... it has been clearly demonstrated that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise.
"snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture"
Thats why Florida gets so much snow.
"snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture"
Thats why Florida gets so much snow.
Some humorless commentators here speak as if THEY understand how climate works. They clearly don't know what they don't know but their egos won't let them see that.
"snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture"
Thats why Florida gets so much snow.
The usual expected stupid remark from NP
The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.
"snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture"
Thats why Florida gets so much snow.
The usual expected stupid remark from NP
The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.
What a bunch of dishonest retards.
@Dir
I suggest you apply Ockam"s razor
In very cold regions of the globe, however, snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture, leading to increased precipitation in the form of snow.So why is it, Antarctica (the coldest place on earth) is also the largest desert on earth?
The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.LOL. Weren't we pointing this out a few months back when they were all claiming the warm dry winter/spring/summer of 2012 in North America was proof of global warming, reduced precipitation, and desertification? Weren't they all lamenting the lack of snow?
What a bunch of dishonest retards.
Everything that happens they tie to global warming it is rediculous! Drought = AGW, Flood = AGW, Hurricane = AGW, Freaking blizzard in the middle of the damn desert = AGW!
Want to impress me build a model that comes close to predicting the weather of the past.
Better yet lets talk about a real issue with CO2 like ocean acidification.
The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.LOL. Weren't we pointing this out a few months back when they were all claiming the warm dry winter/spring/summer of 2012 in North America was proof of global warming, reduced precipitation, and desertification? Weren't they all lamenting the lack of snow?
What a bunch of dishonest retards.
So where are these whiners now? They're back to complaining global warming is causing too much snow!
Pinning down AGW "science" is like trying to hold onto a greased pig. LOL.
Want to impress me build a model that comes close to predicting the weather of the past.
Guess you missed the news that that's already been done!
Better yet lets talk about a real issue with CO2 like ocean acidification.
I must have missed that one. Kinda hard to do when you still have no idea if aerosols are a net contributor or mitigator but eh it's a model take a guess right?
To start with any idiot can spend $2 get a couple dozen strips of litmus paper and bang confirmation. It's not as impressive as AGW where they need a computer model, a psychic, a Rabbi, and pimp.
Secondly the ocean provides a good portion of the populous with food, ...
... all of us with air, ...
I meant ... that [I] hadn't looked at the various stats and conclusions made by the 'professionals' to form a real opinion.
But one thing is clear; The situation is NOT clear. I get the feeling that it rather depends on the sponsor of certain parts of research who publish only those findings that suits them. Hence some say one thing and others say something else. All living creatures have an impact on the planet and I would imagine the gigantic Dino-herbivores contributed much CO2 from both ends (comparison to what some say about us and our livestock). I am just not convinced that we alone are the problem, there are just too many variables. Even Astro varaibles could contribute; the position of the Sun and solar system in the our galaxy might enhance some reactions but impede others. In the end we don't understand enough how the climate works and what effect the variables have over a long period of time.
This paper assumes that CO2 drives warming when it has been clearly demonstrated that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise. http://hockeyscht...ade.html
"snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture"
Thats why Florida gets so much snow.
The usual expected stupid remark from NP
The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.
What a bunch of dishonest retards.
And , most likely,natural variation controls the the CO2 levels, not man.
http://hockeyscht...ity.html
There are hundreds of these papers
..Since the reversal of the thermosphere collapse in mid 2009, it's been driving the AO more negative which is what cools the arctic and accumulates ice. It's finally taking hold by sucking up the water it lost and driving cold air down on the arctic, then down the middle latitudes thus cooling and dumping snow. Over the last 40-50 years, the collapsing thermosphere has been dumping water from the atmosphere (1/8 of the ses level rise) and warming the poles by driving the AO more positive thus sending warm air north.
In very cold regions of the globe, however, snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture, leading to increased precipitation in the form of snow.So why is it, Antarctica (the coldest place on earth) is also the largest desert on earth?
http://www.enviro...iest-con
I love AGW "science," especially the "predictive" (NOT) models. Where else can you be so phenomenally wrong, and still keep your job? LOL.
Still being the puerile idiot, I see.Talking about yourself, I see.
To repeat, increasing the thermal energy in any system increases its volatility. That's ELEMENTARY Physics.That's a nice theory, but can you prove it with statistics? Has global weather volatility significantly increased? And, if so, what proof is there it's caused by temperature increases, over natural variability?
Uba's only reason for living is to lie.
Lying is what he does.
Lying is his life.
