistical significance.

May I ask what your credentials are?

@ubavontuba,

What, and FEMA weather reports, Dr. Joseph Romm's "Climate Progress," Wikipedia (including a great picture of a snow covered Great Britain), Physorg, and live webcams aren't "empirical" enough or mainstream enough for you?

FYI, it floods in equatorial Africa every year. It's perfectly normal. After the floods, come the droughts. That's also perfectly normal.

FYI #2, that "Climate Progress" web site has something you might be interested in:

http://climatepro...-record/

FYI #3: The cold winters in North America and England were caused by cold snaps, not by warm air masses (or warming oceans.)

FYI #4: the "greening of the Sahel" is coming at the cost of the Saharan aquifer, just like California's central valley is temporarily greener and cooler at the cost of terminally depleting its own aquifers.

Now what other astounding display of erudition shall you dazzle us all with, next?

Claudius,

Show us the evidence that the globe is cooling. Evidence, not just unsupported assertions.

Let's see, we are commenting on an article that concerns itself with observed data showing unexpected cooling in the U.S. and Europe, that attempts to explain that cooling is just a regional thing and that the globe is still warming, not to worry, AGW is still alive and well, and you want ME to provide data?

Let's see, we are commenting on an article that concerns itself with observed data showing unexpected cooling in the U.S. and Europe, that attempts to explain that cooling is just a regional thing and that the globe is still warming, not to worry, AGW is still alive and well, and you want ME to provide data?

We're commenting on an article about weather, not climate, you have the two confused and as such are unable to evidence your assertions, am I getting warm?

Wow! This is one of the strangest conversations I have seen so far. The gist of the denier approach here seems to be that snow means we are plunging into an ice age and it appears they can't read graphs. They also confuse weather with climate. So, in that spirit, here is some more confusion of weather with climate.

http://www.ncdc.n...t=global

Read through that and you will see that the beginning of 2010 is the warmest on record - in spite of the cold in some areas. Now don't get me wrong. I am not attaching any significance to this because it takes years for trends to come out (and the trend is warming not cooling). But I will also point out that the northern ice is on its way down (note this is not a trend it is present data).

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

So, where is this cooling? Again, I am not saying this is a trend as the deniers are - I am just using the same argument. It is fun to not have to worry about statistics.

@Roderick

Claudius,

Show us the evidence that the globe is cooling. Evidence, not just unsupported assertions.

Here you go, evidence the globe is cooling:

http://en.wikiped...ures.png

As can clearly be seen, temperatures spiked in 1998. Since then, temperatures have stabilized and in the last three years, they've been trending downward. Will this trend last? Who knows?

12 years is not within the realm of statistical significance.

Global warming has only been recognized (generally) for about twenty years, and is only suspected of starting sometime in the mid twentieth century. Therefore the past twelve years are significant, indeed.

May I ask what your credentials are?

Sorry, I wish to remain anonymous.

FYI, it floods in equatorial Africa every year. It's perfectly normal. After the floods, come the droughts. That's also perfectly normal.

Did you even LOOK at the references? Didn't you see the long-term, greening of the Sahel report?

FYI #2, that "Climate Progress" web site has something you might be interested in:

So? According to Dr. Joseph Romm, that should simply mean even MORE precipitation (as I've been saying).

FYI #3: The cold winters in North America and England were caused by cold snaps, not by warm air masses (or warming oceans.)

Funny then that this "snap" has lasted for so long. Did you even LOOK at the snow at Sierra Tahoe?

continued...

@PE, (2 of 2)

FYI #4: the "greening of the Sahel" is coming at the cost of the Saharan aquifer, just like California's central valley is temporarily greener and cooler at the cost of terminally depleting its own aquifers.

What, you can't read? It clearly states, "Increasing rainfall over the last few years is certainly one reason..."

Also (and obviously), the greening isn't only happening on farms. Maybe you think the roots of the trees, shrubs, and grasses are tapping the aquifiers?

Now what other astounding display of erudition shall you dazzle us all with, next?

What other data will you ignore next?

Let's see, we are commenting on an article that concerns itself with observed data showing unexpected cooling in the U.S. and Europe, that attempts to explain that cooling is just a regional thing and that the globe is still warming, not to worry, AGW is still alive and well, and you want ME to provide data?

We're commenting on an article about weather, not climate, you have the two confused and as such are unable to evidence your assertions, am I getting warm?

