Awesome Amounts of New Snow

[Snow_Miser]

In New Jersey, we have just expierienced yet another blizzard with 16-17" of snow. This is our third major storm, and we have had our snowiest January ever, with January not even being over yet.

Now, are these recent snowstorms a product of climate changes? No. Why?

The theory of Global Warming states that warmer oceans would cause more evaporation to make more storms. This argument is missing a critical piece in their theory. What is it?

They are only talking about clouds. Clouds have a negative feedback on the Earth's Climate, so that could actually cool the Earth's Climate.

Weather systems are caused by the difference of the polar temperature and the temperature in the tropics. The Global Warming theory states that with the Arctic warming the fastest and the Tropics warming the slowest, that this difference would be less. So essentially, Global Warming should actually create less storminess, and less disasters, contrary to what some believe.

-Snowlover

[BethesdaWX]

Heres the problem.

The SST's off the East Coast are VERY cold, and the theory states that WARMER SST's will lead to larger storms.....eh, apparently not.

Not to mention, colder temperatures hold less moisture, so, as global temps continue to drop, and intense cold is focused in on the Eastern US in particular... more snowfall & precipitation is falling than avg, again, contrary to expectations.

This proves how little we know about our climate.

[skierinvermont]

There's not really a good answer to this question because the climate is too complex to predict regional effects.

However, it is theorized that a warming world could weaken the jet stream and allow it meander more, which creates more extreme ridging and troughing. Hence storminess.

[WeatherRusty]

Atmospheric water vapor has increased by what? 4% since the 1970's I think. All water cycles through the atmosphere in about 11 days. This means there is 4% greater precipitable water available to storms in general and some of that of course falls as snow.

[BethesdaWX]

Atmospheric water vapor has increased by what? 4% since the 1970's I think. All water cycles through the atmosphere in about 11 days. This means there is 4% greater precipitable water available to storms in general and some of that of course falls as snow.

Depends what source you use. Satellite shows a decrease in water vapor, models show an increase. Problem is, measuring atmospheric water vapor is hard to do either way. Regardless, Brutal winters being seen across the globe in recent years cannot be used to prove either side of the argument.

All I know, the winters here in Bethesda have been Increasingly brutal, with powerful Windstorms, Blizzards, & Rainstorms becoming the norm during the winter months. I have not noticed any change in the summer weather. This past summer was very hot though.

[skierinvermont]

Satellite shows a decrease in water vapor, models show an increase.

Wrong. ISCCP shows a decrease in water vapor, but ISCCP data is not considered reliable because it has not been properly adjusted for changes between satellites. Even the producers of the ISCCP data do not consider it reliable.

Here are the various reanalyses that have been conducted and are considered reliable. They contain a mixture of balloon obs, satellite data, and weather models. The Paltridge data for the upper troposphere is considered spurious by the authors of the study themselves.

Here is another study based on purely satellite data which shows water vapor has increased by .41kg/m2 since 1988.

http://www.pnas.org/.../15248.full.pdf

The last chart is also based purely on SSM/I satellite data and shows a strong positive trend in water vapor.

To claim that water vapor has decreased is just laughably wrong and shows how completely disconnected you are from the actual scientific research.

I believe the following chart is also based off SSM/I satellite data.

[WeatherRusty]

Depends what source you use. Satellite shows a decrease in water vapor, models show an increase. Problem is, measuring atmospheric water vapor is hard to do either way. Regardless, Brutal winters being seen across the globe in recent years cannot be used to prove either side of the argument.

All I know, the winters here in Bethesda have been Increasingly brutal, with powerful Windstorms, Blizzards, & Rainstorms becoming the norm during the winter months. I have not noticed any change in the summer weather. This past summer was very hot though.

Theoretically speaking, a 6% increase in atmospheric water vapor should result from each 1C increase in temperature. This because of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation .

For water vapor not to increase as temperature rises over a 75% watery surface would be unphysical.

[skierinvermont]

Theoretically speaking, a 6% increase in atmospheric water vapor should result from each 1C increase in temperature. This because of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation .

For water vapor not to increase as temperature rises over a 75% watery surface would be unphysical.

Yes not only is he wrong by every reliable empirical measure we have of water vapor, including SSM/I satellite data, but it's also theoretically absurd.

[WeatherRusty]

Yes not only is he wrong by every reliable empirical measure we have of water vapor, including SSM/I satellite data, but it's also theoretically absurd.

