The winter storm that dumped a record-breaking amount of snow on Montreal is now hitting Newfoundland, with Environment Canada saying northern and central parts of the province can expect 20 to 30 centimetres.
It's warm enough to generate enough moisture in the air to snow that heavily, so it must be Global cooling, right?
Increased precipitation would be an indicator of actual warming. This is quite at odds with global warming alarmism which preaches the nonsense that droughts would follow with warming. Droughts are symptomatic of cooling which causes decreased hydrologic cycles.
It's warm enough to generate enough moisture in the air to snow that heavily, so it must be Global cooling, right?
Increased precipitation would be an indicator of actual warming. This is quite at odds with global warming alarmism which preaches the nonsense that droughts would follow with warming. Droughts are symptomatic of cooling which causes decreased hydrologic cycles.
As air heats, it is able to hold more moisture ( humidity). As air cools, the moisture precipitates. Warmer temps mean the air will not cool enough to precipitate, causing droughts long term. For an extremem example, see 'Venus'.
This is the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.
As air heats, it is able to hold more moisture ( humidity). As air cools, the moisture precipitates. Warmer temps mean the air will not cool enough to precipitate, causing droughts long term. For an extremem example, see 'Venus'.
This is the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.
Then you're asserting that there's no warming going on? Interesting.
"raydan" said One storm does not global warming make... or break.
Depends on the storm. See, if the nature of the storm supports the AGW narrative then, yes, it is certain proof of AGW. If not, then it means nothing at all.
"BartSimpson" said One storm does not global warming make... or break.
Depends on the storm. See, if the nature of the storm supports the AGW narrative then, yes, it is certain proof of AGW. If not, then it means nothing at all.
Next heat wave means global warming is back on.
I recall, during a Sacramento heat wave, you poo-pooed someone's claim it was global warming because the heat wave was an example of weather, not climate.
I recall, during a Sacramento heat wave, you poo-pooed someone's claim it was global warming because the heat wave was an example of weather, not climate.
I guess you forgot that argument here.
The problem with Sacramento heat waves is that they're nothing new at all. The 'official' hottest day on record here was 115� in 1961 which was during the last cooling period.
In any case, I don't go for any climate alarmism one way or the other.
As air heats, it is able to hold more moisture ( humidity). As air cools, the moisture precipitates. Warmer temps mean the air will not cool enough to precipitate, causing droughts long term. For an extremem example, see 'Venus'.
This is the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.
Then you're asserting that there's no warming going on? Interesting.
No. I'm saying a snowstorm in Newfoundland is 'weather'. The gradual warming of the climate so less precip ocurrs and causes droughts is 'climate'.
I recall, during a Sacramento heat wave, you poo-pooed someone's claim it was global warming because the heat wave was an example of weather, not climate.
I guess you forgot that argument here.
The problem with Sacramento heat waves is that they're nothing new at all. The 'official' hottest day on record here was 115� in 1961 which was during the last cooling period.
In any case, I don't go for any climate alarmism one way or the other.
Had a record snowfall in Montreal as well yesterday (December 27). 18 inches (45 cm) in less than 24 hours. The weather patterns here this month have been quite abnormal, ranging from rain, sleet, hail and snow. Not to mention the temperature fluctuations.
gotta love global warming.
It's warm enough to generate enough moisture in the air to snow that heavily, so it must be Global cooling, right?
gotta love global warming.
It's warm enough to generate enough moisture in the air to snow that heavily, so it must be Global cooling, right?
Increased precipitation would be an indicator of actual warming. This is quite at odds with global warming alarmism which preaches the nonsense that droughts would follow with warming. Droughts are symptomatic of cooling which causes decreased hydrologic cycles.
gotta love global warming.
It's warm enough to generate enough moisture in the air to snow that heavily, so it must be Global cooling, right?
Increased precipitation would be an indicator of actual warming. This is quite at odds with global warming alarmism which preaches the nonsense that droughts would follow with warming. Droughts are symptomatic of cooling which causes decreased hydrologic cycles.
As air heats, it is able to hold more moisture ( humidity). As air cools, the moisture precipitates. Warmer temps mean the air will not cool enough to precipitate, causing droughts long term. For an extremem example, see 'Venus'.
This is the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.
As air heats, it is able to hold more moisture ( humidity). As air cools, the moisture precipitates. Warmer temps mean the air will not cool enough to precipitate, causing droughts long term. For an extremem example, see 'Venus'.
This is the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.
Then you're asserting that there's no warming going on? Interesting.
One storm does not global warming make... or break.
Depends on the storm. See, if the nature of the storm supports the AGW narrative then, yes, it is certain proof of AGW. If not, then it means nothing at all.
One storm does not global warming make... or break.
Depends on the storm. See, if the nature of the storm supports the AGW narrative then, yes, it is certain proof of AGW. If not, then it means nothing at all.
Next heat wave means global warming is back on.
I recall, during a Sacramento heat wave, you poo-pooed someone's claim it was global warming because the heat wave was an example of weather, not climate.
I guess you forgot that argument here.
Next heat wave means global warming is back on.
I recall, during a Sacramento heat wave, you poo-pooed someone's claim it was global warming because the heat wave was an example of weather, not climate.
I guess you forgot that argument here.
The problem with Sacramento heat waves is that they're nothing new at all. The 'official' hottest day on record here was 115� in 1961 which was during the last cooling period.
In any case, I don't go for any climate alarmism one way or the other.
As air heats, it is able to hold more moisture ( humidity). As air cools, the moisture precipitates. Warmer temps mean the air will not cool enough to precipitate, causing droughts long term. For an extremem example, see 'Venus'.
This is the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.
Then you're asserting that there's no warming going on? Interesting.
No. I'm saying a snowstorm in Newfoundland is 'weather'. The gradual warming of the climate so less precip ocurrs and causes droughts is 'climate'.
Next heat wave means global warming is back on.
I recall, during a Sacramento heat wave, you poo-pooed someone's claim it was global warming because the heat wave was an example of weather, not climate.
I guess you forgot that argument here.
The problem with Sacramento heat waves is that they're nothing new at all. The 'official' hottest day on record here was 115� in 1961 which was during the last cooling period.
In any case, I don't go for any climate alarmism one way or the other.
Really? Interesting.