The article is talking about a long-term climate change for the temperate zone.

Wow! This is one of the strangest conversations I have seen so far. The gist of the denier approach here seems to be that snow means we are plunging into an ice age and it appears they can't read graphs. They also confuse weather with climate. So, in that spirit, here is some more confusion of weather with climate.

http://www.ncdc.n...t=global

So, where is this cooling? Again, I am not saying this is a trend as the deniers are - I am just using the same argument. It is fun to not have to worry about statistics.

Nice references, but you've missed the point. My contention is simply that global warming is causing more precipitation in temperate zones (as the article also asserts).

Funny then that this "snap" has lasted for so long. Did you even LOOK at the snow at Sierra Tahoe?

Did you even LOOK at these maps:

http://data.giss....1998.pdf

What's that over N America, NW Europe, and N Asia, in the 2010 map? Oh yeah, a belt of COLD AIR...

According to Dr. Joseph Romm, that should simply mean even MORE precipitation (as I've been saying).

The part you're missing, rather painfully, is even MORE evaporation.

What, you can't read? It clearly states, "Increasing rainfall over the last few years is certainly one reason..."

What, you can't read? It goes on to say that it isn't the main reason, and there are any number of other potential factors.

Also (and obviously), the greening isn't only happening on farms.

The droughts aren't only happening on farms, either. Look at all that wonderful fertility we have in our future:

http://www.wri.or...000-2080

Well, the article says it all: "since records have been kept in 2007".
So we have examples based on a three-year data set.
And THIS is supposed to be meaningful?

"Roughly every 100,000 years, a projectile hundreds of meters across unleashes power equal to the world's nuclear arsenals. The result is devastation over an area the size of England, global tidal waves (if the impact is in the ocean), and enough dust flung into the atmosphere to dim the Sun and kill off vegetation. That could ruin your day.

Then there's the "Big One". About every 100 million years, a rock the size of a small asteroid slams into the Earth, causing global earthquakes, kilometre-high tidal waves, and immediately killing all large land animals."
http://www.indepe...537.html
Meteor impacts are documented catastrophic threats that have the potential for being prevented.
Wasting time and money destroying the technology base that could help prevent such a recurrence is foolish.

Such a mish-mash from a climate “scientist.” Arctic warming is not caused by any greenhouse effect or by some magical ”Arctic amplification” but by warm currents entering the Arctic and melting ice. Peak warming occurred in the thirties. But it was interrupted from 1940 to 1960 and then resumed. By 2003 it had reached the level of the thirties and is now beyond it. What got it started in the first place was a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the twentieth century that directed the Gulf Stream unto its present northerly course. The Gulf Stream today enters the Arctic in a broad front between Iceland and Scandinavia and keeps the Russian Arctic ports ice free in the summer. A smaller amount of warm water enters through the Bering Strait. Thanks to winds in 2007 more than the usual amount came in and melted a large puddle just north of the strait while the Gulf Stream side hardly changed. To get the details read “What Warming?” available from Amazon.com.

Did you even LOOK at these maps:

What's that over N America, NW Europe, and N Asia, in the 2010 map? Oh yeah, a belt of COLD AIR...

What's your point? Are you TRYING to shoot yourself in the foot? This supports my contentions!

The part you're missing, rather painfully, is even MORE evaporation.

Actually, the temperature itself has little to do with evaporation. It's the relative humidity that matters. The humid air we're talking about is already relatively saturated, so evaporation is sharply reduced.

What, you can't read? It goes on to say that it isn't the main reason, and there are any number of other potential factors.

1st, you previously deliberately ignored this. 2nd, what other factors would so affect the natural flora? Do you think the shrubs are building their own irrigation systems?

The droughts aren't only happening on farms, either. Look at all that wonderful fertility we have in our future:

Nothing but an outdated conjecture (from 2007).

This supports my contentions!

How does this support your contentions? Like the article above says, there was more snow and colder temperatures, BECAUSE the air was colder. If the air was warmer, the opposite would have occurred.

The humid air we're talking about is already relatively saturated

What humid air are "we" talking about? The cold air masses? Flash quiz: if they got warmer, what would happen to their relative humidity?

what other factors would so affect the natural flora

Human land use, as if you didn't read that yourself.

Nothing but an outdated conjecture (from 2007).

