Why Severe Winter STILL Doesn’t Disprove Global Warming

Post Reply New Topic

Here's something that a lot of people don't seem to understand: Snow does not equal cold.

Snow occurs when water vapor in the upper atmosphere sublimates into solid ice crystals. In other words, snow can only exist if it's warm enough for some water to exist as a gas.

Antarctica is called a "polar desert" for a reason. That isn't an oxymoron. When it's really cold, there is not enough water vapor in the atmosphere and snow cannot form in the atmosphere. In Antarctica, ice covers the ground, but it almost never falls from the sky.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/SnowMeansCold

If the Cuba were to be under at least three feet of snow every winter for fifty years straight the left would still say that it disproves nothing and press on with their agenda; using climate change to regulate us to death.

Next...

Personal experience, ongoing: I live at the edge of the Rocky Mountains we generally get ~four storms that drop between 8-12 inches of snow. Between November and March we generally get a total of 60" of snow (less on the ground because of melt in between storms), this year we've only gotten 3" total so far. It's been exceptionally cold but no snow. That's because it takes two things for snow to form, 1. cold temperature, and 2. moisture. We've got the cold but we don't have the moisture. Now if I were one prone to hysteria I would be screaming global climate change, but the facts are much, much different in my location's case. We have a large high pressure system just south of us that is pushing all the Pacific storms that drop snow to the north of us. It's pretty much just stuck there for about 2 months, completely ruining our winter (ski resorts are our winter economy).

Also of note, don't think one location's weather patterns are indicative of the whole. Again, we normally get around 60" a year here, and we got 3" so far and winter is half over, yet I know Florida got snow dropped on it earlier this year and they almost never get snow, and the entire East has gotten more snow than usual. So our two locations have been flipped in a sense, and that's what's called an anomaly. It's a single year out of decades of years with reliable data, and thus not indicative of the whole. Point being: never take one season as an indicator for the entire direction of the climate, it's a large complex system that can really only been understood by equally large and complex sets of data.

First of all, global warming is about earth's average global temperature, not the temperature of a specific region.

Second, "regulate us to death" is hyperbolic. How many people have seriously died as a result of environmental regulations?

Strangely, you never seem to care when a government policy actually causes human deaths.

The underlying problem is that it was called "global warming" in the first place. Stupid stupid stupid choice of words. Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid...

If it had been called "climate change", which is what the result is, instead of "warming", which is what the thermodynamic driver is, more people would have been putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 4, much sooner.

Too many people prefer to go through all kinds of mental acrobatics to avoid dealing with unpleasant realities - look at some of the parents of Nassar's and Sandusky's victims, look at the enablers at Penn State and MSU and USAGymnastics. Look at all the defenders and enablers of Weinstein etc.

Human beings don't need assistance with self-deception. We need (sensible) impediments to it.

^^Don't even get me started on Larry Nassar, I've spent the last month reading s**t tons of victim blaming and shaming and it's very, very depressing. I came here for a break from it all since it's not a big topic on the radar at WP. I just don't understand people defending a self-admitted pedophile (people have already forgotten he pleaded guilty, and that was just six weeks ago).

Ok, done derailing the thread, back to climate change. And yes, climate change is the appropriate terminology, and should have been the term used from the onset, not just from a science perspective but also from a rhetorical perspective.

Warmism is based on data from alleged scientists who were way off with their predictions, who used carbon tests from Hawaii which has loads of volcanos and because of politicians who have an agenda.

We are destroying the planet and the world is massively overpopulated. The trouble is, the leading forces who push the whole green energy stuff don't care about the enviroment and their solutions are a joke and end up with 'recycled' plastic being buried in the ground in China or floating in the South Pacific and killed fish.

"Warmism" also comes from temperature readings from all around the world ... and tree rings ... and ice cores.

Why would politicians make up global warming? They would lose the support of the oil industry if they just made something like that up.

In America, taking serious steps to combat global warming is political suicide.



Most of the plastic in the ocean was simply thrown in the garbage.

Another Thing: Green energy isn't a joke. Using alternative energy can and does cut carbon emissions.

Banning DDT also worked. Banning ozone-depleting substances also worked. This isn't the first time humans have prevented an ecological catastrophe using political action.

I'm not saying the world isn't getting warmer, i'm saying people have exaggerated it for political purposes.

It would be political suicide for a Republican. And it would be political suicide for a Democrat to deny climate change. There are vested interests on both sides. None of them care about the enviroment.

Uh no, with regards to the UK, most of the garbage goes in the ground here and a lot of the 'recycling' was going in the ground in China or into the sea.

Onshore windfarms are a joke.

Even if the sea suddenly rises by 100 feet and that the ice at South Pole was melting, the right would still say it prove nothing and press on with their agenda; deregulating enterprises to death.
That they are still denying it while glaciers melt around the world and the sea ice of Arctic is disappearing show that they don't want to hear the true.
That they are still saying that 1998 was the hottest years ever recorded show the bad faith of many of them; in true the hottest recorded years were in order: 2017, 2016 and 2015.

I'm not sure if green energy is helping. Australia used to get most of its electricity from coal. Now Australia gets a significant fraction of its electricity from wind power. This means we need less coal. The coal we don't use is exported to China and they use it to generate electricity.

What difference does it make if we don't get our electricity from coal but someone else burns the same coal?

It's the same with fuel-efficient cars. Some cars use less fuel. If we all use efficient cars that means our oil reserves will last for a few more decades. But over a longer period of time, the same amount of oil will be burned. What difference does it make?

Using fossil fuels in a more efficient way doesn't mean less fossil fuels get burned in total. It just means they can charge more for them. I'm sure oil companies love efficient cars because it means they can charge the same amount for less gas and so keep making money for more years into the future.

Arctic Air is still Arctic Air, no matter how you slice it.

The the more people go on and on about how it's real not fake, the more fake it seems.

And even worse are terms like deniers and unbelievers.

Almost makes makes me expect a couple of guys in white shirts and ties riding bicycles to show up to convince me it's real.

If you're going to spew pure wind, you might as well say nothing at all.

That's because you don't know about the sciences.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Also the more I see what are saying climate deniers, the more I conclude they don't know what they are talking about.

Brilliant post.