Thread: Cold and Snow VS Global Warming

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

I thought it was an interesting point of how local variation in global expectations can include seemingly contradictory data without deeper analysis. The 3.2mm across the planet still excludes the arctic where it has measurably gone down (according to those fellows in the article I linked). As they said in the article in a decade or two they'll know more and might be able to figure out what is going on.

Oh, absolutely. The planet is remarkable in how complex it is and how it will often do things that are counterintuitive at first. But, like the article said, it could relate to salinity, or may be some other mechanism that we don't understand yet.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

And potatoes can be purple. Not sure what this has to do with my post, especially since your article says "When this is done, ocean waters are shown to have gone up across the planet by 3.2mm per year for the period 1992 to the present."

Purple potatoes are pretty good, incidentally. I've only had them once.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Its equivalent water thickness. That means more ice in the lighter green regions.

So how is there "more ice" where there isn't more ice? The light green "more ice should be here" indicators 10 deg west and east are in areas where there isn't more ice. That's what I find curious.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Oh, absolutely. The planet is remarkable in how complex it is and how it will often do things that are counterintuitive at first. But, like the article said, it could relate to salinity, or may be some other mechanism that we don't understand yet.

So how much of the increase in global sea levels could have to do with something other then global warming? It should logically of course have something to do with global warming but how much is a direct relationship?

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

So how much of the increase in global sea levels could have to do with something other then global warming? It should logically of course have something to do with global warming but how much is a direct relationship?

A fair question, but to the best of my knowledge, the only real explanation is an increase in free (liquid) water, resulting from the melting of ice from around the globe.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

So how is there "more ice" where there isn't more ice? The light green "more ice should be here" indicators 10 deg west and east are in areas where there isn't more ice. That's what I find curious.

There is no ice there in the summer, but there is certainly ice there in the winter - and the sea ice has been increasing slightly for the last 30 years.

Here is a visual aid. Quite a neat video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHvrjX7AP-8

Andrew

Originally Posted by pramjockey

A fair question, but to the best of my knowledge, the only real explanation is an increase in free (liquid) water, resulting from the melting of ice from around the globe.

Also, as the oceans warm they expand.

Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Also, as the oceans warm they expand.

Andrew

/bangs head on desk

What's sad is I was reading about the impact on salinity on the density of water, and the article stated clearly that temperature has far more of an effect on density than salinity, yet I totally braincramped on the "warmer planet = warmer water" thing.

Oh, well. Thanks for the reminder.

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

So with Global Warming if I have this right

Cold and Snowy Winters

Hot Dry Summers..

More of each is that right?

When was it that one of the Bays on the East coast was Frozen?

And what about what JD said about the Hurricanes? when was the last one above a CAT 2 to hit America?
When?
Should we not have had 3-4 each year over the last 5 years?

Jesus Christ no. Good god almighty man, we'd be a literal wreck by now if above Cat 2 storms were that frequent.

Climate is weather over TIME, and by time is meant multiple decades, not seasons, even several seasons in a row, let alone individual examples. Whatever you may think of GW trying to seriously make this "but it's sure cold today" argument just undermines your position and makes you look silly.

Also, more snow has always meant a warmer winter. The old saw, "it's too cold to snow" is quite true. Antarctica, frex is one of the dryest deserts in the world, with less than 5 inches of precip annually.

Here are examples of the technique for dealing with those who present evidence that contradicts AGW dogma, when one is unable to present a compelling scientific based argument.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

All i have done is interject some facts into the discussion, but once again you are here to spew your nonsense and conspiracy theories that have nothing at all to do with science.

No, you are “interjecting” ideologically based talking points. I would like everyone to notice how Andrew falls back on ad hominine attacks and how he relies on AGW propaganda websites to support his claims.

You are a terrible person.

Yes, a terrible person questions the non-consensus and presents evidence that contradicts your cherished dogma.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Still spreading falsehoods eh? Not an honest bone in your body is there?

In other words, you got nothing and must fall back on insults, hoping that the average person reading your posts will not do their homework and dig a little deeper.

For those interested in an example of one of my multi-linked posts that directly rebuts many of Andrew’s cherished beliefs go here, I will supply just the links in this post:

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? | ScienceBits
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2...g_from_LIA.pdf
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...gmanReport.pdf
Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit
nzclimatescience.net - SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC
An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea (Resignation Letter)
http://www.nipcc.ch/datei/1256830332.pdf

I would point out that Andrew never replied to this post or has ever rebut the evidence and conclusions presented by these links. Andrew replies with insults or AGW dogmatically approved websites or with silence.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Ahh, my bad.

Yes, it is true that antarctic sea ice is increasing. This is odd because the ocean is warming. The theory right now is that

Lets look at something else: CPOM - Research - Sea Ice

http://www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf

Here We Go Again With the Wilkins Ice Shelf|GlobalWarming.org

The fears of the consequence of the myth of AGW are based on an ideological interpretation of partial truths and incomplete data.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

No, you are “interjecting” ideologically based talking points.

Wrong, as usual. I presented the facts, you presented the false denialist talking points about hockey sticks and the personal emails of scientists that you take way out of context.

You are the most dishonest person i have ever had the displeasure of engaging on this topic.

Yes, a terrible person questions the non-consensus and presents evidence that contradicts your cherished dogma.

No. A terrible person deliberately ignores scientific data and consensus in favor of bullshit propaganda provided by industry funded lobby groups. That is precisely what you do and what makes you a very unethical person.

In other words, you got nothing and must fall back on insults, hoping that the average person reading your posts will not do their homework and dig a little deeper.

Wrong again, i provided the facts as i always do.

For those interested in an example of one of my multi-linked posts that directly rebuts many of Andrew’s cherished beliefs go here, I will supply just the links in this post:

I would point out that Andrew never replied to this post or has ever rebut the evidence and conclusions presented by these links. Andrew replies with insults or AGW dogmatically approved websites or with silence.

tashi deleks,

M

Right. You claimed you were going to engage on the science but you provided the same old non-peer reviewed outdated bunk that has been repeatedly discredited over and over and over again.

Why would i waste my time discussing this with someone who is so clearly dishonest and refuses to acknowledge the science as it stands today in favor of non-science and conspiracy theories?

Please, show me the peer reviewed science that invalidates the theory of AGW? Waiting...

Andrew

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

Purple potatoes are pretty good, incidentally. I've only had them once.

I have a bag of them right now, they're great. My wife bought them for me and they are basically little Idaho potatoes. My wife has some special dishes that she makes and she is an excellent baker, but I do the cooking.

tashi deleks,

M