"Weren't we pointing this out a few months back when they were all claiming the warm dry winter/spring/summer of 2012 in North America was proof of global warming." - Uba
No one here claimed that last year's missing North American winter was "proof", since only Scientific Illiterates think that science provides proof.
What last year's first ever winter without a winter was, and remains, is strong evidence of global warming.
In fact the graphic that accompanies the article shows quite clearly that North America will experience a dramatic reduction in snowfall.So? What's that prove? I can draw all sorts of pretty pictures of increasing snow. Will that prove snow will increase?
Yet Uba claims the exact opposite.LOL. Vendispambot loses the context (again).
"So where are these whiners now? They're back to complaining global warming is causing too much snow!" - Uba
No where in the article is it claimed that there is "too much snow".
Uba is a perpetual liar.LOL. Spambots like Vendispambot are foisted on the world by the AGWite faithful.
Lying is his reason for existence.
Lying is his life.
Why is it the most extreme climate regions on earth (high peaks) have not been warming at all? The highest temperatures ever recorded on any of them are from the 1970's. Most records are much older:
http://en.wikiped...ontinent
To repeat, increasing the thermal energy in any system increases its volatility. That's ELEMENTARY Physics.That's a nice theory, but can you prove it with statistics? Has global weather volatility significantly increased? And, if so, what proof is there it's caused by temperature increases, over natural variability?
[q
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
deepsand...Oh, So I have to believe what Papers say and commit argumentum ad poplulum? I am not shifting the burden of proof but you are. Try reading a bit more Aristotle and Sorites then you might get your comments right.
"What a bunch of dishonest retards."
NP you only got half right. The scary part of the problem is that some of these warmists are among the brightest and most educated people in the world. The have banded together and are using their knowledge to promote a political agenda. As a group they are getting huge amounts of government monies to do so. The progressive one world government establishment has a huge war chest which they are using to try to bankrupt all of us and to make us dependent enough to give up our freedoms.
The fact that we cannot predict weather systems accurately and have to rely on probability shows that we have got the math models right...yet.
Climate change is ultimately Quantum Mechanical ...
Not Parker is not a person, THEY are employees of a PR firm paid to spew BS on behalf of certain billionaires who have an extreme vested interest in an anti-science agenda and they are actually working under several different names on this and other science and news websites. You'll find the exact same wording of their initial asinine comments, under different names, on dozens upon dozens of news sites around the web.
Every so often this gets exposed and that particular moniker gets kicked off the sites and just shifts to a new name.
Thus, not stupid nor ignorant, deceitful is the probably the best term.
Over 650 snow records set in USA this week
Over 60% of the USa covered in snow
How many cold records were set in the U.S. this week?
"Over 650 snow records set in USA this week" - ParkerTard
Warmer air holds more moisture.
It doesn't snow if the air is real cold. Cold air just can't hold enough moisture.
Poor, Ignorant ParkerTard.
It doesn't snow if the air is real cold.
Maximum temps do not tell the whole story. You have to tie them to minima as well. ie to gain an average you add max to min and divide by 2. This paper provides evidence of the raising of minima over highest ground...
http://dvfu.ru/me...5993.pdf
"In this paper we find evidence for appreciable differences in mean temperature changes with elevation during the last several decades of instrumental records. The signal appears to be more
closely related to increases in daily minimum temperature than changes in the daily maximum. The changes in surface temperature vary spatially, with Europe, and parts of Asia displaying the strongest high altitude warming"
Asked and answered ad nauseum. Needlessly repeating the question is itself an act of puerility.I don't recall having asked this question before. Can you provide examples of me doing so?
You can't learn what you don't want to know.It appears you're simply trying to evade the question. Why? What is it you don't want to know?
Over 650 snow records set in USA this weekROFLMAO. 6.3 inches of snow in Paradise, AZ! Wow!
Over 60% of the USa covered in snow
IPCC claims Arizona is near the North Pole
http://wattsupwit...located/
... using data ... is the best you could do? Really? And isn't it interesting, your reference uses predominately low peaks? What is it you don't you understand about "most extreme climate regions?"
I thought you claimed warming stopped 17 years ago? ....1996 then, a year before this studyBut your reference comes from before the current hiatus. I haven't claimed it hadn't warmed before this period.
...and many of the data go up to at least 1990.But isn't it your claim warming is continuing? Why aren't you supporting your own claim?
Heights are broken down, so your comment about low peaks is specious.Not exactly. The data is regional. Interesting that most North American, the Caucusus, and E. European regions show no upward trend, even then.
This at a dizzying altitude of 1245m/4084ft.A mere foothill, where I come from.
