BillT

brilliant minds in the other place a person clearly with Huntsville as their location says euro shows 2 hits for us next week then about 5 posts ask WHERE?

when you have emails of the conspiracy and statements from those involved saying their intent very difficult to discuss with those the deny FACT and reality.......good luck not going to waste my time snowlover you are dealing in reality versus a computerized religion of the climate

the reason why snowmageddon happened in b'ham and atlanta is simple folks we had close to 50 hours below freezing before the moisture arrived so every flake of snow that fell stuck on the roads......one inch of snow on frozen already roads is very bad, while 4 inches falling onto warm roads just melts.......

same people break the same rules year after year and very few actually discuss the weather......

the low that was supposed to move east across southern kansas is instead near the tex/okla border slowly moving ese....split into another back in new mexico last night these pieces of energy were moving SE from the pacific down through oregon

this is the stuff i enjoy, watching the actual storm as it moves towards us......right now the low is at the top of the texas panhandle projected to move east but now moving ese......temps here in walker county were forecast to be in the low 60s but so far 50 is the high every day this week has been at least 10 degrees cooler than forecast

which model had this snow today and how long ago did they start showing it please? according to the other place this stuff today is not happening because no model showed it.

trying to find stuff about the weather but there is nothing at the other place about weather, just banter and BS,

by far the coldest and largest mass of cold air is in canada and drifting south

the is more banter in the storm threads of the other place(that banned me but LIE in saying they didnt) than there is banter in the banter threads here......that place is nothing but comic relief with less than 5% of comments based on science in any way

as a player in the late 60s i could have blocked 10+ shots per game but didnt block any after a few games because the refs called fouls when i was not even close to touching the shooter......

7 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Common tactic used to discredit scientists. While I am not a scientist or academic I would wager that we live in dire times. I would wager my life savings.

Live in illusion if you want but don't blame anyone else for the end result.

that person discredited them self by writing blatantly FALSE info and they are NOT a scientist........

please help me understand something, when posters in these type forums say what do we "do" about this model run, or you killed this storm, or what will we do to mess this storm up?

i am 67 and never considered that i need to "do" anything for the weather to happen, or that i could "do" anything to alter what the weather will be, so my question is what are people saying with those type posts? do they think the weather cares or changes based on things posted?

a great example was just posted by an administrator elsewhere...."So you’re saying with the gfs , cmc , FV3 and the ensembles that weather needs can’t find something good on them every single day ?"

does the weather "need" anything from any model to happen???

1 hour ago, Vice-Regent said:

It is quite toxic when evacuated in large amounts. Look no further than the tar sands industry in Canada and North America. Accordingly many drinking water sources are irreversibly contaminated by such industries among other 'toxic' effects. Air pollution will lower your life expectancy by as much as 20%.

co2 is NOT pollution.....carbon is NOT toxic to carbon based life forms........the author has ZERO science in their silly writing(calling carbon toxic is akin to claiming water is a deadly chemical)......too much at once can kill but that doesnt mean the substance is toxic.

ty for the tone of your response bdgwx.......the release is random with NO directional push at all isnt it? and since the photon was moving away from the earth why when released from the co2 doesnt it continue moving away from the earth?

how would a molecule of co2 stop the IR wave leaving the atmosphere please???   are you saying co2 in the upper atmosphere can send IR waves back to the earth?    that co2 has the POWER to reverse the natural movement of the IR wave towards space?????

why did you create a strawman? nobody claimed it is all or nothing....and your appeal to authority is cute but adds NOTHING and is not discussing anything.......what happens if the physicists are LYING? 

11 hours ago, bdgwx said:

This actually isn't true. This myth has it's origins in an experiment Angstrom and his assistant Koch performed shortly after Arrhenius quantified the greenhouse effect of CO2 and actually predicted it would occur as a direct result of human behavior in the distant future. While the Angstrom/Koch experiment was technically correct in proving that the CO2 effect does saturate the interpretation of how this plays out in the atmosphere got badly bungled for multiple reasons, but mostly because scientists at the time treated the atmosphere as if it were a single homogeneous layer...which it isn't. There are a lot of very physics'y related details involved here but the main takaways are this: 1) Even if a layer of the atmosphere is subject to the saturated CO2 effect itself it will STILL warm via other radiation, conduction, and convection processes through the addition of CO2 because not all layers are subject to the saturation effect and 2) It's not even true that the CO2 effect is saturated to begin with.

amazing you admit there is a point of saturation,but dont seem to grasp what that means, doubling co2 will NOT have  HUGE IMPACT in the real world the only place it does is in computer models which pre assign a power to co2 that is doe NOT have.....you even say after saturation other factors will still cause warming and still blame co2 for the other factors because of some computer generated positive feedback.......if some such positive feedback happens solely because of co2 the earth would have been a cinder long before humans were here.......the next poster goes on with thefeedback stuff after the admission it was warmer long ago before humans.......climate change is natural and the climate is nothing but a set of statistics, the climate is not a force has no power and causes NO weather events.

OR co2 is already impacting as much of the IR spectrum as it can no matter how much more is in the air? IF a dam is holding all the water in the stream does building the dam thicker change anything?

was the southern weather site set up just to mock this site? i ask because the majority here are reasonable, while the vast majority there are imby rules breakers mocking science.....storm5 is a prime example that kid was spain park chris in Spanns chats years ago and was the most negative person i ever encountered about the weather.....they banned me there but still lie in claiming i am not banned.....i seek discussion of the weather and find it here, and really do see mocking of that type effort over there with the constant negative stupid comments. example = "At what point do we start worrying about weeds? Especially given all the rain." is that a science based comment about the current or upcoming weather?

did any model have snow tonight in western virginnia?   seeing pictures from poung va. snow covered highway

a low is nearing the baja area throwing moisture north and east reaching almost to oklahoma and cold air is dropping south north of there

3 minutes ago, WidreMann said:

I can't believe you are having to explain this on a science board.

"but all the other studies have concluded the opposite. "     i merely pointed out the ERROR in claiming the study made conclusions..........nothing needed to be explained to me.....

studies show the DATA, they make no "conclusions"   people make the conclusions........

"all other things being equal" that sum up the POINT for me all things are NOT ever equal so your sides entire position is based on NON existent NON reality.......YOUR side is assigning a power to co2 that it simply does NOT have.

29 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

That is not what bluewave or anyone has claimed. The claim is that Sun (like any main sequence star) is relatively stable in regards to it's luminosity. The variability in the radiative forcing is relatively small despite the magnitude of the radiative forcing being large. The change in radiative forcing of CO2 dominates over the change in radiative forcing of the Sun. Again, it's the change in the effects that are crucial in understanding the change in radiative forcing and thus the change in the heat uptake by the geosphere. Note that I have underlined change to drive home the point that it is the change in the system that puts pressure on the climate and ultimately the Arctic sea ice extents to also change.

For example, if the Sun were to experience a change of 0.25% in it's integrated luminosity then this is equivalent to 1360 W/m2 * 0.0025 / 4 = 0.85 W/m2 of forcing. But, a doubling of CO2 results in 5.35 * ln(560/280) = 3.7 W/m2 of forcing. That's more than 4x the effect. Plus, solar grand minimums are relatively short term compared to the long term impacts of CO2 which take 100s or even 1000s of years to die off to preindustrial levels. Note that a -0.25% change in TSI is considered to be on the high end of the forcing change for a hypothetical grand minimum.

"A solar minimum is no match for the CO2 forcing"......that is the claim made that clearly is saying co2 is more powerful than the SUN.......