Needed: a November 1 blog blizzard that more snow doesn't mean less warming
Things Break beat me to the punch on this issue with a much better post that included some actual science-type material.
It's pretty simple. Lots of snow doesn't tell you anything about temperature trends.* If you see lots of recently fallen snow, you could probably derive that temperatures somewhere in the nearby atmosphere had recently been below freezing, but not whether overall temperature trends are neutral, declining, or warming. As TB points out, the right conditions of warming could actually lead to more snow, and we might get a lot this year.
Record cold, or average temperatures that are significantly below long term averages, are much more relevant. Of course a single season doesn't tell you a whole lot either, but at least it's a relevant-if-minor data point.
We had plenty of idiocy two years ago when we had lots of snow, but this time we can anticipate it. November 1 might be a good time for blogs based on the real world to rally around and remind people in advance that snow tells you nothing about warming.
*UPDATE: okay, it's a little more subtle than telling you absolutely nothing about temps - as usual, see the comments for edification. Let's say that lots of snow doesn't tell you anything about temperature trends that can be coherently discussed in a 30 second Fox News soundbite or a dismissive tweet. Increased temps could mean more snow or less snow, depending on circumstances, so if you're trying to understand temperature trends and don't have lots of time to put into it, the better focus would be to look at temperature trends.
Posts
59 comments:
Actually it tells you it is not super cold, so the atmosphere can support high enough humidity to dump.
Global warming leads to more extreme precipitation events. In the winter that means a bigger snow fall over a wider area.
Joe Romm tackled this a couple of years ago.
Funny how relatively-non-controversial 'increased precipitation' becomes evidence of an impending ice-age if it falls in the form of snow...
I tend to agree that synoptic scale variability obscures global warming.
Eunice
Skiers know about this.
Anticipate in the sense of prediction is over-bold, Brian.
This might be a Symphony tasty for a bunny.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUR9sFzaG9Ia_kXJhfxtFMBA&v=HHP9Rh-ooh0&feature=player_embedded#!
We nordic skiers are hoping for increased snow to compensate for the warmer temps and shorter winters, but what happens up here in Ottawa is that we end up getting more freeze-thaw cycles. We just aren't getting as many of what we call "extra-blue" days of fresh, cold, dry snow with hard tracks, which is nirvana.
"We just aren't getting as many of what we call "extra-blue" days of fresh"
You mean it's turned into a regular klister-f**k? :)
Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
"It's pretty simple. Lots of snow doesn't tell you anything about temperature trends."
ho ho, I agree. And a hurricane, a drought or a flood also tells us nothing about temperature trends.
Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
@Chris Pella
I was at Whistler last year and we were dumped on when I was there, so I have to throw the joker card on your claim. I was there in early January, for the record.
@Lumpy,
Your knowledge of Canadian geography is underwhelming.
How long before some innocent turns Desert Warriors / Innocence of Islam into a You Tube voiceover starring Joe Bast as Mohammad ?
So many beards to choose from !
Steve - that's reasonable. I should say anticipate in the sense that we can anticipate idiocy will result if there's lots of snow.
Eli says: “It's pretty simple. Lots of snow doesn't tell you anything about temperature trends.”
Exactly, neither does lack of snow, lack of rain, lots of rain, more tornadoes, more hurricanes, or lack thereof.
“We had plenty of idiocy when we had lots of snow (rain, drought, wild fires, earthquakes, volcanoes, tropical storms, yada, yada, yada), but this time we can anticipate it.”
Yes we did! Thanks Eli. Keep up the good work!
FYI you're an idiot, Louis.
Louis should work for Munich Re. There's nothing to worry about because it's simply impossible to know anything about anything in the first place!
The point, as you well know, is that when the increasingly frequent outsize rainfall events - scarcely controversial because, after all, none of you guys actually deny that it's warming, apparently, and that warmer atmosphere must hold more water - occur at certain latitudes at certain times of year they become snowfall, which the simple-minded can then interpret as the evidence of an impending Ice Age.
See, knowing things isn't hard, you just have to want to be able to do it.
"Skiers know about this." --John Mashey
Yes, they do, especially regular skiers at Whistler. These skiers also know Whistler ain't Ottawa.
Oh the sheer desperation of climate change deniers who are predicting an ice age even as the Arctic Ice is disappearing. It must be a new kind of Ice Age previously unknown to science: one that doesn't involve lots of ice.
Regards, Millicent
A flood tells you nothing about climate change. An increasing number is a reasonable indication that Mother Nature is pissed.
An increasing number is a reasonable indication that Mother Nature is pissed.
Minor correction needed, maybe:
An increasing number is a reasonable indication that Mother Nature is pissing on you.
This, of course, raises a couple of points about Nature's gender. We know Nature's not male for two reasons:
1. Cos a woman scorned... :-J
2. That Father Nature would by now likely have BPH and its attendant problems.
Meanwhile, oop north, we can gather some evidence as to Mother Nature's hair colour: obviously a stereotypical red head! :-J
Cymraeg llygoden
Drat! I missed out a "more".
Cymraeg llygoden
Eli wrote about the U Bremen maps a little while ago. Just take a look at it now.
Ya know, those Mayans might have been on to something after all...
Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.
Eli, Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, Ph.D., and myself, collectively point out that a heavy snowfall no more indicates a change in temperature trends than does a hurricane, a drought, a flood, a volcanic eruption, an earthquake, a tornado, a tropical storm, etc.
A warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture and lead to more precipitation (in the form of both rain and snow). But since the atmosphere has been warming for 13,000 years (give or take 1,000 years), the question comes down to attribution. How much of the current warming is natural and how much is due to human activity?
If anyone can refer me to studies based on reproducible, empirical data, I’d appreciate it. No models, please.
Louis Hooffstetter: "No models, please."
See, Louis, this is what makes you an idiot. You cannot do science without models. Models tell you what data to look at. They allow you to interpret the data. They even tell you when the model you are using is wrong.
Are you, perchance, one of those who dismisses evolution as "just a theory"?
Ottawa and Whistler are only about 2000 miles apart, with Whistler in a coastal rain forest, where temperature never approaches -40C, as it used to regularly in Ottawa.
Are all Lumpii this astoundingly stupid?
Try give or take 6000 years, Louis.
The atmosphere has not been generally warming for the last 13,000 years, it's actually been generally cooling for the last 6000 or so since the Holocene Climate Optimum as the Milankovitch orbital forcing declined. Or at least it was until we learned how to inject fossil carbon into the atmosphere on an industrial scale in our unintended effort to replicate the Pliocene, or even the Miocene.
You might want to get your facts correct before you post, Louis, so you don't make yourself look like such a fool.
Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
@Louis
Louis for some reason A ray automatically associates anybody who does not believe in the magical 300% positive feedback as a denier of evolution theory. I simply pointed out that a leading evolutionist said the theory is incomplete.
Next, I pointed out this is not a good point for Mr. Ray to make, because there are global warming skeptics who say alarmists deny evolution theory. Oh well.
To answer my own question, yes, they are this astoundingly stupid, as in often citing the temperature at Vostok to refute the warming along the Antarctic Peninsula, with Vostok around 2000 miles distant and over 11,000 feet higher atop the East Antarctic ice cap.
Yes, Lumpii are indeed this astoundingly stupid.
So, Dr. Lumpus Spunkydrawers, how do you propose to explain the fact that Earth is 33 degrees warmer than its blackbody temperature without invoking a greenhouse effect with substantial positive feedback?
Jim Eager,
If Louis did not make himself look like a fool, he would be guilty of false advertising.
Louis Hooffstetter said:
"But since the atmosphere has been warming for 13,000 years..."
No it hasn't. The warming that initiated the current interglacial (caused by changing orbital forcings) ended about 5,000 years ago. There's been a very slight long term cooling trend since then. The recent warming has occurred despite the orbital forcings trending toward cooling.
Robert Murphy
Some people think snow matters...
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/australian-ski-resorts-melting-away/4245142
Right Bernard?
So, it's warmer, which leads to moisture and more snow...except when it doesn't. And when it doesn't snow that's because of the warming as well? Damn confusing.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...
“You cannot do science without models. Models tell you what data to look at. They even tell you when the model you are using is wrong.”
A model is only as good as your understanding of a system. If you don’t understand a system thoroughly, you can’t properly model it. I’ve repeatedly said that the acid test for any model is to compare it to reality. When you say: “They tell you when the model you are using is wrong” you’re on the right track. The truth is that if/when a model doesn’t accurately replicate reality, there’s something wrong with it. And no, I firmly believe in evolution.
Jim Eager, Robert Murphy
Please cite references that support your claims. It’s my understanding that the last Ice Age started its decline approximately 15,000 years ago and has continued relatively unabated ever since. This is supported by multiple studies of sea level rise over the past two millennia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
I’m at a loss to understand how ice sheets over a mile thick retreated from the upper half of North America, Europe and Eurasia without the atmosphere getting warmer. Please explain how this works.
Louis wrote: "It’s my understanding that the last Ice Age started its decline approximately 15,000 years ago and has continued relatively unabated ever since."
See, there's your problem right there, Louis, your understanding, or rather your misunderstanding, and your knowledge of Earth's paleotemperature record and the forcings acting to produce that record is incorrect.
And so you move the goal post to sea level rise instead of sticking with the known decline in Milankovitch insolation forcing over the last 12000-10000 years:
http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Forcing/milankovitchcycles_files/BIGw02-milankovitch-and-temperature.gif.gif
...and the multiple temperature recreations from multiple proxies showing the resulting temperature decline:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records/Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev.png
Honestly, you're just making yourself look more and more foolish.
"It’s my understanding that the last Ice Age started its decline approximately 15,000 years ago and has continued relatively unabated ever since. This is supported by multiple studies of sea level rise over the past two millennia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png"
The image you linked to above completely disproves your point. It shows most of the sea level rise happening before about 8 thousand years ago, with a flat-line for the last few thousand years. Did you even look at what you posted?
Here's a reconstruction of temps during the Holocene:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
It supports what I said. Roughly 5 thousand years ago or so temps started to decline slowly.
Robert Murphy
Is there a polar analogy to what we call 'lake effect snow' in the US? (For you furriners, lake effect snow is precipitation that originated with evaporation from the Great Lakes, before they freeze, and drops in considerable quantities down wind from the lakes.)
Louis: "A model is only as good as your understanding of a system. If you don’t understand a system thoroughly, you can’t properly model it."
Wrong. Your model reflects the state of your understanding. It tells you how to increase that understanding. It tells you when it is wrong, and often how.
Science is theoretically guided empiricism--that is what sets it apart from the empirical studies prior to, say, ~1600.
--Or as xkcd says, "Science, it works bitches."
Jim Eager & Robert Murphy
Thanks for the references. The graph of Vostok temperature data vs. Milankovitch cycles is interesting. I believe Milankovitch cycles likely have a significant influence on the Earth’s temperature, and I had not seen this graph before. However, the graph of Holocene temperature variations that you both referred me to, is a bust. These are “model runs” of projected Holocene temperature variations, not temperature reconstructions from proxy data. And because they’re not reproducible using empirical data, they’re worthless.
Robert said:
“The image you linked to above completely disproves your point. It shows most of the sea level rise happening before about 8 thousand years ago, with a flat-line for the last few thousand years.
Yes, it does show most of the sea level rise happening before 8 thousand years ago; but that doesn’t disprove my point at all. The numerous studies the graph is based on show gradual melting of the continental ice sheets starting at about 2,000 years ago, with rapid melting between 15,000 and 8,000 years ago as the ice sheets collapsed. Melting slowed dramatically at 8,000 years ago, (most of the ice was gone?) but slowly and steadily continued from 8,000 years ago until now. The sea level rise we see today follows the same trend of the last 8,000 years, which leads us back to the question of attribution. How much of the current warming is natural and how much is due to human activity, and how do we know?
"Yes, it does show most of the sea level rise happening before 8 thousand years ago; but that doesn’t disprove my point at all."
It completely disproves it. You claimed that it supported a steady warming from the beginning of the interglacial. It supports the opposite.
"The numerous studies the graph is based on show gradual melting of the continental ice sheets starting at about 2,000 years ago,..."
I hope you meant 20,000 years ago.
"with rapid melting between 15,000 and 8,000 years ago as the ice sheets collapsed. Melting slowed dramatically at 8,000 years ago, (most of the ice was gone?) but slowly and steadily continued from 8,000 years ago until now."