PS the temp records you link are by region, not for peaks.My mistake, you're right. But they are long-standing extreme records. Why are they long-standing, if the climate is warming?
Try againAs I said above, 4084ft is a mere foothill.
Try againAs I said above, 4084ft is a mere foothill.
In the U.S. Rockies during the time period of your reference, there was actually cooling above 11,000 feet (contrary to the climate models).
"Temperature trends warmed at mid-elevation sites and cooled at high elevation sites."
http://www.nps.go...ends.pdf
Even the UN is admitting that temps have not changed in 17 years.
You warmists are just like Nero fiddling while the western economy burns. Useless green projects waste billions of dollars which are paid for by government deficit spending. The politically connected get richer while the middle class dwindles.
Good paying jobs are driven out of western economies by your progressive hatred of industry.
Therefore a sane person would conclude it is never "too cold to snow".
Yes, it doesn't snow the air temperature is real cold.
The air just doesn't hold enough moisture for it to occurr.
"annual snowfall on the Antarctic polar plateau is equivalent to less than 5 cm of rain." - ParekerTard
I bow to your genius.
BTW what was the temperature during those trace levels of snow fall?
VD, my socialist comrade, you said that "It doesn't snow if the air is real cold. Cold air just can't hold enough moisture."
I have news for you the Yukon Territory is COOOOLD!
Your hatred of free market economies and individual freedom is only exceeded by your love of collectivism.
Anyone who denies that Wind Mills are the cause of climate change are deniers who are denying the truth because they are in bed with Al Gore. Charts don't lie. Ever since Wind Mills have been increasing, according to the UN's own charts, climate change has been increasing.
VD how much money are you making from Wind Mills? How much hush money is Al Gore paying you? Follow the money!
Yes, it doesn't snow the air temperature is real cold.
The air just doesn't hold enough moisture for it to occurr.
"annual snowfall on the Antarctic polar plateau is equivalent to less than 5 cm of rain." - ParekerTard
I bow to your genius.
BTW what was the temperature during those trace levels of snow fall?
5cm of rain = 50cm of snow. A foot and half is not a trace amount.
And -89C is pretty cold. But not too cold to snow. It is never too cold to snow. It can be too dry to snow. But not too cold.
So Sandy let me get this straight. You are saying that it snows less in the Yukon than say New York City because it is colder in the Yukon????
Well then Sandy perhaps you are trying to tell me that the glaciers in Greenland were all formed during the warmer periods since it does not snow when it is too cold.
5cm is around 2 inches. Now in a western European type climate 25 inches annual rainfall is a typical amount. 5cm is of course a bit of an average - Vostok, the Russian base in the interior gets 0.18ins of ( rain equivalent ) per year. Air at 30C holds 27.7 g/kg of WV. At -30C, 0.3 g/kg or 92 times more can be held by the warmer air. Air at -80C indeed holds nil/negligible WV. Use this calculator to confirm.... http://www.easyca...atio.phpYes, it doesn't snow the air temperature is real cold. The air just doesn't hold enough moisture for it to occur. "annual snowfall on the Antarctic polar plateau is equivalent to less than 5 cm of rain." - ParkerTard I bow to your genius.
5cm of rain = 50cm of snow. A foot and half is not a trace amount. And -89C is pretty cold. But not too cold to snow. It is never too cold to snow. It can be too dry to snow. But not too cold.
You will have to forgive me Sandy if I seem confused.
So you are claiming that the Greenland ice pack could have never formed since if it is a few degrees too warm it snows but everything melts in the summer. If it is a few degrees too cold it never snows enough to form the glaciers.
After all, the warmists are only saying that we have warmed a few tenths of a degree by now.
deepsand you are a denialist.
Warming eh?
"And just days ago, yet another German meteorology site questioned global warming in a piece titled: "Global Warming Stagnates – Guessing The Causes". The report begins:
Since 1998 the global mean temperature has not risen significantly. While the global temperature rose by about 0.5°C from the 1970s until the end of the 1990s, it has stagnated for the last 15 years, though at a high level. [...] The stagnation surprised a lot of experts, who are now searching for possible causes for this development.""
The temps went up only .5 degrees since the 70s. They are using one of the coldest decades as a starting point. It was so cold, in fact, they were predicting a new ice age during that decade. This is the only "science" that changes daily with the weather.
