It's just trivial physics, my dear Watson. The heating of atmosphere has similar effect like the heating of layer of fluid inside of flat vessel. While the cold fluid circulates slowly in form of single convective cell, the hot fluid will circulate turbulently in many convective cells. The heating of atmosphere poisons the slow but steady transport of water from oceans into inland areas, while it leads into its precipitation across much smaller coastal areas (Northeast, Alaska) in thicker layer and during shorter time periods. Of course, from perspective of human civilization it's unhealthy situation, despite it may not lead into lower average precipitation from global perspective. The total amount of water condensed above ground remains roughly the same, but its condensation will be less regular, uniform and predictable.

This air above inland areas remains more dry in average, which leads into bias into statistics of atmospheric precipitations. The rain condensed will evaporate soon before it can reach the underground - but the fast evaporation of water collected in meteorologic stations remains prohibited with their construction. As the result, the global statistics of water precipitation becomes biased, because the inland areas suffer with wider droughts, than it corresponds the results of meteorologic stations. The contamination of aerosols doesn't help the situation much, because many tiny resulting droplets of water condensing at smog nuclei are too tiny for being able to condense and fall down as a rain. From this reason I don't support the attempts to reduce global warming with releasing of sulphate aerosols, as it will make the hydrological situation even worse.

When "scientists" continue to point to normal variations in weather and call them a result of global warming, they are just getting less credible and believable.

I only see a slight problem with how they worded this article. I recall those exact same descriptions of atmospheric warming effects from a couple of decades ago. They should have emphasized that this type of weather shift is now happening just as had been predicted by climatologists many years back.

I am old enough to see there has been an accumulative trend of upwardly dynamic weather.

When "scientists" continue to point to normal variations in weather and call them a result of global warming, they are just getting less credible and believable. This is what Al tried, and failed miserably.


Curious. What natural cycles are you referring to? Please respond with specific examples that are backed up with both logic and observational repeatable peer reviewed evidence.

Cheers, Ben.

Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards

With scant snowfall and barren ski slopes in parts of the U.S. Midwest and Northeast the past couple of years, some scientists have pointed to global warming as the culprit.
It's funny they say this while Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent is breaking records:

"The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during December 2012 was much above average. ...the largest December SCE on record for the hemisphere."

http://www.ncdc.n.../2012/12

Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards

With scant snowfall and barren ski slopes in parts of the U.S. Midwest and Northeast the past couple of years, some scientists have pointed to global warming as the culprit.
It's funny they say this while Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent is breaking records:

"The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during December 2012 was much above average. ...the largest December SCE on record for the hemisphere."

http://www.ncdc.n.../2012/12


Not nearly so funny as the scat that you prolifically excrete here.

One again UbVonTard just can't seem to figure out the difference between weather a single month December and climate, 30 years of global weather.

"The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during December 2012 was much above average" - UbVonTard

VonTard is growing dumber and dumber with each passing day.

It is mentally diseased.

It's funny they say this while Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent is breaking records:

"The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during December 2012 was much above average. ...the largest December SCE on record for the hemisphere."

http://www.ncdc.n.../2012/12


From the above article ...
"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, ... because even though more ground is covered by snow, it's covered by less snow."

Also, more snowcover doesn't equate to colder ...
"Northern Hemisphere (Dec 2012): 0.14 C (about 0.25 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December."
http://wattsupwit...2012.png

Uba had these exact same comments made to him on the last article he posted this Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent on.

He ignores what has already been said, and reposts the same comment verbatim in another article. That's called a misrepresentation, which is a dishonest attempt to mislead.

In other words, a lie.

I predict he will repost the same lie verbatim in yet another article.

PS: IPCC Report, 1990:
-the projected climate changes suggest a decreased duration of snow cover.
-The areal extent of seasonal snow cover is also highly variable (Fohn, 1989 )changing continually during a particular season and from one year to the next.
-In those areas where temperatures are projected to remain below or at freezing and where winters are expected to be warmer but wetter, the snow pack will increase
-Changes in the duration and area covered by snow could, therefore, have significant impact on local, regional and global climates

There's a great rebuttal of this paper here
http://wattsupwit...-claims/

It has to do with the now expanding thermosphere. It's trending the AO more negative (cooling notherner latitudes) and sucking up water.

Whereas the last 40-50 years while the thermosphere was contracting, it dumped enough water from the atmoshpere to account for 1/8 the rise in sea level rise and trended the AO positive (warming).

There's a great rebuttal of this paper here
http://wattsupwit...-claims/


That critique entirely misses the point ( meteorologist or not ). We are not talking surface temperatures here. It's upper air temperatures. The mass of air at cloud height holds the moisture and the clash of warm/moist air against the cold continental is the contrast that drives the cyclonic development ( well a major one excluding vorticity and WAA ). The US has a unique mix of both air masses down its NE. To my mind it would be v difficult to discriminate cold/warm winters and low/high snowfall as a dump could easily be followed by a deep cold plunge behind ( several times ). The dump accentuated by the higher warm/moisture overriding the storm before it pulls away. I admit certain parts of this paper are questionable but the fact remains that a warmer world will lead to more snowfall at the EDGES of cold air-masses.