No, it doesn't show that. The rise was not slow and steady during that time - it was decelerating and essentially stopped about 2,000 years ago. There was (and still is) plenty of ice to raise sea levels more. It just stopped warming.
"The sea level rise we see today follows the same trend of the last 8,000 years..."
Absolutely false.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Holocene_Sea_Level.png
Try again.
Robert Murphy
"These are “model runs” of projected Holocene temperature variations, not temperature reconstructions from proxy data. And because they’re not reproducible using empirical data, they’re worthless."
No, they were reconstructions based on proxy data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
"To construct this plot, eight data sources (listed below) were selected on the basis of good temporal resolution (preferably ~100 years or less per data point) and coverage of the last 12 kyr. Six of the eight specifically reported temperature and were used as is. The other two reported unscaled temperature proxies and were scaled as described in Notes below. Each curve was smoothed by a Gaussian weighted filter to produce a history of the Holocene temperature variations at that site with approximately 300 year resolution (one exception, see notes). These smooth curves were adjusted to have the same mean over the interval 100-6000 years BP. The average of these curves was then constructed, and the alignment relative to modern day determined by comparing the average over the interval 250-1900 AD relative to the three short-term proxies shown in inset (for details on those plots, see: Image:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png). Note that the short-term proxies are not at all used in constructing the average itself."
Then it lists the data sources in detail.
Robert Murphy
Anonytroll: So, it's warmer, which leads to moisture and more snow...except when it doesn't. And when it doesn't snow that's because of the warming as well? Damn confusing.
It's called an intensified hydrological cycle. This also would not be hard to understand, were there any chance that you were acting in good faith. However, perhaps you really are merely an idiot, in addition to playing one on the internet.
Louis is one of those people who doubtlessly think Lord Monckton's slippery and sententious vapourings prove him a whizz. Pointless to argue with such types, I'd say.
...at 14/9/12 1:31 PM:
"Some people think snow matters...
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/australian-ski-resorts-melting-away/4245142
Right Bernard?
So, it's warmer, which leads to moisture and more snow...except when it doesn't. And when it doesn't snow that's because of the warming as well? Damn confusing."
The reason that anonymous is "[d]amn[ed] confus[ed]" is that s/he is comparing a location that is already close to the temperature limit of any sort of self-respecting snowfall, with locations that are not. Therefore different mechanisms are involved with how and how much snow falls in the future in the "Snowy" Mountains compared with how much snow falls in the future in, say, Canadian locations.
Apples and oranges, confused anonymous, apples and oranges.
What is happening to the Snowy Mountains is simply a prelude to what will happen to more poleward (and higher) locations as the planet continues to warm.
It must be frustrating to be such a confused and ignorant anonymous, prone as you are to kindergarten-level false equivalences. I do thank you though for repeating that link - I'm sure that the Australian chapter of the Denialati will be most interested in it, and will be working furiously to come up with the "I Can't Believe It's Not Global Warming" Physics™ that explains away the disappearance of the snow.
Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.
(Oh, and anonymous, as you obviously know of me it would be nice to know which uneducated numpty you are. Just so that we can have a polite conversation with distinguishment of online identities...)
Louis, as Robert pointed out, you've just demonstrated that you didn't even bother to find out what the Holocene Temperature Variations graph shows, what data sets were plotted, or how they were derived. In short, you were anything but sceptical.
Hint for you, Louis: when you find yourself in a hole the first step to getting out is to stop digging. In your case it is the pit of self-deception and foolishness. We've not yet seen enough to know how deep your particular hole is (ok, I've not yet seen enough, as I don't waste my time visiting WUWT), but for some fake skeptics and science deniers that hole is obviously for all intents and purposes bottomless.
So, Louis, how deep are you willing to dig?
Robert Murphy, I stand corrected. From the text that accompanied the graph at this website:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records. I mistakenly concluded these were model runs. Just below the Title “Holocene Temperature Variations” it says “Holocene Temperature model runs http://www.globalwarmingart.com”. I tried to follow the link(s) but was unable to find the studies the graph was based on. Thank you for directing me to the proxy data used to generate the graph.
Yes, I did mean 20,000 years ago.
We’re splitting semantic hairs about this chart: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png. I said “Melting slowed dramatically at 8,000 years ago”, (the chart shows the rate of sea level rise slowed dramatically at 8,000 years ago) and you said “it was decelerating”; six of one, half dozen of the other. And yes, there is still plenty of ice to raise sea levels, but relative to the amount present 15,000 years ago the vast majority of the continental ice in the northern hemisphere was gone by 8,000 years ago. Also, when I said “It’s my understanding that the last Ice Age started its decline approximately 15,000 years ago and has continued relatively unabated ever since” I didn’t mean to imply the rate was constant and steady. I simply meant that the melting that began approximately 15,000 years ago still continues to this day.
Based on the graph you cited: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Holocene_Sea_Level.png we both agree the rate of sea level rise began to sharply decelerate 7 to 8,000 years ago and approach zero approximately 2,000 years ago. The resolution of the data shown on the graph doesn’t allow us to determine whether the rate of rise stopped completely, temporarily reversed, or slowed down to the current rate. As the rate of rise approaches zero it becomes increasingly difficult to separate the sea level signal from the noise and determine exactly what it’s doing. A fairly recent study of marsh sediments from coastal N.C. claims to be able to discern what has happened with sea level over the past 200 years:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/13/1015619108.full.pdf
However, to be honest, I no longer believe that Mann, and/or Rahmstorf are capable of objectively evaluating temperature or sea level data. But that’s a discussion for another day. Thanks for the discussion (sans the insults).
Louis: "Robert Murphy, I stand corrected."
Louis, with this mea culpa you just went up a notch, in my opinion. I seldom, if ever see such willingness to admit error from so-called sceptics.
As for the dead links, unfortunately, the globalwarmingart site is no longer extant.
bill and Bernard,
So many qualifiers? I am sure the average person on the street is up to speed on "intensified hydrological cycles", and geographical nuances of mountain ranges. Actually, no, they aren't. Which is the point. To the average person, hearing "global warming means snow" and then "global warming means no snow" the qualifiers are not meaningful. It's countintuitive for any layman. They think, "which is it?" And if the answer is "both", you get a spike in their BS detector. Sorry if you can't see it. This thought process--that there is one answer which explains anything and everything--only serves to reinforce the belief among many that AGW is nonsense, even if it isn't.
Brian finished his post with the statement "snow tells you nothing about warming". Except, I guess, when it is convenient for it to do so.
Bernard,
Uneducated numpty? Name calling? Really? And why would I want to engage with someone so ideologically blinded as yourself when you resort to such things? Sadly, though you can't or won't admit it, you are as nutter as the right wing batshit crazies you, and bill, so despise. Opposite ends of the same spectrum. One rejects science, the other reality. And by reality I mean the real world as it exists, not the fantasy world of your dreams.
Oh anonymous one, if people are sufficiently not 'up to speed' that they automatically associate more precipitation in the form of snow with cooling, and a bunch of strident right-wing crazies screams at them throughout any such snowfall that "It's true, it's true! This is the coming Ice age..." I 'reject reality', and am as crazy as said crazies, if I point out that this is, in fact, crap?
Colour me unimpressed.
Tone-trolling is both patronising and unconvincing, particularly from someone using 'anonymous' and statements sufficiently enigmatic that it's hard to hold them to account for their actual position. Perhaps this is a strategy?
Extra heated atmosphere holds more water - uncontroversial. Right? Therefore an 'intensified hydrological cycle' - more heat, more droughts, and more snow if the conditions are right - uncontroversial. Right? Except that it is, specifically because of said RW crazies. Which was the point of the OP, was it not?
And the horse you rode in on - well, we can only assume it's you - was [s]o, it's warmer, which leads to moisture and more snow...except when it doesn't. And when it doesn't snow that's because of the warming as well? Damn confusing.
Which merely restates the point, but you still apparently think you've made some kind of counter-point? (Well, that's certainly consistent with '[e]xcept, I guess, when it is convenient for it to do so.' In which case we're back to all the arguments directed at Louis above.)
If so, I don't agree. The 'commonsense' of 'laymen' is wrong. Not for first time. Nor the last. That's the reality.
And this is a post about what can be done about that. And the RW crazies exploitation of it.
Uneducated numpty.
May I call you that? You see, I don't have any other name with which to refer to you...
I know that counting is difficult for you, which is why you can't keep up with more than one "qualifier". So let's go back to first principles, and in so doing allow me to point to your fingers for you.
Pinkie-on-your-left-hand) When it warms, it grows warmer.
Ringman-on-your-left-hand) When it grows warmer, ice can melt if that warthm leads to temperatures over zero degrees celcius.
Tallman-on-your-left-hand) When it warms, more water can be held as a gas in the atmosphere (= ↑ humidity).
Pointer-on-your-left-hand) When it warms in some parts of the planet such that some areas rise above zero degrees celcius and others rise but not above zero degrees celcius, the areas where the temperature rose above zero degrees celcius will experience loss of ice.
[Soggy, wet] Thumbkin-on-your-left-hand) When it warms in some parts of the planet such that some areas rise above zero degrees celcius and others rise but not above zero degrees celcius, the areas where the temperature did rise above zero degrees celcius will experience a gain of ice from precipitating humidity that originated from the increased evaporation of water in the warmer-than zero degrees celcius regions.
Now it becomes confusing, because we have to use your other hand...
Pinkie-on-your-right-hand) When it warms even more around the planet such that ever more areas rise above zero degrees celcius, the newer areas where the temperature rose above zero degrees celcius will experience loss of ice, even if they previously experienced enhanced snow fall.
Now, I know that I have over-taxed* your counting capabilities, but this is the scientific reality. It is why I am right and not fantasising, and why you are wrong. Of course, if I am wrong you'll be able to list the physical processes that refute my description above.
To help you I've left you with your right Ringman and Tallman (pull them out of you nostrils please), your right Pointer (get it out of your ear), and your right Thumbkin (watch it, or it will grow wrinkly too).
Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.
[*Vote Romney...]
It's R Money, after all...
Anonytroll@14/9/12 1:31 PM
I am sorry that reality is so complicated. Unfortunately, however, we are dealing with a rotating, 75% water-covered planet with complicated topography and a rather complicated and perturbed orbital behavior. That is why we have fricking experts who can actually do the frickin' math and tell us how it is going to behave. If the great unwashed are not sufficiently astute do the math themselves and not sufficiently wise to listen to the smart people, then I fear society is headed for collapse.
That simple enough for you?
Sheesh.
"[Soggy, wet] Thumbkin-on-your-left-hand) When it warms in some parts of the planet such that some areas rise above zero degrees celcius and others rise but not above zero degrees celcius, the areas where the temperature did not rise above zero degrees celcius will experience a gain of ice from precipitating humidity that originated from the increased evaporation of water in the warmer-than zero degrees celcius regions."
Resume programming.
Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.
What is it with the ice? IARC-JAXA has dipped again, now below 3.5m sq km.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Going to pop over to Neven's place. 'Scuse me.
Some anonymous commenter wrote: "To the average person, hearing "global warming means snow" and then "global warming means no snow" the qualifiers are not meaningful. It's [counter intuitive] for any layman. They think, "which is it?" And if the answer is "both", you get a spike in their BS detector."
Although perhaps an accurate description of the comprehension problem for the average layman, you didn't refute the fact that global warming can cause both more and less snow in different places or in the same place at different times, nor did you offer a means to address the identified deficiency in the comprehension of the average layman.
So what, exactly, was your point then?
Way back in the thread: "there are global warming skeptics who say alarmists deny evolution theory."
I'm sure that among the faction of denialists who accept evolution (Kochers, although I expect they tend usually to keep their evolution discussions separate) they will sometimes say the above. I'm not sure how often it actually happens though. Links would be welcome.
The Creation Care movement among some envangelicals might have a few vocal climate realists/evolution denialists, but I'd hardly call that a prominent voice at this point.
Sound bite?
It will be wetter where it is wet and drier where it is dry. Annualized global average precipitation will increase approximately as the square of the temperature increase.
Given all the open water releasing water vapor into the Arctic atmosphere, as thing cool down for the winter, somebody is going to get a lot of snow -- pretty much caused by Arctic sea ice melt, which is the result of AGW.
So yes, AGW can preciptate large snow falls.
Incoming!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/03/record-cold-and-snow-to-hit-central-usa/#comment-1100682
Post a Comment