My point about Cairngorm was precisely that it is "a mere hill" in global terms ( my English irony passed you by )Inflection doesn't carry well into the written word, but I certainly understand the irony now.
but yet it is not easy to maintain a continuous temp record, and requires expensive equipment to do so.Can't be as bad as Mount Washington:
The link that you give has interesting findings, but as you say re my post - it is regional. Also no mention there of how the data was obtained.If I don't live up to my personal values, who will? ;)
Nice part of the world - visited once ( Vail/Breckenridge ) for skiing trip.
Kudos for admitting your error BTW - it happens to the best of us.
If I don't live up to my personal values, who will? ;)
My point about Cairngorm was precisely that it is "a mere hill" in global terms ( my English irony passed you by )Inflection doesn't carry well into the written word, but I certainly understand the irony now.
Funny story: The highest peak in Florida is called "Britton Hill." It's located in the "Northern Florida Highlands." It's only 345ft (105 meters) above sea level.but yet it is not easy to maintain a continuous temp record, and requires expensive equipment to do so.Can't be as bad as Mount Washington:
http://www.mountw...ton.org/The link that you give has interesting findings, but as you say re my post - it is regional. Also no mention there of how the data was obtained.If I don't live up to my personal values, who will? ;)
Nice part of the world - visited once ( Vail/Breckenridge ) for skiing trip.
Kudos for admitting your error BTW - it happens to the best of us.
Oh, I really hate to do this, but I am going to have to support the denialists on one technical issue. It does not get too cold to snow. A very good explanation can be found here:
http://www.thewea...nts/222/
Water is a much more powerful GH gas.
I say if we could model, say, an Earth without water, it would be much colder. In other words, the Earth's GH gas of choice is H2O
Also, I know CO2 is absorbing and emitting during the day
what I am saying is that the "oven" of daytime radiation (sunlight becoming thermal)
is that it is virtually always in its excited state,
allowing its first absorption radiaition to pass.
Ignoring H2O for simplicity in this arguement.
Do you see these as good assumptions?
@Deeps- Ubavontuba already handed it to you in the other thread,
... and I am not going to explain it to you any longer, YOU can research why what you're saying is incorrect.
@runrig, first we need to base-line, do we both agree that, even in the driest desert there is always ~5% water in the atmosphere? This means 100% persistence plus anything over that 5% everywhere else.
Also, I know CO2 is absorbing and emitting during the day, what I am saying is that the "oven" of daytime radiation (sunlight becoming thermal) is that it is virtually always in its excited state, allowing its first absorption radiaition to pass. (Ignoring H2O for simplicity in this arguement.)
Do you see these as good assumptions?
My personal values are such that I wouldn't stoop so low as to say such a thing, simply out of spite.If I don't live up to my personal values, who will? ;)
You have personal values? If you do, they must really suck.
Is there a rule now? I must have missed the memo! LOL.@Deeps- Ubavontuba already handed it to you in the other thread,
How very hilarious, considering that ubavontuba can't even decide which type of skeptic he is, trend, attribution or impact. In a single breath he switches back and forth between the three,
thus dispaying his intellectual fraud.LOL. More like intellectual acumen.
LOL. Now THAT'S funny!... and I am not going to explain it to you any longer, YOU can research why what you're saying is incorrect.
Translation: You've been bested but are going to pretend otherwise.
Oh, I really hate to do this, but I am going to have to support the denialists on one technical issue. It does not get too cold to snow. A very good explanation can be found here:Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.
http://www.thewea...nts/222/
However, as the air is cooled, it holds less water vapor and there is less that can precipitate. Don't get me wrong, the denialists that point at snow as debunking global warming are incorrect. However, the technical issue of it being too cold to snow is a different issue. Sigh. I hate to give them any fodder because they will run with this for the wrong reason. This does not debunk AGW in any way.
Is there a rule now? I must have missed the memo!@Deeps- Ubavontuba already handed it to you in the other thread,
How very hilarious, considering that ubavontuba can't even decide which type of skeptic he is, trend, attribution or impact. In a single breath he switches back and forth between the three,
thus dispaying his intellectual fraud.LOL. More like intellectual acumen.
For contrast, why don't you tell us again how a single photon being "re-radiated" repeatedly, adds energy to a system. LOL.LOL. Now THAT'S funny!... and I am not going to explain it to you any longer, YOU can research why what you're saying is incorrect.
Translation: You've been bested but are going to pretend otherwise.
Oh, I really hate to do this, but I am going to have to support the denialists on one technical issue. It does not get too cold to snow. A very good explanation can be found here:Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.
http://www.thewea...nts/222/
However, as the air is cooled, it holds less water vapor and there is less that can precipitate. Don't get me wrong, the denialists that point at snow as debunking global warming are incorrect. However, the technical issue of it being too cold to snow is a different issue. Sigh. I hate to give them any fodder because they will run with this for the wrong reason. This does not debunk AGW in any way.