ROFLMAO

More continental weather is a consequence of global warming, which can be explained illustratively by convection of water during heating. If you heat the water in large pot, then the character of circulation will change from horizontal to vertical convective pattern. The heat & water from ocean will be removed by atmospheric circulation in coastal areas, whereas the inland areas will remain dry and cold.

http://tinyurl.com/3798daz

At the moment, when convective circulation switches from horizontal to vertical, an ice age period may occur, because Earth becomes intensively cooled. This is forced by hysteresis, because snow-white surface of Earth becomes more reflective at the same time. Just after cooling of oceans the warm period is restored. Here are indicia, the start of ice age can be very fast and period of fast paced global warming had preceded this event in younger dryas period already.

May I ask what your credentials are?

Sorry, I wish to remain anonymous.

Of course you do, but I'm not asking for your name, simply your credentials.

May I ask what your credentials are?

Sorry, I wish to remain anonymous.

Of course you do, but I'm not asking for your name, simply your credentials.

Of course you must ask for the name or how can you verify the credentials? How can you trust anyone without a government agency to verify his credentials?

Of course you must ask for the name or how can you verify the credentials? How can you trust anyone without a government agency to verify his credentials?

By interrogating their knowledge as based upon the core ciriculum of said credentials. This is why I don't ask you what your credentials are, you don't know jack.

core ciriculum of said credentials.

How can you trust said credentials if they are not government certified?
Degrees are not granted by governments and the accreditor is not a government agency.
"The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) is an independent corporation and one of two commission members of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA), which is one of six regional institutional accreditors in the United States."http://www.ncahlc.org/

SH can't imagine how two people can trade with each other without some government agency holding their hand, but he trusts non-government agencies to certify degrees of higher learning.
Seems a bit inconsistent.

SH can't imagine how two people can trade with each other without some government agency holding their hand, but he trusts non-government agencies to certify degrees of higher learning.
Seems a bit inconsistent.

I'm sorry, when did I say that? Are you imagining things again?

Firstly, I said an economy cannot function without rules. The only sufficiently powerful and neutral lawgiver is the CURRENCY CONTROLLER. The only enforcement agency large enough is the printer of the currency of that market.

Are you seriously this big a mental miscreant that you can't remember things said to you a mere 10 days ago, (and it's in text no less). I'm starting to think you can't read.

Gene_H: What you showed a picture of are "Benard cells" shown in two dimensions. They are actually better shown in three dimensions where their hexagonal nature is more clear. Listen carefully. Benard cells are found when horizontal plates are heating the still uniform fluid above. The key is "horizontal." This does apply to the fluid above an ocean and to fluids above plains - only if there are no other convective forces on them (which almost never happens). In a pan of water the water is still and of approximately uniform temperature (there is a gradient but the Benard cell attempts to minimize it). However, if you have a pan full of Benard cells and pour cooler/hotter water in from a side they go away. That is what happens when the wind blows. The atmosphere is much more complicated than water heating in a pan. That is not how an ice age switches on. It is just one of many modes of convective heat transfer and requires specific boundary conditions.

Thermo,

GeneH is Alizee under yet another pseudonym. Your information is wasted on him.

SH can't imagine how two people can trade with each other without some government agency holding their hand, but he trusts non-government agencies to certify degrees of higher learning.
Seems a bit inconsistent.

I'm sorry, when did I say that? Are you imagining things again?

Firstly, I said an economy cannot function without rules. The only sufficiently powerful and neutral lawgiver is the CURRENCY CONTROLLER. The only enforcement agency large enough is the printer of the currency of that market.

Are you seriously this big a mental miscreant that you can't remember things said to you a mere 10 days ago, (and it's in text no less). I'm starting to think you can't read.

You asserted free markets have no rules, which is false, and proceeded to assert that markets must have government rules to operate, another fallacy.

You asserted free markets have no rules, which is false, and proceeded to assert that markets must have government rules to operate, another fallacy.

I didn't assert anything. I stated the known and agreed upon definition for Free Markets - Markets with no rule of law by which they are governed.

I went forward to say that in today's day and age you cannot have free markets.

You then confused yourself several times and here we are now.

I didn't assert anything. I stated the known and agreed upon definition for Free Markets - Markets with no rule of law by which they are governed.

You asserted free markets had NO rules. Which is false.

SH:

Free markets don't have rules by definition. Again, study up before you spew bullshit.

Like a good AGWite, you change your definitions to meet the data?

I didn't assert anything. I stated the known and agreed upon definition for Free Markets - Markets with no rule of law by which they are governed.

You asserted free markets had NO rules. Which is false.
SH:

Free markets don't have rules by definition. Again, study up before you spew bullshit.

Like a good AGWite, you change your definitions to meet the data?

Care to tell me how the definition changed, you reading superstar, you?

I didn't assert anything. I stated the known and agreed upon definition for Free Markets - Markets with no rule of law by which they are governed.

You asserted free markets had NO rules. Which is false.

SH:

Free markets don't have rules by definition. Again, study up before you spew bullshit.

Like a good AGWite, you change your definitions to meet the data?

You qualified by stating 'no rule of law' after it was pointed out free markets do have rules.

You qualified by stating 'no rule of law' after it was pointed out free markets do have rules.

What change marjon? What rules exist in a free market?

How did my definition change when I've asserted from start to finish a free market has NO RULES?

People have the right to buy and sell

Well no kidding, that is what a market is. A place where things are bought and sold. If no one has the right to buy and sell it isn't much of a market, is it?

A free market is a market without rules. That means rule of law, rule of thumb, NO RULES.

You don't seem to understand how free markets actually work, everyone tries to screw over everyone else. Whoever screws fastest, wins. Welcome to the free market, go get screwed.

WTF do free markets have to do with the amount of snow in Europe?

Yet another discussion successfully hijacked by the clown...

WTF do free markets have to do with the amount of snow in Europe?

Yet another discussion successfully hijacked by the clown...

What does integrity have to do with anyone's comment?

Mangy emits noise from noise hole. How is datapoint chair, mangy? Nice and comfy? Noise allows mangy to feel that mangy matters.

PE: How do you like being in the same 'class' as Caliban and SH?
What rational 'scientists' you all are!

mangy suffers from science envy, since mangy is incapable of understanding even the concept of science, much less how to interpret it, or use it to develop an argument that is not based on ideology, instead. So mangy bleats noise from his datapoint chair in the mangyhole.

How does this support your contentions? Like the article above says, there was more snow and colder temperatures, BECAUSE the air was colder. If the air was warmer, the opposite would have occurred.

Not necessarily. Precipitation is about the relative humidity, not the temperature. Maybe you think there's no rain in the warm tropics?

What humid air are "we" talking about? The cold air masses? Flash quiz: if they got warmer, what would happen to their relative humidity?

That depends on why they would get warmer.

Human land use, as if you didn't read that yourself.

And so you think human land use in the Sahel region is all pervasive? Why don't you give us some figures on the acreage in question?

ROFLMAO

You have a strange sense of humor. Perhaps you think all outdated predictions are valid? That would be funny indeed!

May I ask what your credentials are?

Sorry, I wish to remain anonymous.

Of course you do, but I'm not asking for your name, simply your credentials.Of course you do, but I'm not asking for your name, simply your credentials.

Of course you must ask for the name or how can you verify the credentials? How can you trust anyone without a government agency to verify his credentials?

By interrogating their knowledge as based upon the core ciriculum of said credentials. This is why I don't ask you what your credentials are, you don't know jack.

So failing to make a valid argument against my message, you now wish to make an examination of the messenger?

What does integrity have to do with anyone's comment?

The humor continues.

So failing to make a valid argument against my message, you now wish to make an examination of the messenger?

No, I'd like to know where your arguments from authority come from. No one can dispute a statement with no relevant evidence as there's nothing to dispute but argumentum ad hominems, (hominae?).

Maybe you think there's no rain in the warm tropics?

Maybe you think there's no rain in the hot deserts?

That depends on why they would get warmer.

Uhm, err, let's see... You really stumped me there. Wait! Could it be -- escaping heat reflected back by greenhouse gases, absorbed by land surface, and transferred to above-ground air by conduction/convection?

And so you think human land use in the Sahel region is all pervasive?

In all likelihood, about as pervasive as the sparse patches of "greening" on this map:

http://maps.grida...getation

Perhaps you think all outdated predictions are valid?

Perhaps you think a prediction made 1 second ago is "outdated"?

