Author Topic: Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards  (Read 468 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline two-blocked

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1155
Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards
« on: February 19, 2013, 08:10:51 AM »
WASHINGTON (AP) — With scant snowfall and barren ski slopes in parts of the Midwest and Northeast the past couple of years, some scientists have pointed to global warming as the culprit.
 
Then when a whopper of a blizzard smacked the Northeast with more than 2 feet of snow in some places earlier this month, some of the same people again blamed global warming.
 
How can that be? It’s been a joke among skeptics, pointing to what seems to be a brazen contradiction.
 
But the answer lies in atmospheric physics. A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say. And two soon-to-be-published studies demonstrate how there can be more giant blizzards yet less snow overall each year. Projections are that that’s likely to continue with man-made global warming.
 
Consider:
— The United States has been walloped by twice as many of the most extreme snowstorms in the past 50 years than in the previous 60 years, according to an upcoming study on extreme weather by leading federal and university climate scientists. This also fits with a dramatic upward trend in extreme winter precipitation — both rain and snow — in the Northeastern U.S. charted by the National Climatic Data Center.
 
— Yet the Global Snow Lab at Rutgers University says that spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has shrunk on average by 1 million square miles in the last 45 years.
 
— And an upcoming study in the Journal of Climate says computer models predict annual global snowfall to shrink by more than a foot in the next 50 years. The study’s author said most people live in parts of the United States that are likely to see annual snowfall drop between 30 and 70 percent by the end of the century.
 
“Shorter snow season, less snow overall, but the occasional knockout punch,” Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. “That’s the new world we live in.”
 
Ten climate scientists say the idea of less snow and more blizzards makes sense: A warmer world is likely to decrease the overall amount of snow falling each year and shrink snow season. But when it is cold enough for a snowstorm to hit, the slightly warmer air is often carrying more moisture, producing potentially historic blizzards.
 
“Strong snowstorms thrive on the ragged edge of temperature — warm enough for the air to hold lots of moisture, meaning lots of precipitation, but just cold enough for it to fall as snow,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “Increasingly, it seems that we’re on that ragged edge.”
 Just look at the last few years in the Northeast. Or take Chicago, which until late January had 335 days without more than an inch of snow. Both have been hit with historic storms in recent years.
 
Scientists won’t blame a specific event or even a specific seasonal change on global warming without doing intricate and time-consuming studies. And they say they are just now getting a better picture of the complex intersection of man-made climate change and extreme snowfall.
 
But when Serreze, Oppenheimer and others look at the last few years of less snow overall, punctuated by big storms, they say this is what they are expecting in the future.
 
“It fits the pattern that we expect to unfold,” Oppenheimer said.
 
The world is warming so precipitation that would normally fall as snow in the future will likely fall as rain once it gets above the freezing point, said Princeton researcher Sarah Kapnick.
 
Her study used new computer models to simulate the climate in 60 to 100 years as carbon dioxide levels soar. She found large reductions in snowfall throughout much of the world, especially parts of Canada and the Andes Mountains. In the United States, her models predict about a 50 percent or more drop in annual snowfall amounts along a giant swath of the nation from Maine to Texas and the Pacific Northwest and California’s Sierra Nevada mountains.
 
This is especially important out West where large snowcaps are natural reservoirs for a region’s water supply, Kapnick said. And already in the Cascades of the Pacific Northwest and in much of California, the amount of snow still around on April 1 has been declining so that it’s down about 20 percent compared to 80 years ago, said Philip Mote, who heads a climate change institute at Oregon State University.
 
Kapnick says it is snowing about as much as ever in the heart of winter, such as February. But the snow season is getting much shorter, especially in spring and in the northernmost areas, said Rutgers’ David Robinson, a co-author of the study on extreme weather that will be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
 
The Rutgers snow lab says this January saw the sixth-widest snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere; the United States had an above average snow cover for the last few months. But that’s a misleading statistic, Robinson said, because even though more ground is covered by snow, it’s covered by less snow.
 
And when those big storms finally hit, there is more than just added moisture in the air, there’s extra moisture coming from the warm ocean, Robinson and Oppenheimer said. And the air is full of energy and unstable, allowing storms to lift yet more moisture up to colder levels. That generates more intense rates of snowfall, Robinson said.
 
“If you can tap that moisture and you have that fortuitous collision of moist air and below freezing temperatures, you can pop some big storms,” Robinson said.
 
Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann points to the recent Northeast storm that dumped more than 30 inches in some places. He said it was the result of a perfect set of conditions for such an event: Arctic air colliding with unusually warm oceans that produced extra large amounts of moisture and big temperature contrasts, which drive storms. Those all meant more energy, more moisture and thus more snow, he said.
 
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/climate_contradiction_less_snow_more_blizzards_3/

Offline DDZ

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6168
  • Gender: Male
Re: Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2013, 10:41:09 AM »
...and the same climate scientists will soon be telling us we are headed toward an ice age, because of man polluting the atmosphere, and blocking out the sun. They told us that back in the 70's, now they want us to believe lots of snow is due to warming. How can we believe anything they say?   
Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.    Wm. Penn

Offline two-blocked

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1155
Re: Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2013, 10:51:53 AM »
Some folks were unwittingly victimized by media hype  ;) :o
 
Mainstream Media
What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."
"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."
A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:
"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
Peer-Reviewed Literature
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
 Scientific Consensus
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"
This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.
In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus...Reasoning Behind Cooling Predictions
Quite often, the justification for the few global cooling predictions in the 1970s is overlooked.  Probably the most famous such prediction was Rasool and Schneider (1971):
"An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K."
Yes, their global cooling projection was based on a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration.  This wasn't an entirely unrealistic scenario - after all, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions were accelerating quite rapidly up until the early 1970s (Figure 2).  These emissions caused various environmental problems, and as a result, a number of countries, including the USA, enacted SO2 limits through Clean Air Acts.  As a result, not only did atmospheric aerosol concentrations not quadruple, they declined starting in the late 1970s:
 Similarly, if we now limit CO2 emissions, we can also eventually get global warming under control.
 
Summary
So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading.  Additionally, we reduced the SO2 emissions which were causing global cooling.  The question remains whether we will reduce the CO2 emissions causing global warming.

Offline DDZ

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6168
  • Gender: Male
Re: Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2013, 04:49:22 PM »
Then we better start using more aerosol so we don't get to hot. The man made global warming hoax is just that, a hoax.
There was a mini ice age around 500 years ago and its been warming ever since. I don't think the industrial age started 500 years ago. Most of the temperature increase has happened prior to 1940, again before the industrial age. The sun is the hottest its been in over 100 years, and Millions of people don't believe the man made global warming lies, and not one of them have received any money from oil companies.
Another fact is that a thousand studies have proven that carbon dioxide produces better fruits, vegetables, trees and any other plant life. What is it with liberals, they want to rid us of carbon dioxide?
I lived in the 70's and I remember the fuss about global cooling, that yes, scientists were predicting. You can copy and paste a mile of that crap printed off a left leaning web site, and you are not going to get anyone to believe it. That is unless you already swallowed the hook.
People with Obama's and Al Gore's character, and the Marxists that make up the UN, huddle around tables and produce lies that they know many will believe. So that they then, can easier tell has how we should live. They have a whole laundry list of ways for us to change the way we live,  based on the man made global warming hoax. Its all about power over us little people. 
To bad they couldn't figure out a way to stop cows from farting and burping so much. Maybe they would leave us alone.
Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.    Wm. Penn

Offline Old Fart

  • Intergalactic Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (77)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3851
  • Gender: Male
Re: Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2013, 03:24:57 AM »
We're actually getting our first heavy snow today in Oklahoma. Had a couple light dusting earlier. Wierd science.... :o ::) 
"All my life I've had a bad case of the Fred's. Fredrick Vanderbilt taste on a Fred Sanford budget." CR
Lifetime/Endowment/Patron NRA Member.
Second Amendment Foundation, www.saf.org - Life Member

Offline magooch

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6644
Re: Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2013, 03:58:26 AM »
Climate change is a fact; how and why the climate changes is a whole nuther matter.  I don't know how scientists know exactly how much temperatures change on other planets in our solar system, but according to some articles I've read, they can detect warming on some of those planets that coincides with the changes on Earth.  NASA just recently admitted that they might have underestimated the affects of solar activity.  Wow, could it be that the sun actually affects climate change?


All I ask is that those who honestly believe that man-caused climate change is going to threaten the future of Earth should quit being hypocrites and live up to their beliefs.  That would mean that at the very least they would have to cease any activity that might create CO2 and any other "greenhouse" gases.  Breathing and farting are two of those activities.  Stop it right now, or you believers are nothing but useless scare mongers.
Swingem

Offline Val

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
Re: Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2013, 05:12:38 AM »
It's incredible how gullible the left wing environmentalist are. There is much geological evidence showing various cycles of global warming and ice ages that have occurred on this earth. These occurred before man existed on this earth. Non left wing agenda climatologist indicate that these cycles are a function of how much energy the sun is putting out (it varies) and how close the orbit of the earth is to the sun (it varies). Now just because man exists on the earth, if in fact global warming is a reality (in the early 1900s the environmentalists were screaming about an impending ice age) they place the blame on issues like soccer moms and their SUVs. Could it be that the left invent issues to rally the gullible and naive left wing youth?
Hunting and fishing are not matters of life or death. They are much more important than that.

Offline DDZ

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6168
  • Gender: Male
Re: Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2013, 10:33:32 AM »
It's incredible how gullible the left wing environmentalist are. There is much geological evidence showing various cycles of global warming and ice ages that have occurred on this earth. These occurred before man existed on this earth. Non left wing agenda climatologist indicate that these cycles are a function of how much energy the sun is putting out (it varies) and how close the orbit of the earth is to the sun (it varies). Now just because man exists on the earth, if in fact global warming is a reality (in the early 1900s the environmentalists were screaming about an impending ice age) they place the blame on issues like soccer moms and their SUVs. Could it be that the left invent issues to rally the gullible and naive left wing youth?

Leftists are oblivious to facts, because they think if they heard it on MSNBC, it must be true, and are oblivious to the fact that a bunch of leftists own and run the mainstream media outlets.
Yes Val, their goal is to rally and build their number of leftists. They use the news media and our schools to do it. Leftists are dangerous creatures. They are void of the truth, and reject anything remotely related to the truth. When their social engineering, and their marxist plans bring the walls crashing down upon us all. They will still blame the oil companies, industry, logging, conservatives, rich people, Bush, etc...etc...     
Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.    Wm. Penn

Offline magooch

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6644
Re: Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2013, 03:23:27 AM »
In the original post that started this thread, the author talks about lower amounts of snow in the Cascade Mountains.  Bull hockey; I live right next to the Cascade Mountains and I'll guarandamntee you that they aren't hurting for snow.  Yes, there have been years with smaller snow packs, but it all averages out, because some years it's huge.  It has more to do with what goes on in the Pacific Ocean than anything man will ever do.


What really makes me laugh is the liberal idiots worry that the oceans are rising.  The last scare story I read about it in our local paper said that the Pacific had risen a couple of millimeters in the past few years.  I doubt that the journalist who wrote the article even knows what a millimeter is--let alone how you would go about measuring such a change.  The fact is, that there is no possible way to measure it.   


The tides come in and the tides go out and if the alarmist junk writers had been here last summer, I could have shown them the lowest tides I've ever seen.  Then they could have written an article about how the Pacific Ocean is drying up.



Swingem