LOL. Sure, maybe it's not the technical definition of frost, but it's closely related. And I think, more aptly describes the process over terms like "snow" and "frozen drizzle," which bring to mind an association with clouds and heavy fog. In Antartica, this this very light snow can happen on relatively clear days.Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.ROTFLMAO.
Frost is NOT PRECIPITATION. Frost does NOT FALL.
Do your own research to find out what frost is.
LOL. No they aren't.Is there a rule now? I must have missed the memo!The three are mutually exclusive.
And thus you display your rigid, linear (narrow minded) point of view.More like the inability to logically distinguish between the three.thus dispaying his intellectual fraud.LOL. More like intellectual acumen.
So now you're a "free energy" believer? Maybe you're building a "super secret" zero-point energy machine in your garage? LOL!For contrast, why don't you tell us again how a single photon being "re-radiated" repeatedly, adds energy to a system. LOL.Only an idiot or a charlatan would fail to grasp the truth in my statement.
Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.
This appears to be your problem.Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.
BAW HAWHAW HAW HAW HAW!! No bloody wonder you have no idea how climate works!!!
Aw dang deepsand beat me to it!!And I just handed both of you your asses on a plate. Enjoy!
Psst Hey Uba--he's in on it!! :Wink O_o
And I just handed both of you your asses on a plate. Enjoy[\q]
So, you do understand there is a difference between Earth (that't the place you live, at least physically) and Mars?
Nice try at obfuscation though. What a maroon!
LOL. Embarrassed much?And I just handed both of you your asses on a plate. EnjoySo, you do understand there is a difference between Earth (that't the place you live, at least physically) and Mars?
Nice try at obfuscation though. What a maroon!
LOL. Sure, maybe it's not the technical definition of frost, but it's closely related. And I think, more aptly describes the process over terms like "snow" and "frozen drizzle," which bring to mind an association with clouds and heavy fog. In Antartica, this this very light snow can happen on relatively clear days.Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.ROTFLMAO.
Frost is NOT PRECIPITATION. Frost does NOT FALL.
Do your own research to find out what frost is.
"The low temperatures mean that little or no water vapour is held in the air, instead it freezes and falls out, or builds up on surfaces as frost."
No they aren't.Is there a rule now? I must have missed the memo!The three are mutually exclusive.
Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.
From the Observers' Handbook, published by HMSO, ISBN 0 11 400329 7, Page 140:
"If the observer knows that the deposit in the gauge results from dew, wet fog, hoar frost or rime, an appropriate note should be made in the remarks column of register, (for example tr(w)). (The entry tr(w) is not made just because the observer sees dew on the grass). Such deposits are sometimes more than 0.05mm, in which case the measured amount is recorded".
In other words, frost is included in the precipitation total.
From http://en.wikiped...ology%29
"In meteorology, precipitation (also known as one of the classes of hydrometeors, which are atmospheric water phenomena) is any product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapour that falls under gravity."
Frost does NOT "Fall under gravity.".
To @the Alchemist; We already thought about it....it a BIG and fast global warming like nothing this world has seen in all of Earths history! Prove me wrong.
Aw dang deepsand beat me to it!!And I just handed both of you your asses on a plate.
Psst Hey Uba--he's in on it!! :Wink O_o
LOL. Embarrassed much?And I just handed both of you your asses on a plate. EnjoySo, you do understand there is a difference between Earth (that't the place you live, at least physically) and Mars?
Nice try at obfuscation though. What a maroon!
Perhaps you think the science of precipitation analysis and its definitions are suddenly different just because they described the process on another planet?
Or perhaps you think NASA scientists just willy-nilly make up whole new languages for every planet they examine?
CxHx O2 = H2O CO2 energy.
A FEB PGA golf tournament in Tucson was delayed by snow this year.
It was snowing last night in northern AL.
"The highest mountain peaks in the northwestern Himalayas, the Andes and the Yukon region will also receive greater amounts of snowfall after carbon dioxide doubles."
Sounds like the start of an ice age as glaciers build.
This 70 year forecast doesn't matter as it will be 'adjusted' when it fails.
The current trend is flat.Still having trouble with logic, I see.No they aren't.Is there a rule now? I must have missed the memo!The three are mutually exclusive.
1) A trend skeptic questions the existence of change.
2) An attribution skeptic questions the existence of a particular cause of a trend, which first requires that he acknowledge that a trend exists.There's no proof any warming which occurred in the past was anthropogenic.
3) An impact skeptic questions what effects a trend attributable to a particular cause or set of causes will have, which requires that he first acknowledge both the trend and said attribution(s).Past warming seems to have been benign. And even if warming resumes, so what?
Now, was that so difficult to understand?For you, obviously.
Oh, wait, silly question, considering who's being addressed.Indeed. I shouldn't expect a free-energy proponent like you to understand real science. LOL
So where do you think the frost's moisture content comes from? Does it just appear, as if by magic?In other words, frost is included in the precipitation total.From http://en.wikiped...ology%29
"In meteorology, precipitation (also known as one of the classes of hydrometeors, which are atmospheric water phenomena) is any product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapour that falls under gravity."
Frost does NOT "Fall under gravity.".
Only in your fantasy world.Aw dang deepsand beat me to it!!And I just handed both of you your asses on a plate.
Psst Hey Uba--he's in on it!! :Wink O_o
For a realistic view, look at your rankings here.
LOL. "the distinguish" LOL.Or perhaps you think NASA scientists just willy-nilly make up whole new languages for every planet they examine?You obviously are either incapable of making the distinguish between the meteorological definition and what is essentially an accounting practice or being deliberately obtuse.
1) A trend skeptic questions the existence of change.
The current trend is flat.
2) An attribution skeptic questions the existence of a particular cause of a trend, which first requires that he acknowledge that a trend exists.
There's no proof any warming which occurred in the past was anthropogenic.
3) An impact skeptic questions what effects a trend attributable to a particular cause or set of causes will have, which requires that he first acknowledge both the trend and said attribution(s).Past warming seems to have been benign.
Both false and immaterial to the present and future.I shouldn't expect a free-energy proponent like you to understand real science.
Free energy proponent? You've obviously confused me with another. No surprise, though, considering how confused you are about so many things.
So where do you think the frost's moisture content comes from? Does it just appear, as if by magic?
precipitation n 1. (Earth Sciences / Physical Geography) Meteorol a. rain, snow, sleet, dew, etc., formed by condensation of water vapour in the atmosphere b. the deposition of these on the earth's surface c. the amount precipitated http://www.thefre...pitation
]And: Deposits of dew, frost, or rime, and moisture collected from fog are occasionally also classed as precipitation. http://www.ecomii...eorology
Says the downranking sockpuppet of Caliban/lite/deepsand/excalibur.
Grow up.
Science isn't a popularity contest.
LOL. "the distinguish" LOL. You can't even use proper grammar, and you speak to me of definitions?
LOL. Maybe you're trying to say, NASA can't make this distinction, as well?
And, yes, you just had your ass handed to you, again.
Lie.The current trend is flat.False.
If your claim is AGW, than the past and current temperatures are entirely relevant.There's no proof any warming which occurred in the past was anthropogenic.Immaterial to the present.
If your claim is AGW is dangerous and continuing, it's entirely material to the present and future.Past warming seems to have been benign.Both false and immaterial to the present and future.
You're the idiot who claimed one photon can endlessly add energy to a system. LOL.I shouldn't expect a free-energy proponent like you to understand real science.Free energy proponent? You've obviously confused me with another. No surprise, though, considering how confused you are about so many things.
So it's not delivered by the atmosphere and gravity? Maybe you think it's beamed there directly from space? LOL.So where do you think the frost's moisture content comes from? Does it just appear, as if by magic?That you are confused as to the origin of frost will not alter that fact that it is not "a product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapour that falls under gravity."
The Free Dictionary is hardly authoritative.It's well recognized and in common use. That you don't like it, is irrelevant.
I used it in this fashion once. Is that "occasional" enough for you?precipitation n 1. (Earth Sciences / Physical Geography) Meteorol a. rain, snow, sleet, dew, etc., formed by condensation of water vapour in the atmosphere b. the deposition of these on the earth's surface c. the amount precipitated http://www.thefre...pitationThe operative word there being "occasionally."
The trend for the last dozen years or more is flat, or cooling
If your claim is AGW, than the past ... temperatures are entirely relevant.
If your claim is AGW is dangerous and continuing, it's entirely material to the present and future.
You're the idiot who claimed one photon can endlessly add energy to a system.
Like I said, grow up.Says the downranking sockpuppet of Caliban/lite/deepsand/excalibur.You're just pissed that so many find your stupid deception to be so very transparent. Deal with it.
Aren't you the moron playing the pissy little popularity games?Grow up.Advice you you would do well to heed.