Some more food for thought (aimed at those who are capable of exhibiting thought, that is):

http://www.physor...998.html

The researchers report that the mass balance of the Swiss glaciers correlates with the AMO. The AMO can explain the periods of especially marked glacier retreats, e.g. in the 1940s and since the 1980s, as well as the stagnation or growth during and the 1910s and in the 1970s. This indicates that the ocean surface temperatures in the Atlantic were above average during periods of rapid glacier shrinkage and vice versa.

So failing to make a valid argument against my message, you now wish to make an examination of the messenger?

No, I'd like to know where your arguments from authority come from.

From the facts.

No one can dispute a statement with no relevant evidence as there's nothing to dispute but argumentum ad hominems, (hominae?).

So as I predicted here on June 12:

Of course, you'll later tell me I never provided any evidence...

...you're now stating I haven't presented any evidence!

SH, ignoring the evidence doesn't change the facts of the evidence.

So as the facts of that which you disagree with are now demonstrably irrelevant to you, it becomes obvious that your interest in my personal information is nothing more than an inquisition - ostensibly for the purpose of carrying out a character assassination.

Therefore, it appears your less the scientist, and more the demagogue ...of the type you pretend to hate.

Maybe you think there's no rain in the hot deserts?

When did I say anything like that? I've said all along that global warming is REDUCING arid lands.

"Recent signals indicate that the Sahara and surrounding regions are greening due to increased rainfall. Satellites show extensive regreening of the Sahel between 1982 and 2002, and in both Eastern and Western Sahara a more than 20 year long trend of increased grazing areas and flourishing trees and shrubs has been observed by climate scientist Stefan Kropelin"

Credit: http://en.wikiped...i/Sahara

continued...

Uhm, err, let's see... You really stumped me there. Wait! Could it be -- escaping heat reflected back by greenhouse gases, absorbed by land surface, and transferred to above-ground air by conduction/convection?

Or, it could get warmer because a very moist tropical airmass moved over the region, cooled, and dumped a ****load of rain on the region.

See? Your speculation is meaningless. The facts of the case are that when the ocean warms, more cool air and more snow falls in the temperate zones (as suggested both by this article and by the overwhelming evidence I've presented).

In all likelihood, about as pervasive as the sparse patches of "greening" on this map:

So now you're admitting you can't provide your own research? Did you even notice how old that map is? Things have improved substantially since then! (Read the above referenced Wikipedia quote again)

continued...

Perhaps you think a prediction made 1 second ago is "outdated"?

It can be, but how's that relevant? Your reference data was more than three years old and was based on the then common, but now known to be false, assumption that global rainfall would diminish with global warming. as I've clearly shown, we now know the water cycle INCREASES with global/ocean warming.

Some more food for thought (aimed at those who are capable of exhibiting thought, that is):

Did you even read that article? It credits much of the deglaciation with "NATURAL CLIMATE VARIATIONS." And though these climatologists are still clinging to the CO2 as being a factor, even they admit the shrinkage in the 1940's was more severe than today's. And, conclusions cannot be drawn as to all the causes of the shrinkage since 1980 (but much of it appears to be largely natural too).

More from Stefan Kropelin:

In 2008 Kropelin-not involved in the new satellite research-visited Western Sahara, a disputed territory controlled by Morocco.

"The nomads there told me there was never as much rainfall as in the past few years," Kropelin said. "They have never seen so much grazing land."

"Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass," he said.

"Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back," he said.

"The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable."

Credit: http://news.natio...a_2.html

Any more doubts or questions about the greening of the Sahel?

SH, ignoring the evidence doesn't change the facts of the evidence.

So as the facts of that which you disagree with are now demonstrably irrelevant to you, it becomes obvious that your interest in my personal information is nothing more than an inquisition - ostensibly for the purpose of carrying out a character assassination.

Therefore, it appears your less the scientist, and more the demagogue ...of the type you pretend to hate.

What evidence? You've posted webcam pictures to prove an anecdotal statement you made on weather.

I've said all along that global warming is REDUCING arid lands.

And there you're WRONG. Global warming will increase precipitation in /some/ areas. But it will boost evaporation in ALL areas. That means some areas will get greener, while others will get more desert-like. Here, learn something:

http://drought.un...ange.htm

it could get warmer because a very moist tropical airmass moved over the region...
...
when the ocean warms, more cool air and more snow falls in the temperate zones

Congratulations, you've managed to contradict yourself within 2 adjacent paragraphs of the same post. You're rapidly approaching the cognitive sophistication of marjon.

the then common, but now known to be false, assumption that global rainfall would diminish with global warming

That was NEVER the assumption. The models show that with global warming, some areas get more rain, while others get less rain. Also, overall the global ice volume drops.