I believe the actual controversial area surrounding water vapor stems from the difficulty in measuring humidity accurately with increasing altitude. Thus we have the "hot spot" controversy in the tropical atmosphere which is actually a measure of upper tropospheric water vapor. The hot spot being the theoretical consequence of lapse rate reduction due to the presence of increasing water vapor at altitude. There should be no doubt about increasing water vapor in the boundary layer however, that just has to happen as the surface warms.

[JBG]

Weather systems are caused by the difference of the polar temperature and the temperature in the tropics. The Global Warming theory states that with the Arctic warming the fastest and the Tropics warming the slowest, that this difference would be less. So essentially, Global Warming should actually create less storminess, and less disasters, contrary to what some believe.

That wouldn't make good footage for Al Gore's elaborate fraud movie.

[BethesdaWX]

Theoretically speaking, a 6% increase in atmospheric water vapor should result from each 1C increase in temperature. This because of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation .

For water vapor not to increase as temperature rises over a 75% watery surface would be unphysical.

I meant LL WV not total WV, my fault.

Skier, your argument is botched. WE HAVE NO OTHER GCC DATA EXCEPT Satellite data..... there is no way to analyze error in 1 isolated dataset,.......Who gives a f**k if we think the calibrations are wrong if we cannot prove them wrong? There is no other data that measures GCC, and the fact that UAH GTA match that of ISCCP data There is no other GCC data, & we do not know if the data is printed in error!

UAH temperature data correlates to ISCCP data.....complete BS to state the calibrations are wrong based on forcings which we cannot even nail down further than 10yrs back...again use some common sense.

[ARyan]

In New Jersey, we have just expierienced yet another blizzard with 16-17" of snow. This is our third major storm, and we have had our snowiest January ever, with January not even being over yet.

Now, are these recent snowstorms a product of climate changes? No. Why?

No.

The theory of Global Warming states that warmer oceans would cause more evaporation to make more storms. This argument is missing a critical piece in their theory. What is it?

What?

They are only talking about clouds. Clouds have a negative feedback on the Earth's Climate, so that could actually cool the Earth's Climate.

No. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Clouds are like a blanket and prevent longwave radiation from escaping. Would you expect COOLER temperatures on a night with clouds or a clear sky?

Weather systems are caused by the difference of the polar temperature and the temperature in the tropics. The Global Warming theory states that with the Arctic warming the fastest and the Tropics warming the slowest, that this difference would be less. So essentially, Global Warming should actually create less storminess, and less disasters, contrary to what some believe.

Yes and no. The jet stream "feeds" off of temperature gradients, see http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/407/"]Thermal Wind [/url], therefore wind shear would be reduced. I remember reading an article somewhere that talked about how tornadoes will increase in the years to come before wind shear decreases due to decreasing baroclinicity (temperature gradient). So, in theory, tornadoes should DECREASE in numbers, however, hurricanes should INCREASE. This is due to the fact that hurricanes thrive in low shear and warm ocean waters.

[skierinvermont]

I meant LL WV not total WV, my fault.

Skier, your argument is botched. WE HAVE NO OTHER GCC DATA EXCEPT Satellite data..... there is no way to analyze error in 1 isolated dataset,.......Who gives a f**k if we think the calibrations are wrong if we cannot prove them wrong? There is no other data that measures GCC, and the fact that UAH GTA match that of ISCCP data There is no other GCC data, & we do not know if the data is printed in error!

UAH temperature data correlates to ISCCP data.....complete BS to state the calibrations are wrong based on forcings which we cannot even nail down further than 10yrs back...again use some common sense.

I have provided you with satellite data from SSM/I that directly contradicts what you are saying.

I am done here.

[BethesdaWX]

I have provided you with satellite data from SSM/I that directly contradicts what you are saying.

I am done here.

You're a friggin liar, lets see the exact quotes debunking my rebuttal?

of course...you wont post them.

[skierinvermont]

You're a friggin liar, lets see the exact quotes debunking my rebuttal?

of course...you wont post them.

The following quote contains a link to a study of SSM/I SATELLITE DATA. The last chart is a graph of this SATELLITE DATA from 1988-2005.

The first chart is a graph of various studies showing increasing water vapor that are based on weather balloon data and satellite data.

Watch who you call a liar.

Wrong. ISCCP shows a decrease in water vapor, but ISCCP data is not considered reliable because it has not been properly adjusted for changes between satellites. Even the producers of the ISCCP data do not consider it reliable.

Here are the various reanalyses that have been conducted and are considered reliable. They contain a mixture of balloon obs, satellite data, and weather models. The Paltridge data for the upper troposphere is considered spurious by the authors of the study themselves.