You mean you don't believe it's the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement? Instead, you think it's just a popularity contest? LOL.Science isn't a popularity contest.It's also not whatever idiots like you and your ilk take it to be.
A typographical error is a misspelling. This was clearly a grammatical error.LOL. "the distinguish" LOL. You can't even use proper grammar, and you speak to me of definitions?You are too stupid to even know the difference between a typographical error and one of grammar.
Not at all. As you too clearly understood my meaning regarding frost and precipitation.LOL. Maybe you're trying to say, NASA can't make this distinction, as well?The fact that you understood my meaning suffices to make your complaint moot.
What NASA does is immaterial. That frost may be counted as "precipitation" owes to the simple fact that it is not easily physically separated from the true preciptation gathered by collection devices. I.e., it's an artifact of accounting.The why of it is irrelevant.
Loser much? LOL.And, yes, you just had your ass handed to you, again.Idiot. You can't even recognize your own ass when it's being passed about.
As you're the one trying to hide the current trend in a larger trend, the fraud appears to be you.The trend for the last dozen years or more is flat, or coolingCherry-picked short-term data. Using your same source, look at the 40 yr. trend
You are an intellectual fraud.
So you're saying AGW is not relevant to the past or current temperatures? Really?If your claim is AGW, then the past ... temperatures are entirely relevant.Bullshit.
If your claim is AGW is dangerous and continuing, it's entirely material to the present and future.
Either you are incredibly ignorant or so very stupid as to believe that others will not recognize your deceit.
Have we forgotten so quickly? LOL.You're the idiot who claimed one photon can endlessly add energy to a system.A blatant falsehood.
One born of ignorance? Or, just a simple deliberate lie?
So it's not delivered by the atmosphere and gravity?
It's well recognized and in common use.
Like I said, grow up.Says the downranking sockpuppet of Caliban/lite/deepsand/excalibur.You're just pissed that so many find your stupid deception to be so very transparent. Deal with it.Aren't you the moron playing the pissy little popularity games?Grow up.Advice you you would do well to heed.You mean you don't believe it's the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement? Instead, you think it's just a popularity contest? LOL.Science isn't a popularity contest.It's also not whatever idiots like you and your ilk take it to be.
I can see it now...
"Here she is... Miss Science 2013! LOL!"
What NASA does is immaterial. That frost may be counted as "precipitation" owes to the simple fact that it is not easily physically separated from the true preciptation gathered by collection devices. I.e., it's an artifact of accounting.
The why of it is irrelevant.
As you're the one trying to hide the current trend in a larger trend, the fraud appears to be you
So you're saying AGW is not relevant to the past or current temperatures?
Have we forgotten so quickly?
Didn't you read my reference about how the moisture literally freezes out of the air?So it's not delivered by the atmosphere and gravity?
What do you not understand about frost not condensing in the atmosphere and then falling?
Your pretenses and misrepresentations are most childesh.This seems to be your problem, as exemplified by your persistent name-calling.
But it means everything to a linguist.It's well recognized and in common use.Doesn't mean shit to a tree.
That's an oxymoron. You can't both be clever and an idiot, at the same time.My, my, aren't you the clever idiot.Like I said, grow up.Says the downranking sockpuppet of Caliban/lite/deepsand/excalibur.You're just pissed that so many find your stupid deception to be so very transparent. Deal with it.Aren't you the moron playing the pissy little popularity games?Grow up.Advice you you would do well to heed.You mean you don't believe it's the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement? Instead, you think it's just a popularity contest? LOL.Science isn't a popularity contest.It's also not whatever idiots like you and your ilk take it to be.
I can see it now...
"Here she is... Miss Science 2013! LOL!"
Didn't you read my reference about how the moisture literally freezes out of the air?
This seems to be your problem, as exemplified by your persistent name-calling.
But it means everything to a linguist.
Idiot. First, immaterial and irrelevant are synonyms.Never said that it was irrelevant, but that it was immaterial. You're too stupid to even understand the difference.What NASA does is immaterial. That frost may be counted as "precipitation" owes to the simple fact that it is not easily physically separated from the true preciptation gathered by collection devices. I.e., it's an artifact of accounting.The why of it is irrelevant.
So that explains your behavior.As you're the one trying to hide the current trend in a larger trend, the fraud appears to be youYou keep getting more and more stupid by the moment. That's what happens when a charlatan is cornered.
"past temperatures are irrelevant to present and future ones." Really?So you're saying AGW is not relevant to the past or current temperatures?Yet another stupid sophist's trick, misrepresentation. It's plain for all to see that I said that past temperatures are irrelevant to present and future ones. Pretending that others cannot see what I said just makes you look more and more foolish.
LOL. You'd like me to forget your stupidity, wouldn't you?Have we forgotten so quickly?Apparently you have.
LOL. How does "it form on the surface" if it's not delivered there by the air? Is it magic?Didn't you read my reference about how the moisture literally freezes out of the air?If it forms on a surface, it's frost. If it freezes in the air and falls onto a surface it's not frost. Stop playing the idiot.
So when science fails you, it's all about name-calling? Grow up.This seems to be your problem, as exemplified by your persistent name-calling.If the name fits, wear it. With all the names that are suitable for describing you, wearing them would save you the expense of purchasing clothing.
So how is, "Doesn't mean shit to a tree." relevant to science?But it means everything to a linguist.Then go play in a linguistics forum; this is to be one of Science.
My, my, aren't you the clever idiot.
That's an oxymoron. You can't both be clever and an idiot, at the same time.
That you feel science is a popularity contest though, ...
immaterial and irrelevant are synonyms.
I said your claim that it's an "artifact of accounting" is irrelevant to the definition being discussed.
Regardless of why the definition as used by me exists, it exists.
"past temperatures are irrelevant to present and future ones." Really?
So, if the past temperatures are irrelevant, how can you show there's been any warming?
How does "it form on the surface" if it's not delivered there by the air? Is it magic?
So when science fails you, it's all about name-calling?
Interestingly, exact definitions are very important to science.
Well, I'm still waiting for the clever part, from you. LOL.But, one can be both clever and an idiot in different things.My, my, aren't you the clever idiot.That's an oxymoron. You can't both be clever and an idiot, at the same time.
Either you aren't clever enough to figure that out, or you think that we aren't clever enough to see you for what you are.
Stating it's a misrepresentation when it isn't, doesn't make it a misrepresentation. Rather, it makes you a liar.That you feel science is a popularity contest though, ...Still trying futilely to escape by way of misrepresentation. Yet another desperate ploy of the cornered charlatan.
LOL. How is that substantively different?immaterial and irrelevant are synonyms.Nope; there is a fine distinction.
Irrelevant - having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue
Immaterial - of no consequence
Something can be relevant but still immaterial.No they can't. That's simply saying something can be relevant, but still irrelevant.
Saying so, doesn't make it so.I said your claim that it's an "artifact of accounting" is irrelevant to the definition being discussed.Nevertheless, my statement is both relevant and material.
You apparently should know.Regardless of why the definition as used by me exists, it exists.That a falsehood exists does not make it truth.
LOL. Funny how you took out all references to AGW. Who's misrepresenting now?"past temperatures are irrelevant to present and future ones." Really?Within the context of your claims, yes, really.
LOL. Couldn't come up with anything, eh? LOLOLOL!So, if the past temperatures are irrelevant, how can you show there's been any warming?If you think long and hard enough, the answer might come to you.
And yet another non-answer. What's the matter? Has your own logic led you to a dead end?How does "it form on the surface" if it's not delivered there by the air? Is it magic?Still playing the fool, we see.
LOL. You mean I should emulate you and stop bringing in the actual science? No thanks.So when science fails you, it's all about name-calling?
Facts are facts. If you don't like being accurately described as a liar or a fool, then change your behavior.
LOL. Says the idiot that already grudgingly acknowledged the occasional use is acceptable. And, the same idiot who deliberately ignores widely used definitions he doesn't like. LOL.Interestingly, exact definitions are very important to science.A point lost to you when it's convenient, as with the definitions of frost and precipitation.
Aw dang deepsand beat me to it!!
Psst Hey Uba--he's in on it!! :Wink O_o
And I just handed both of you your asses on a plate.
Only in your fantasy world.
For a realistic view, look at your rankings here.
Says the downranking sockpuppet of Caliban/lite/deepsand/excalibur.
Grow up. Science isn't a popularity contest.
I'll downrank you my very own self, boohoobooby. No puppets of any type required.LOL. You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the butt.
Thanks for providing me with precisely that pleasure, over and over --and over again-- in this very thread with your stupidiot insistence upon posting specious, superfluous, pseudoscientific denialist twaddle.
I'll downrank you my very own self, boohoobooby. No puppets of any type required.LOL. You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the butt.
Thanks for providing me with precisely that pleasure, over and over --and over again-- in this very thread with your stupidiot insistence upon posting specious, superfluous, pseudoscientific denialist twaddle.
Thanks for noticing. I don't even work out.LOL. You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the butt.That's why you should forego looking at your own, as there isn't any left.
be4r
Feb 22, 2013