Snow Cover Now At 56 Year High In Northern Hemisphere

LifeIn said:
The title "snow cover at 56-year high in northern hemisphere" is obviously an attempt to "prove" that global warming is not happening. The attempt to do so shows a lack of understanding of what the observed consequences of global warming ought to be, to think that such an observation in any way proves anything about global warming. In the first place, snow cover is not temperature. All it takes for snow is temperatures below 0 degrees C. That is not unusual in November in the northern hemisphere. Colder temperatures do not mean more snow. The just mean colder snow. Likewise, warmer average temperatures, as long at they stay below 0 degrees C, do not necessarily mean less snow. One thing that does affect the amount of snow is the amount of moisture in the air. Moisture in the air comes from evaporation from the oceans. Evaporation from the oceans is increased by warmer ocean water. And thanks to global warming, the oceans overall are warmer, which increases the evaporation, which increases the amount of snowfall. So rather than disproving global warming, reports of extreme weather constitute supporting evidence.

When speaking about global warming, one must always think from a global perspective. We cannot say anything about average temperature by only looking at temperature in the US, or in the northern hemisphere. We have to take the whole world into account all at once. Anything less is cherry-picking, which can lead to faulty conclusions. Another consequence of global warming is changes in prevailing winds. Because of those changes, cold air from the polar regions that used to stay in the polar regions is now finding its way down to the more temperate latitudes in the winter. This can make winter in certain regions actually be colder than before (in certain times of the year). But that cold air coming from the polar regions because of changing wind patterns is replaced in the polar regions by warmer air from elsewhere. This leads those polar regions warming faster than anywhere else on earth. Global warming does not happen uniformly everywhere to the same degree. That would be too easy. That is why global warming cannot be assessed by off-the-cuff casual observations of selected places and times. The only reliable measure of global warming is a systematic measurement of a wide selection of representative samples all added together. And even then, the changes year-to-year are going to be so small as to be immeasurable. It is only after those changes accumulate year after year that we have reliable results. In addition to the rising average temperature, the extreme weather events were predicted decades ago by climate scientists. The observed results have followed those predictions remarkably well.

It is often fun to look at predictions made by Al Gore or other non-scientists to show global warming to be a failure, but if you limit your analysis only to the consensus of serious climate scientists, the results are not so easy or so fun, but they are true.
Click to expand...
Argumentum verbosium.

High marks for obfuscation.

"serious scientists" Like when you insisted Mike Mannn had been awarded the Nobel Peace prize?

We hold 50 solid years of junk predictions.
 
Reformedguy said:
Legitimate sources according to backup? LOL Who decides what's legitimate and what isnt?
Click to expand...
Whenever someone questions the use of legitimate sources, I find it interesting that they never say who they think are more reliable sources. Could that be because they don't want their sources subjected to critical examination? I think so. But please prove me wrong by declaring who the more legitimate scientific sources are - more legitimate than the ones @Backup was referring to.
 
LifeIn said:
Whenever someone questions the use of legitimate sources, I find it interesting that they never say who they think are more reliable sources. Could that be because they don't want their sources subjected to critical examination? I think so. But please prove me wrong by declaring who the more legitimate scientific sources are - more legitimate than the ones @Backup was referring to.
Click to expand...
Its subjective.

He did not refer to any sources that I saw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top