What evidence? You've posted webcam pictures to prove an anecdotal statement you made on weather.

That you would say this in spite of the evidence I've presented, and in so doing trample upon the words of a "boots on the ground" climate researcher like Stefan Kropelin, proves once and for all that you're nothing more than a hypocrite and a demagogue. That's to say, you've lost all legitimacy.

I'll bookmark this incident and refer back to it from time to time, as it suits me.

And there you're WRONG. Global warming will increase precipitation in /some/ areas. But it will boost evaporation in ALL areas. That means some areas will get greener, while others will get more desert-like. Here, learn something:

That's just another outdated doom and gloom prediction (this time, from 2006). It's simply not happening that way. If it were, you could easily find lots of fresher references about it.

Congratulations, you've managed to contradict yourself within 2 adjacent paragraphs of the same post. You're rapidly approaching the cognitive sophistication of marjon.

That's not a contradiction. The first was to demonstate how stupid your assertion was, and the other is a description of the current conditions.

Do you even know how to retain the context of a conversation?

continued...

(2 of 2)

That was NEVER the assumption. The models show that with global warming, some areas get more rain, while others get less rain. Also, overall the global ice volume drops.

We've already established that global warming INCREASES the water cycle. You can't increase the water cycle without increasing the overall precipitation within the system. Therefore, more places will get precipitation and those that already get precipitation will get more of it. Much of it falls as snow. This is borne out by the evidence. Didn't you even read the article we're commenting in? Didn't you even read Stefan Kropelin's statements in the references I provided?

It's snowing more in the temperate zones, and in the Sahara they're grazing animals in places that haven't supported even a blade of grass in thousands of years!

The world is generally getting wetter, not dryer - in spite of your assertions to the contrary.

Do you even know how to retain the context of a conversation?

You're the one claiming that cold air masses bring more snow, then in the same breath claiming that warm air masses bring more precipitation.

You can't increase the water cycle without increasing the overall precipitation within the system.

The part you're missing is that the increase of precipitation is not uniform EVERYWHERE. In fact, some places will see a decrease in precipitation. Just because you have more precipitation ON AVERAGE, doesn't mean this exact value will be produced uniformly everywhere around the globe.

Also, increased precipitation does NOT necessarily mean you'll have more water retained on the ground. The countervailing factor is more evapotranspiration, brought on by rising temperatures and CO2 fertilization.

Oh, and any extra winter snow melts off even more in the warmer seasons, resulting in overall loss of glacier volume across the globe.

You're the one claiming that cold air masses bring more snow, then in the same breath claiming that warm air masses bring more precipitation.

Are you an idiot? I've stated all along that precipitation is a function of relative humidity, not temperature. But, maybe you think it never snows when it's cold and never rains when it's warm?? Incredulous!

The part you're missing is that the increase of precipitation is not uniform EVERYWHERE. In fact, some places will see a decrease in precipitation. Just because you have more precipitation ON AVERAGE, doesn't mean this exact value will be produced uniformly everywhere around the globe.

I don't disagree with this, so long as it's stressed that the overall precipitation average is higher. However, recent precipitation patterns indicate a relatively uniform increase in precipitation, and variability is within the norm.

continued...

Also, increased precipitation does NOT necessarily mean you'll have more water retained on the ground. The countervailing factor is more evapotranspiration, brought on by rising temperatures and CO2 fertilization.

Again, temperature has much less to do with evaporation than you suggest. Also, water is generally retained longer in the soils when it rains more frequently, and for extended periods (it's hard to empty a cup under water!)

Oh, and any extra winter snow melts off even more in the warmer seasons, resulting in overall loss of glacier volume across the globe.

Not necessarily. This isn't happening in California (can you not see all the snow in the Sierra Tahoe webcams?).

http://www.sierra...-cam.asp

(note: Must be viewed during U.S. Pacific Time daylight hours)

What the heck are some of you people talking about?

This is a science and technology site, not politics.

