• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Snowfalls Are Now Just A Thing Of The Past

Who says men don't effect climate?

Climate change deniers that's who. They somehow think that man releasing millions of years of trapped carbon in a few hundred cannot change our climate.
 
Odd. You didn’t bother to actually address the points I made, and once again pretend that because something was written somewhere respectable means it applies to the debate.

Guess you didn’t know the difference between snow extent and snowfall, or what the IPCC actually predicted.

That’s OK.

I see you’re diverting to paleoclimate stuff now, which you have learned in other threads is ‘irrelevant’ to what we are actually discussing now.

I may have missed with the poly sci guess. Maybe psychology? Undeclared?

Who posted this at post 341?

Umm... so I ask about your assertion that the IPCC predicted less snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere and you link to something about ice storms? And the only mention is a decrease in heavy snowstorms but says nothing about overall snow totals?


My first comment that started at post 334 was in reply to Jack,

The IPCC in several reports clearly say there would be LESS snow and more rain/freezing rain in the winter time. Yet we get the very opposite.

Warmists keeps rationalizing their modeling failures.

YOU Threegoofs replied in post 335,

Well, this describes the weather in the Midwest over the last decade or two.

When I was a kind, rain in January would be just bizarre. Now, it’s common.

But then again, regional stuff is regional stuff.

My reply:

You know perfectly well that what you did was rationalize away a teeny spot in North America.

Rutgers Snow Laws shows a significant Winter Snowfall increase

https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcove...nd&ui_season=1

Growth in Fall time too, but winter is the most important part since that is the time frame the IPCC centered on.

your reply:

...and where exactly in the IPCC did it say snow would lessen in the Northern Hemisphere?

Then posted what the 2001 IPCC published which is for the planet

15.2.4.1.2.4. Ice Storms
Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.

Then made a prediction about you, that came true:

I can see that your question is designed to become a goal post set up.

Your subsequent replies are dishonest deflecting as the very next post (341) shows:

Umm... so I ask about your assertion that the IPCC predicted less snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere and you link to something about ice storms? And the only mention is a decrease in heavy snowstorms but says nothing about overall snow totals?

And then you whine about ME moving goalposts?

I had already told you back at post 338, about Winter Snow fall data.

Than after your now predictable empty comment, gave you a lot of evidence of INCREASING snow and cold over the world.

You go on and on with bullcrap..................
 
Climate change deniers that's who. They somehow think that man releasing millions of years of trapped carbon in a few hundred cannot change our climate.

Oh really? you didn't support your claim. What you say is a lie anyway since most skeptics allow for some CO2 warm forcing effect.

Now I have a new question, who is denying climate change?
 
Still waiting for Threegoofs to show I was wrong on anything I wrote about snow and cold.

He writes this:

Odd. You didn’t bother to actually address the points I made, and once again pretend that because something was written somewhere respectable means it applies to the debate.

Guess you didn’t know the difference between snow extent and snowfall, or what the IPCC actually predicted.

When did you first bring up the difference between extent and snowfall statement?

How does it relate to what the he he... ha ha.... IPCC stated?

15.2.4.1.2.4. Ice Storms
Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.

Which never talked about the difference at all, just FEWER Heavy Snow storms only. You have yet to factually county my many linked evidence that shows there are increasing snow and cold going on.
 
Still waiting for Threegoofs to show I was wrong on anything I wrote about snow and cold.

He writes this:



When did you first bring up the difference between extent and snowfall statement?

How does it relate to what the he he... ha ha.... IPCC stated?



Which never talked about the difference at all, just FEWER Heavy Snow storms only. You have yet to factually county my many linked evidence that shows there are increasing snow and cold going on.

So you think this graph is a measure of snowfall?

8c93543646f3ef557e7b0c13d2e593ee.jpg


You should learn something about this stuff before you post.
 
Erie, Pennsylvania, Has Broken Its All-Time Snow Season Record

And there are lots of other examples of increased snowfall this winter from all over the world.

But bona fide climate science predictions about the end of snow have been pushed off into the future.

A group of government climate scientists in Hawaii predict an end of snow on peaks of Hawaiian volcanos (it's normal for snow to fall there) by the end of this century.

Another group at UCLA predicts a reduction of snow in the Sierras by the end of the century. Link

Also, an Irish group of government climate scientists makes a similar claim.

We no longer seem to have these moments where scientists and advocates predict the end of snow in 5 years. That sort of thing hasn't been working out for them.

It's safe enough for them to predict that there will be no snow in 70 years. They'll all probably be retired by them.

This would seem a whole lot less like a Strawman if you included some links to the alleged 5 year predictions.
 
So you think this graph is a measure of snowfall?

8c93543646f3ef557e7b0c13d2e593ee.jpg


You should learn something about this stuff before you post.

Once again:

15.2.4.1.2.4. Ice Storms
Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.

Milder winter temperatures (False)

Less Heavy Snowfall (false)

Then showed why the IPCC is wrong in SEVERAL WAYS.

Posting that shows the evidence:

Post 342

Rutgers Snow Labs

Large increase in Blizzards

Large areas of the planet cooling for at least 60 years.

There are plenty more links showing that it is increasing snowfall totals, over a wider area and getting colder in the winter.

I covered all the bases.