Here is another study based on purely satellite data which shows water vapor has increased by .41kg/m2 since 1988.

http://www.pnas.org/.../15248.full.pdf

The last chart is also based purely on SSM/I satellite data and shows a strong positive trend in water vapor.

To claim that water vapor has decreased is just laughably wrong and shows how completely disconnected you are from the actual scientific research.

I believe the following chart is also based off SSM/I satellite data.

[BethesdaWX]

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH MY REBUTTAL?

Quote the contradiction!

"WE HAVE NO OTHER GCC DATA EXCEPT Satellite data..... there is no way to analyze error in 1 isolated dataset,.......Who gives a f**k if we think the calibrations are wrong if we cannot prove them wrong? There is no other data that measures GCC, and the fact that UAH GTA match that of ISCCP data There is no other GCC data, & we do not know if the data is printed in error!

UAH temperature data correlates to ISCCP data.....complete BS to state the calibrations are wrong based on forcings which we cannot even nail down further than 10yrs back...again use some common sense."

[skierinvermont]

How many times do I have to post the SSM/I satellite water vapor data which directly contradicts the ISCCP water vapor data?

Do you think 9 times will be enough or will I have to post it a tenth?

[skierinvermont]

ISCCP GCC data vs SSM WV Data........

Anyhow....I said...MY REBUTTAL TO YOUR POSTED LINKS...and WHY THE ARGUMENT DOES NOT HOLD GROUND.

Quote the data on there that contradicts my rebuttal....be careful now, because if you miss 1 step, I'm gonna jump all over you.

If ISCCP can't get the water vapor right why the hell should we believe its GCC data?

Especially when their are BLATANT errors that have been documented in the PEER-REVIEWED literature in the CALIBRATION PROCESS.

And the FINAL DATA correlates to the FIELD OF VIEW of individual SATELLITES indicating it is a by-product of the satellites NOT REAL DATA.

[BethesdaWX]

ISCCP GCC data vs SSM WV Data........

Anyhow....I said...MY REBUTTAL TO YOUR POSTED LINKS...and WHY THE ARGUMENT DOES NOT HOLD GROUND.

Quote the data on there that contradicts my rebuttal....be careful now, because if you miss 1 step, I'm gonna jump all over you.

bumb, just so everyone will read this, then skiers remark.....which fails to address this.

[BethesdaWX]

You just started posting 30 seconds after u started reading this topic again...which means you didn't read my actual rebuttal, or even your own link as to which to respond to.

[skierinvermont]

Don't even know what your point is.

ISCCP says water vapor is decreasing.

SSM/I says it is increasing.

ISCCP does not correct for the changes in the angle of measurement.

Hmm which one should we believe?

Oh and lets not forget that CALIPSO, HIRS, and several other cloud cover data sources disagree with ISCCP.

[BethesdaWX]

Don't even know what your point is.

ISCCP says water vapor is decreasing.

SSM/I says it is increasing.

ISCCP does not correct for the changes in the angle of measurement.

Hmm which one should we believe?

Oh and lets not forget that CALIPSO, HIRS, and several other cloud cover data sources disagree with ISCCP.

flunk

1) ISCCP does calibrate for it, your links talk about the uncertainties of changes of measurements.......NOT that they are not calibrated.... because they are indeed calibrated...they have to be

2) WV anomaly can mean nothing in the GCC value..... dont bunch them together

3) Do you have the links/data codes for these GCC models?

[skierinvermont]

flunk

1) ISCCP does calibrate for it, your links talk about the uncertainties of changes of measurements.......NOT that they are not calibrated.... because they are indeed calibrated...they have to be

2) WV anomaly can mean nothing in the GCC value..... dont bunch them together

3) Do you have the links/data codes for these GCC models?

They're not models. They are satellite data, just like ISCCP, except from better more modern satellites using better calibration techniques.

ISCCP gets the water vapor data wrong for the exact same reason that its GCC data is wrong.

[BethesdaWX]

They're not models. They are satellite data, just like ISCCP, except from better more modern satellites using better calibration techniques.

ISCCP gets the water vapor data wrong for the exact same reason that its GCC data is wrong.

Respond to my post entirely please.....

All 3 statements......I organized them to make it easier for you, but apparently you can't contemplate anything that contradicts you.

[skierinvermont]

flunk

1) ISCCP does calibrate for it, your links talk about the uncertainties of changes of measurements.......NOT that they are not calibrated.... because they are indeed calibrated...they have to be

2) WV anomaly can mean nothing in the GCC value..... dont bunch them together

3) Do you have the links/data codes for these GCC models?

1) NO they don't calibrate it for changes in angle of measurement. Here is a link to all the known un-fixed and fixed errors in ISCCP data from the ISCCP website. Please show where angle of measurement has been corrected for.

http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/errors.html

2) If they can't get WV right.. how can they get cloud cover right? They get both of them wrong for the same reason: they don't adjust for changes in angle of measurement.

3) They're not models. SSM/I is satellite data just like ISCCP except it uses much more modern techniques. Same goes for CALIPSO and HIRS.

[BethesdaWX]

1) NO they don't calibrate it for changes in angle of measurement. Here is a link to all the known un-fixed and fixed errors in ISCCP data from the ISCCP website. Please show where angle of measurement has been corrected for.

http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/errors.html

2) If they can't get WV right.. how can they get cloud cover right? They get both of them wrong for the same reason: they don't adjust for changes in angle of measurement.

3) They're not models. SSM/I is satellite data just like ISCCP except it uses much more modern techniques. Same goes for CALIPSO and HIRS.

Bingo

There is no error listed on the site that has anything to do with your accusations....because its doesn't exist. "Known Errors".....

1) Data has to be calibrated when the method collection is changed, its not like its something that it corrected for....its just, done.

2) Who says they can't get WV right? A study with flawd analysis (as I pointed out)

3) Again, I'd like to know more about these. Links please? I'd also like the datacodes for these. If the data is not available to the public, then throw it out immediately.

[skierinvermont]

Bingo

There is no error listed on the site that has anything to do with your accusations....because its doesn't exist. "Known Errors".....

1) Data has to be calibrated when the method collection is changed, its not like its something that it corrected for....its just, done.

2) Who says they can't get WV right? A study with flawd analysis (as I pointed out)

3) Again, I'd like to know more about these. Links please? I'd also like the datacodes for these. If the data is not available to the public, then throw it out immediately.

1) It is Calibrated WRONG. IF it was calibrated right then the final data wouldn't correlated to areas of the earth that have switched from high angle to low angle.

2) First of all, you didn't point out squat about a peer-reviewed journal article. Secondly, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to other data sets using more modern satellites that indicate increasing water vapor. SSM/I satellite data to begin with.

3) HIRS, CALIPSO, etc. I am tired of providing you with good peer-reviewed study only to have you make up conspiracy theory garbage because you are in denial.

[BethesdaWX]

1) It is Calibrated WRONG. IF it was calibrated right then the final data wouldn't correlated to areas of the earth that have switched from high angle to low angle.

2) First of all, you didn't point out squat about a peer-reviewed journal article. Secondly, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to other data sets using more modern satellites that indicate increasing water vapor. SSM/I satellite data to begin with.

3) HIRS, CALIPSO, etc. I am tired of providing you with good peer-reviewed study only to have you make up conspiracy theory garbage because you are in denial.

1) Its not calibrated wrong ...regardless it would be on the "errors list".....GIVEN that you said the scientists themselves called their own data "bad"....that error would be there.

2) You're stupid if you cannot recognize my argument has been against such all along...I've pointed out why the analysis is sh*t and unlrelated to the real isue at hand. read.

3) Post them or don't bring them up again, your choice. You twist arguments into your gibberish fantacies that run rampid through your mind, and is why you keep loosing debates.

[skierinvermont]

1) Its not calibrated wrong ...regardless it would be on the "errors list".....GIVEN that you said the scientists themselves called their own data "bad"....that error would be there.

2) You're stupid if you cannot recognize my argument has been against such all along...I've pointed out why the analysis is sh*t and unlrelated to the real isue at hand. read.

3) Post them or don't bring them up again, your choice. You twist arguments into your gibberish fantacies that run rampid through your mind, and is why you keep loosing debates.

I trust most people on here are intelligent enough to take the evidence I have presented from peer-reviewed journals over the arguments of an 18 year old kid.

[OHSnow]

It sure seems like it's getting snowier. These are the snowiest winters on record at the airport closest to where I grew up in Ohio. I've emboldened all of the post-2000 records.

1. 102.8 2007-2008

2. 90.2 2006-2007

3. 86.5 2008-2009

4. 85.3 1950-1951

5. 82.5 1992-1993

6. 82.0 1962-1963

7. 81.2 2004-2005

8. 81.0 1993-1994

9. 79.7 2010-2011*

10. 78.9 1963-1964

* Through yesterday. Should crack the top five before the end of the weekend and almost assuredly finish at #1 or #2 for the season.