@ubavontuba,

I've stated all along that precipitation is a function of relative humidity

But your main argument is that global warming must bring an increase in average precipitation. So now explain how global warming can increase RELATIVE humidity.

so long as it's stressed that the overall precipitation average is higher

So long as it's stressed that the average is computed GLOBALLY. Most precipitation falls on oceans. And many landmasses will see a LOWER average.

recent precipitation patterns indicate a relatively uniform increase in precipitation

No they don't.

temperature has much less to do with evaporation than you suggest

Are you high?

when it rains more frequently, and for extended periods

Again, that is not a universally applicable condition across the globe. In fact it fails for most of the tropical and sub-tropical landmasses.

This isn't happening in California

BS:

http://www.geo.uz...m08.html

It's happening everywhere.

This article explains just how glaciers can grow as a result of global warming:

"Some glaciers ...appear to be growing, and a new study suggests that global warming is the cause."

http://news.natio...ers.html

And here's something more specific about the Sierra Nevadas:

http://web.pdx.ed...lac.html

You can always find a few exceptions, like this:

http://www.usatod...rs_N.htm

But they are merely exceptions that prove the rule.

"Some glaciers ...appear to be growing, and a new study suggests that global warming is the cause."

Nice show of selective attention. Though you slipped: "some" doesn't mean "all". It doesn't even mean "most". Here's a couple of convenient quotes from the same link:

All together, the area's regional variations are at odds with most glaciated regions worldwide, including the Eastern Himalaya, where glaciers have been shrinking significantly.

"My guess is that the glaciers in [Haley and Fowler's] area of study might find short-term benefit where increased winter snowfall outweighs summer melt," Thompson said.

"[But] it's likely these glaciers will follow the same pattern of those in Sweden and Norway, which were growing until 1999 due to increasing winter snowfall even as temperatures rose.

"However, since 1999 these same glaciers are now retreating.

"The balance of glaciers globally shows retreat and even acceleration in the rate of retreat," Thompson stressed.

But your main argument is that global warming must bring an increase in average precipitation. So now explain how global warming can increase RELATIVE humidity.

I've already provided a link to a paper that does this, but here it is again:

http://www.atmos....2008.pdf

So long as it's stressed that the average is computed GLOBALLY. Most precipitation falls on oceans. And many landmasses will see a LOWER average.

Reference?

As I've already shown above, recent events indicate this is not generally the case.

No they don't.

Reference? They do. Drought certainly is not as pervasive as you insist! Looky here:

http://www.ncdc.n...l#recent

Are you high?

Are you? Try doing a little basic research why don't you? Water can't evaporate into an already saturated medium.

continued...

Again, that is not a universally applicable condition across the globe. In fact it fails for most of the tropical and sub-tropical landmasses.

Reference?

BS:

And another outdated reference. What a surprise (not!).

Reference?

I've given you plenty already, but you have a chronic habit of declaring them "outdated" and thenceforth ignoring them.

Water can't evaporate into an already saturated medium.

Why should the medium become any more saturated than it is normally? Here's something from the paper you just linked:

http://www.atmos....2008.pdf

Because water vapor has a residence
time in the atmosphere of about 10 days,
precipitation and evaporation amounts are
almost equal on monthly and longer timescales.
Hence, global precipitation changes
must agree with contemporaneous global
evaporation changes.

Try doing a little basic research why don't you? Water can't evaporate into an already saturated medium.

Ever heard of "Supersaturation"?

And here's something more specific about the Sierra Nevadas:

More old data! What's wrong with you? Got any 2010 images? What's it look like now?

You can always find a few exceptions, like this:

But they are merely exceptions that prove the rule.

Seven glaciers growing, to your two (old data) glaciers shrinking. I win!

I've given you plenty already, but you have a chronic habit of declaring them "outdated" and thenceforth ignoring them.

Actually, you've provided few (in relation to your claims) and I say they're outdated becasue they ARE outdated. On the other hand, my webcams are live! You can't get any fresher than that!

Why should the medium become any more saturated than it is normally? Here's something from the paper you just linked:

Because water vapor has a residence
time in the atmosphere of about 10 days,
precipitation and evaporation amounts are
almost equal on monthly and longer timescales.
Hence, global precipitation changes
must agree with contemporaneous global
evaporation changes.

So? That's just saying that as the water cycle intensifies, it all must intensify. In other words, you can't get more rain wiithout more evaporation to support it.

I win!

Ok, you win. I am finally and utterly tired of trying to talk sense into you. For all I care, you can cling to your idiocy for the rest of your life.

Ok, you win. I am finally and utterly tired of trying to talk sense into you. For all I care, you can cling to your idiocy for the rest of your life.

Why do you have to play the pouty face? Why don't you just admit the science I brought to the table was more current, more accurate, and more complete than yours?

Ever heard of "Supersaturation"?

Sure, but thanks to atmospheric condensation nuclei, it generally has little to do with the weather.

Interestingly, without condensation nuclei, supersaturation would generally be required for rain droplets to form though.

See: http://en.wikiped...n_nuclei

Ok, you win. I am finally and utterly tired of trying to talk sense into you. For all I care, you can cling to your idiocy for the rest of your life.

Why do you have to play the pouty face? Why don't you just admit the science I brought to the table was more current, more accurate, and more complete than yours?

Because it's wrong to lie to people.

Because it's wrong to lie to people.

Then why do you do it?

Because it's wrong to lie to people.

Then why do you do it?

Your inability to understand what other people are saying shows jsut how incapable of rationally discussing this topic you really are.

More heat will intensify the water cycle, none of us dispute this. What it will do is decrease the persistency of snow, which you have provided NO statistically significant evidence against. This will lead to periodic droughts.

As periodic droughts occur more frequently the plantlife will start to decline. This will remove some of the last barriers to the land erosion and result in an ever worsening cycle of droughts.

This is why we're calling you an idiot, and this is why you're considered a denialist. The facts are self evident and well evidenced by current statistically significant stats from country to country around the entire world.

And you've confirmed what a big boy you are in the little PM flamefest you've started.

Your inability to understand what other people are saying shows jsut how incapable of rationally discussing this topic you really are.

You're the one that's refused to acknowledge my references. That makes you the irrational one.

More heat will intensify the water cycle, none of us dispute this. What it will do is decrease the persistency of snow, which you have provided NO statistically significant evidence against. This will lead to periodic droughts.

As periodic droughts occur more frequently the plantlife will start to decline. This will remove some of the last barriers to the land erosion and result in an ever worsening cycle of droughts.

References? You do realize that you'd also be trying to prove the story we're commenting in (which agrees with me) is wrong too, right?

Besides, your whole assertion is an oxymoron. How can you both intensify the water cycle AND create severe and persistnet drought in the same place, at the same time?

continused...

This is why we're calling you an idiot, and this is why you're considered a denialist. The facts are self evident and well evidenced by current statistically significant stats from country to country around the entire world.

References?

I've clearly provided appropriate references (including current, worldwide NOAA Weather and Climate reports), where are your references?

And you've confirmed what a big boy you are in the little PM flamefest you've started.

Uh, you started the PM flamefest. And, you're intensifying it (three recent messages, really?).

You started it by blatantly lying on 6/10/10 by asserting that I haven't provided any evidence. I don't understand why you haven't (or can't?) access my references, but that's a failure on your part, not mine.

Besides, your whole assertion is an oxymoron. How can you both intensify the water cycle AND create severe and persistnet drought in the same place, at the same time?

Why don't you ask Bangladesh?

You started it by blatantly lying on 6/10/10 by asserting that I haven't provided any evidence. I don't understand why you haven't (or can't?) access my references, but that's a failure on your part, not mine.

You provided some webacms to show that there was snow near a monitoring station, on examination, completely snow free. Then you linked a cached picture from December and asserted it was taken in June. Then you linked a couple papers, one of which was from Berkeley that support my stance. What the hell is wrong with you? How does one become so delusional?

Why don't you ask Bangladesh?

What about Bangladesh? It's rainy season is a short monsoon. The rest of the year it is generally dry. It's not unusual for the monsoon to be abbreviated (or fail) and the region has normally been subjected to periodic drought - throughout its history.

You started it by blatantly lying on 6/10/10 by asserting that I haven't provided any evidence. I don't understand why you haven't (or can't?) access my references, but that's a failure on your part, not mine.

You provided some webacms to show that there was snow near a monitoring station, on examination, completely snow free. Then you linked a cached picture from December and asserted it was taken in June. Then you linked a couple papers, one of which was from Berkeley that support my stance. What the hell is wrong with you? How does one become so delusional?

And here you are blatantly and irrationally lying about my references again. Why do you do that? It makes you look stupid.