Meanwhile you complain about my not seeing Snowfall extent. If it is covering a larger area over time as the chart clearly shows then yes it is an increase in snow cover. which generally mean more total snow too A warming world would be REDUCING the snowfall extent.

DUH!

You should learn to THINK about the stuff before you post.
 
The IPCC in several reports clearly say there would be LESS snow and more rain/freezing rain in the winter time. Yet we get the very opposite.

Warmists keeps rationalizing their modeling failures.

They have to rationalize. They don't know why they fail!
 
You are too lazy to see that all the information came from the IPCC, Rutgers Snow Labs, American Meteorology Society, several published science papers (Listed) and all those no warming links are from original sources (mostly published science papers). NONE of it was made by Kenneth Richards the author of the post.

Already showed that large areas of Southern Hemisphere NOT warming at all.

Since you never offered an actual counterpoint to the articles, or my posts..................., it is clear you are full of hot air.

You are a hypocrite because you are same one who fell deeply in love with a H. Stick paper that covered the Northern Hemisphere only, yet you treat it like it was global.

:roll:

We could solve our energy issues if we could harness his hot air.
 
Actually primitive man was likely to blame the weather on the Gods. It appear Conservatives have revived those ancient superstitions because they don't believe man can affect climate. Thanks for pointing that out.

Yes.

The weather. Not the climate.
 
Now Threegoofs keeps banging his head on the wall and doesn't try to disprove anything I posted, he seems unable to see that the IPCC made a full statement concerning the planet:

One reason why I don't respond to him any longer. It's a wast of time i don't have in my life.
 
Oh really? you didn't support your claim. What you say is a lie anyway since most skeptics allow for some CO2 warm forcing effect.

Now I have a new question, who is denying climate change?

What change of climate have you seen?

I see minimal changes in temperatures, but it can still be natural. So the climate is slightly warmer. That isn't a change of climate!
 
What change of climate have you seen?

I see minimal changes in temperatures, but it can still be natural. So the climate is slightly warmer. That isn't a change of climate!

I respond to a blanket charge that skeptics deny climate change EXIST. That is why I challenged him on it since it seems absurd to make such a claim.

I have asserted a few months ago using THEIR AGW based claims that CO2 increase in the atmosphere now and into the future will increase the temperature a lot by year 2100. Where I pointed out which was never challenged that the AGW formula was already set in around 500 Million years ago, with very little warm forcing left to build on since then since most of the warm forcing occurs in the first 200 ppm, according to THEIR science.

AGW is a really bad conjecture since global warming is IMPOSSIBLE based on future CO2 emission scenarios since the outflow of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the postulated warm forcing by at least double.

Here is a blog post talking about it, READ THE REST IN THE LINK!

The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

Selected Excerpt:

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.

LINK
 
Last edited:
I respond to a blanket charge that skeptics deny climate change EXIST. That is why I challenged him on it since it seems absurd to make such a claim.

I would say AGW exists, but haven't seen an example of the climate changing.
 
Climate change deniers that's who. They somehow think that man releasing millions of years of trapped carbon in a few hundred cannot change our climate.

Carbon (C) is not the same as Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

:roll:
 
Once again:



Milder winter temperatures (False)

Less Heavy Snowfall (false)

Then showed why the IPCC is wrong in SEVERAL WAYS.

Posting that shows the evidence:

Post 342

Rutgers Snow Labs

Large increase in Blizzards

Large areas of the planet cooling for at least 60 years.

There are plenty more links showing that it is increasing snowfall totals, over a wider area and getting colder in the winter.

I covered all the bases.

Meanwhile you complain about my not seeing Snowfall extent. If it is covering a larger area over time as the chart clearly shows then yes it is an increase in snow cover. which generally mean more total snow too A warming world would be REDUCING the snowfall extent.

DUH!

You should learn to THINK about the stuff before you post.

You seemed to cover all the bases but the main one.

You’re like a five year old that hits a foul ball and runs the bases thinking it’s a home run!
 
Climate change deniers that's who. They somehow think that man releasing millions of years of trapped carbon in a few hundred cannot change our climate.

Can you find one such person here?

Does that person psot often here?

What about all the other people here who disagree with the painc mongers, the Skeptics, who have a very rational position?
 
Can you find one such person here?

Does that person psot often here?

What about all the other people here who disagree with the painc mongers, the Skeptics, who have a very rational position?

I believe in the long term, enough can change the climate. That said, I haven't seen any climate change. Only small temperature increases that probably have some from CO2.
 
I’ll leave my personal experience out of it... but let’s just say I’ve been the boss of many research assistants in my career...

And she hasn’t done research on polar bear habitat, populations or ecology. That’s kinda important when you are proclaiming to be an expert on those things.

I don’t know why this simple basic fact is so hard to understand. Especially for a ‘scientific research assistant’!

Your comments doesn't show that you have done those jobs since you show no ability to articulate science stuff well. Not only that Dr. Crockford has published a number of science research on animals in the Arctic region over a 35 year period, who holds a Doctorate in ZOOLOGY. I think she is way ahead of you in this area.
 
LOL...

Data of guesses. It can't be any less accurate than the types of proxy samples used for so many things.

Aren't "proxy samples" just the very kind of "evidence" those of Intelligent Design and Climate Change denialists use?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom