Skiing is fun, right up until snow is forced up the kilt

*Yawn* Climate is not weather. Weather is not climate. Looking globally, not regionally, and longer-term:


(NOAA's 2007 Annual Report)
(NOAA's March 2008 Monthly Report)

Excerpt from the latter:

"The global surface (land and ocean surface) temperature was the 2nd warmest on record for March in the 129-year record, 1.28° F (0.71° C) above the 20th century mean of 54.9° F (12.7° C). The warmest March on record (+1.33° F/0.74° C) occurred in 2002.

The global land surface temperature was the warmest on record for March, 3.3° F (1.8° C) above the 20th century mean of 40.8° F (5.0° C). Temperatures more than 8° F above average covered much of the Asian continent. Two months after the greatest January snow cover extent on record on the Eurasian continent, the unusually warm temperatures led to rapid snow melt, and March snow cover extent on the Eurasian continent was the lowest on record.

Although the ocean surface average was only the 13th warmest on record, as the cooling influence of La Niña in the tropical Pacific continued, much warmer than average conditions across large parts of Eurasia helped push the global average to a near record high for March.

Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent was the fourth lowest on record for March, remaining consistent with boreal spring conditions of the past two decades, in which warming temperatures have contributed to anomalously low snow cover extent.

Some weakening of La Niña, the cold phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, occurred in March, but moderate La Niña conditions remained across the tropical Pacific Ocean.

B-b-but Scotland?

Warmer climates cause more snow.

End of argument.

Out of all of the consequences of climate change, the "It snowed in X, GLOBALWARMINGHURR" may not be the worst, but it's certainly one of the most annoying.

Way to capture the gold for the Special Olympics 100m Downhill Drool of headline submissions, subby. You win, but you're still farking retarded.

You need relatively warm, moist air in order to have snow

.

It seems that, when it comes to GW headlines, only submissions from incredibly stupid people are accepted. I think the mods just like the controversy.

RTFA, subby, it says that it's a great season in spite of global warming, which has been ruining the skiing for 15 years.

Besides, there's no such thing as global warming. I know this, because Al Gore has a mansion.

b..b..b..but pirates

Dancin_In_Anson: Warmer climates cause more snow.

End of argument.

Exactly. Warmer summers cause more humid air which cause more snow in winter. Excellent.

Once the Gulf Stream shuts down from all the fresh water being introduced into it, in the north, great Britain will have all the snow they want. So get out early and buy a snow shovel and a big bag(cubic yard) of salt.

Global Warming... is there anything it can't do?

This is great news for the ski resorts. They were almost wiped out by the Y2K cataclysm a few years back.

Yay! It's the daily "It snowed a lot somewhere therefore climate change is a myth" thread!

we are wrong on climate change (new window)

"Global warming helps Scottish ski resorts to best season in a generation. In related news, there are apparently Scottish ski resorts"

In related news, some people apparently believe in global warming.

EMBRACE GLOBAL WARMING. It is good for us. More crop yields, longer growing seasons.

Get PC. It's Climate Change now. We no longer go with the easily debunked phrase Global Warming. Remember, Global Cooling was changed to Global Warming and now is Climate Change.

I'm a firm believer in Climate Change. I expect it to get even warmer for the next few months. We used to refer to it as Spring/Summer.

Dancin_In_Anson: Warmer climates cause more snow.

End of argument.


One of the driest places on earth is in the Antarctic. Too cold for the air to hold moisture.

Argument restarted.

Ten common attacks on mainstream science:

# Claim that mainstream science isn't actually science in the first place, e.g. it is "religion", "unscientific", "unfalsifiable", "politics", etc.
# Claim that there is an establishment/conspiracy (liberal, leftist, intellectual, political, etc.) pushing its agenda, censoring and/or persecuting those that "dare to dissent"; sometimes conflating science with brutal totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, or religious persecutions like the Inquisition or witch hunts.
# Claim that a vocal minority making claims outside of the primary scientific literature justifies the assertion that a controversy exists; use of unpublished polls/petitions/surveys of scientists or "experts" on topics outside of their field of expertise to give or further impression of same.
# Deliberately equivocate on the meaning of scientific vs. lay terminology (e.g. "theory", "hypothesis", etc.) to persuade lay persons that mainstream science hasn't "been proven".
# Present claims made outside the primary literature as equal to or more credible than studies in refereed journals- even claims made by politicians, or think tanks with clear ideological agendas.
# Present self-contradictory alternatives to/criticisms of the mainstream view without apparent realization or acknowledgment of their mutually exclusive nature.
# Present admissions to or criticisms of problematic aspects relating to the mainstream view that have since been resolved for years, decades, etc. as though they are still relevant; conflate mainstream science to past instances of scientific or pseudoscientific failure without evidence of how the same is occurring.
# Attack opinions and/or statements made outside the primary literature, even claims made by politicians, or organizations with clear ideological agendas as if this is equal to or more credible than publishing criticisms in refereed, respected journals.
# Attack areas of remaining study or uncertainty that may or may not even fall under the scope of the basic premise to give the appearance of discrediting the main tenets.
# Assume any gap or error as positive evidence for the opposing position with no illustration of it being such.

Feel free to test this against 9/11 Truther claims, autism-vaccine loonies, Creationists, etc.

Denialism relies on the same tropes with only the details and subject changing.

chimp_ninja: *Yawn* Climate is not weather. Weather is not climate. Looking globally, not regionally, and longer-term:


(NOAA's 2007 Annual Report)
(NOAA's March 2008 Monthly Report)

Excerpt from the latter: "The global surface (land and ocean surface) temperature was the 2nd warmest on record for March in the 129-year record, 1.28° F (0.71° C) above the 20th century mean of 54.9° F (12.7° C). The warmest March on record (+1.33° F/0.74° C) occurred in 2002.

The global land surface temperature was the warmest on record for March, 3.3° F (1.8° C) above the 20th century mean of 40.8° F (5.0° C). Temperatures more than 8° F above average covered much of the Asian continent. Two months after the greatest January snow cover extent on record on the Eurasian continent, the unusually warm temperatures led to rapid snow melt, and March snow cover extent on the Eurasian continent was the lowest on record.

Although the ocean surface average was only the 13th warmest on record, as the cooling influence of La Niña in the tropical Pacific continued, much warmer than average conditions across large parts of Eurasia helped push the global average to a near record high for March.

Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent was the fourth lowest on record for March, remaining consistent with boreal spring conditions of the past two decades, in which warming temperatures have contributed to anomalously low snow cover extent.

Some weakening of La Niña, the cold phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, occurred in March, but moderate La Niña conditions remained across the tropical Pacific Ocean.
B-b-but Scotland?

just like a year is made up of lost os days, climate is made up of lots of days of weather patterns.

the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.


so stop acting so superior.

Seigneur: Get PC. It's Climate Change now. We no longer go with the easily debunked phrase Global Warming. Remember, Global Cooling was changed to Global Warming and now is Climate Change.

When will you people stop repeating this bullshiat talking point?

Global warming and climate change describe two distinct but overlapping phenomena. As it's commonly used, global warming refers to the observed warming of a planet (increase of the global mean temp), climate change means altering the distribution, shape, intensity, and duration of climate norms insofar as they exist, and anthropogenic means due to human actions. Our emissions-driven alteration of the planetary energy balance is increasing the mean temperature of the planet which is changing the climate (dry areas are becoming more prone to drought, flood prone areas receiving more precipitation, colder areas becoming arable, etc.). Global warming can be non-anthropogenic (e.g. what will happen when the sun expands) and climate change can be non-anthropogenic but warming (e.g. Permian extinction), and non-warming but anthropogenic (e.g. nuclear winter). Anthropogenic global warming and anthropogenic climate change both describe what is occurring. It isn't a plot to switch definitions as a catchall in case cooling is observed.

Climate change was the term used in the National Academy of Sciences-commissioned Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate which issued its landmark findings in Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment, or the "Charney report" as it is sometimes known almost 30 years ago in 1979 warning us that "wait and see" was probably the worst approach to take[1]. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was created in 1988[2]. The UNFCCC (the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) was created in 1992[3].

In fact, the current Bush Administration decided to officially stop referring to the issue as "global warming" as they had been and switch to using "climate change" as a propaganda effort, because it sounded less scary[4][5]. So if you want to blame someone for recently shifting definitions in order to spin something, don't look at the climate science community.

Your ignorance of the phrase "climate change" isn't proof of its recency or intent to deceive. Just stop.

I skied in Scotland once, nearly kilted me. Nothing but huge ice patches and lots of boulders that magically appeared out of blinding, wind-swept snow. It sucked so bad I skipped the 2nd day of skiing during our tour to sightsee with a bunch of friends.

Took the train from Aviemore up to Inverness. Then we rode buses out to Drumnadrochit and hung around Lock Ness and Urquhart Castle for the day. Rode the train back that evening for more pints at pub next to our hotel. Good times.

DulceEtDecorumEst: Im sick and tired of this bullshiat global warming propaganda. Whenever it gets a cold and michigan has the snowiest winter in history, people say that it is an exception, and it doesnt disprove global warming. However, the second it gets a bit warm and some snow melts in switzerland and the ski conditions get relatively better in scotland, everyone is just like - see this proves it, global warming is real. what hyprocrites.

weird how that works, huh? Last month there was a report that the fish in a certain area of the Pacific, off the coast of Oregon had disappeared because of global warming then the JPL released a report stating that the ocean was not getting warmer.

I think the fish just went on holiday.

Warmer climates cause more snow...

And in other news, black is white, up is down, evil is good, and Al Gore still runs away from any open, neutral, moderated, public debate on globaloney.

scotland has 5 ski resorts, and they arnt too shabby.

A hallmark feature of pseudoscience (or a cult, for that matter) is that it: (1) cannot be tested; (2) cannot be falsified; (3) uses post-hoc explanations to account for the perspective, and (4) changes its rhetoric in lieu of new conflicting data.

This concept of climate change cannot be tested. Our back-testing is really based on the computer model that it's plugged into--thus any results are biased by the model itself. (2) Climate Change cannot be falsified. If it's hot, it's because of climate change. If it's cold, it's climate change. If there's no change--then it's climate change (because there's no change). (3) They've tried, for the past two seasons, to say that this global warming / climate change myth will result in severe hurricane seasons. They have been wrong in both accounts.

(4) It used to be global cooling. Then global warming. Then these nut jobs figured out that they needed to make their cause more nebulous and unfalsifiable... so they now use the rhetoric "climate change" such that *any* weather supports their deductive pseudoscientific premise".

Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark] Quote 2008-04-19 09:36:32 AM
Warmer climates cause more snow.

End of argument.

Thank you. I can't count how many times idiots try to use snowfall to refute global warming when a 12 year old could understand that warming trends would increase precipitation.

Jon Snow: Seigneur: Get PC. It's Climate Change now. We no longer go with the easily debunked phrase Global Warming. Remember, Global Cooling was changed to Global Warming and now is Climate Change.

When will you people stop repeating this bullshiat talking point?

Global warming and climate change describe two distinct but overlapping phenomena. As it's commonly used, global warming refers to the observed warming of a planet (increase of the global mean temp), climate change means altering the distribution, shape, intensity, and duration of climate norms insofar as they exist, and anthropogenic means due to human actions. Our emissions-driven alteration of the planetary energy balance is increasing the mean temperature of the planet which is changing the climate (dry areas are becoming more prone to drought, flood prone areas receiving more precipitation, colder areas becoming arable, etc.). Global warming can be non-anthropogenic (e.g. what will happen when the sun expands) and climate change can be non-anthropogenic but warming (e.g. Permian extinction), and non-warming but anthropogenic (e.g. nuclear winter). Anthropogenic global warming and anthropogenic climate change both describe what is occurring. It isn't a plot to switch definitions as a catchall in case cooling is observed.

Climate change was the term used in the National Academy of Sciences-commissioned Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate which issued its landmark findings in Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment, or the "Charney report" as it is sometimes known almost 30 years ago in 1979 warning us that "wait and see" was probably the worst approach to take[1]. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was created in 1988[2]. The UNFCCC (the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) was created in 1992[3].

In fact, the current Bush Administration decided to officially stop referring to the issue as "global warming" as they had been and switch to using "climate change" as a propaganda effort, because it sounded less scary[4][5]. So if you want to blame someone for recently shifting definitions in order to spin something, don't look at the climate science community.

Your ignorance of the phrase "climate change" isn't proof of its recency or intent to deceive. Just stop.

The MSM stopped calling it Global Warming. Yet another "We hate Bush so let's blame him" effort.

You go on believing what you like, I know this is just political BS to force people to do what liberal/envriwack0/socialists want done.

Seigneur: I expect it to get even warmer for the next few months. We used to refer to it as Spring/Summer.

This pic absolutely captures the essence of the bovine fecal purveyance specialists shoveling their 'planteary catastrophe within ten years' globaloney:




But neither the completely discredited Gore, nor the dishonest, Soros-financed Hansen and Mann, nor any other climate alarmist will dare debate. None of them. They're scared that people will find out the truth about globaloney.

They FEAR debate, because facts like this will emerge:

chimp_ninja: *Yawn* Climate is not weather. Weather is not climate.

And yet every hot spell, every big storm, every bit of weather that happens the global warming true believers scream 'it's because of CO2 driven global warming!'. This weather != climate bit applies only one way, to conditions that indicate a colder trend locally or globally or just for a day.

> Looking globally, not regionally, and longer-term:

Try going further under the hood and see how the data is put together.

Anyway, even if we take the CO2 driven global warming as a given (and there is good reason not to) the solutions proposed will do nothing. What these solutions are designed to do is put free people under the yoke of a ruling elite. It's a scam that is thousands of years old, the priest says do what I say or the monster will eat the sun. The priest knows it is an eclipse but he is preying upon the ignorance of the masses. CO2 driven global warming is much the same thing. If we just give in and do what they want, turn over our collective wealth to them, if we just obey, they will save us from the monster of climate change.

Meanwhile, nations like China are exempt. Wonder why China, a nation that holds over a trillion dollars in reserves is exempt from even the most basic 1960 pollution controls let alone these plans to reduce CO2 emissions? A broke ass country like the USA is supposed to take on all these additional burdens but a rich nation like China is exempt from the old ones and the new ones? Think about it.

Go ahead and put in carbon taxes in the USA. See what few things that are still made here get made in China too. Net global CO2 reduction will be negative. Build the widget in china and then ship it to the US.

Heywood Jablowme:

They FEAR debate, because facts like this will emerge:

Every time you mention that climate is based on solar cycles they go nut-so. Then you mention how Mars is suffering from "Global Warming" as well so it can't be caused by man and they freak some more.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum:

You need relatively warm, moist air in order to have snow

and cold temperatures.

we don't know if the air in scotland has been warmer or more moist at this time of years compared to recent years, but we do know the temperature has been colder.

Alarmists want normal folks to believe that a trace gas, under 4/100ths of one percent of the atmosphere, will lead directly to "planetary catastrophe." heh.

In reality, Mr. Sun has way more influence on the Earth than all the CO2 in creation:

Seignuer:

Every time you mention that climate is based on solar cycles they go nut-so. Then you mention how Mars is suffering from "Global Warming" as well so it can't be caused by man and they freak some more.

Well done! You've deduced my motive for making fun of the True Believer Goron worshippers. Here's more:

Global warming? My kid and I built a snowman in our front yard this morning. And to think I laughed when they predicted snow in Seattle three days ago...

/'Scuse me while I sip coffee and Baileys 60 days before the start of summer

I bet the Scottish Slopes have 3 run types...
1. Wee
2. Not so Wee
3. Freaking Huge!

Seigneur: Heywood Jablowme:

They FEAR debate, because facts like this will emerge:

Every time you mention that climate is based on solar cycles they go nut-so. Then you mention how Mars is suffering from "Global Warming" as well so it can't be caused by man and they freak some more.

If by "freak out" you mean "present solid evidence that handily refutes your bullshiat and oft-debunked talking points," then yeah.

Here's the problem (as I see it): people hear a title, like global warming, and automatically assume that it means the planet is only going to get hotter. These are the same people that believe the Clean Air Act will make the air cleaner, etc...
So when it snows in late April, they are the first to say "bwahahaha...global warming at work, shnarfle goggle...nom, nom, nom..."
It's best to ignore them.

gjs_cds: A hallmark feature of pseudoscience (or a cult, for that matter) is that it: (1) cannot be tested; (2) cannot be falsified; (3) uses post-hoc explanations to account for the perspective, and (4) changes its rhetoric in lieu of new conflicting data.

This concept of climate change cannot be tested. Our back-testing is really based on the computer model that it's plugged into--thus any results are biased by the model itself. (2) Climate Change cannot be falsified. If it's hot, it's because of climate change. If it's cold, it's climate change. If there's no change--then it's climate change (because there's no change). (3) They've tried, for the past two seasons, to say that this global warming / climate change myth will result in severe hurricane seasons. They have been wrong in both accounts.

1. It can and is tested all the time. Stratospheric cooling, for example, was a prediction against which increased greenhouse warming was tested[1. An energy imbalance in the oceans was another[2].
2. It can be falsified by disproving the fundamental physical properties of greenhouse gases, the discovery of a phenomena that is not only capable of producing increased greenhouse warming but of countering or masking the additional warming increased concentrations of GHGs must necessarily produce, etc.
3. The most notable "They" in question, Bill Gray and his bunch, are climate change skeptics and/or skeptics re: the influence of global warming on hurricanes[3][4]. The effect of anthropogenic warming on hurricanes is a relatively young area of study and there is a lot of study that needs to be done before anyone can make meaningful claims about anthropogenic impacts.
4. See my comment at 02:02:50 PM re: "climate change vs. global warming". If you need to be shown why the claim "first it was cooling" is specious, I'm happy to do so. You can start here[5].

You came out of the gate strong.

# Claim that mainstream science isn't actually science in the first place, e.g. it is "religion", "unscientific", "unfalsifiable", "politics", etc.

nerfball: DistendedPendulusFrenulum:

You need relatively warm, moist air in order to have snow

and cold temperatures.

we don't know if the air in scotland has been warmer or more moist at this time of years compared to recent years, but we do know the temperature has been colder.

Can the pro- and anti- climate change folks please knock it off?

The air in Scotland is plenty humid enough all year round. Scotland is part of an island next to the Atlantic to the left, and the Arctic Ocean above.

The main snowfall in Scotland is usually in Jan/Feb each year. It's usually melting by March/April. This year, for no particular reason, there's recently been a steady wind from the North for a couple of weeks. Therefore, colder air than usual, and snow.

It's not because of climate change, and it's not despite climate change. It's just the weather.

/ End of rant.
// Scottish.

Heywood Jablowme: They FEAR debate, because facts like this will emerge:



Hmmm... Why does that graph stop exactly when the sun-temp correlation stops? I'm sure it's simply an honest mistake on your part.

Jon Snow:

With the earth being some 4.6 billion years old, I fail to see how your real-time tests provide valid results. Kind of like looking out my window and not seeing the curvature of the earth. Tests with global (and time) perspectives are not possible. Sorry. Try again.

Secondly--no, you can't test your greenhouse gases theory. There's no control. Ipso facto, there's no real test. We had a few hot years. GHGs went up. That's an association, and cannot be seen as causal. Kind of like murder increasing with ice cream consumption.

Thirdly--thanks for making my point. You nut jobs tried to predict hurricane severity--and you did so very very poorly. Now, instead of admitting that your central tenet is bad... you guys are trying to make ad-hoc tweaks to support your world view. The method of science just doesn't work that way.

Finally--who ever said that your political theory was main stream in the first place? I think you all think that--because of the media support. Thus, your entire premise is false... It should read:

# Claim that our political pseudoscience isn't actually science in the first place, because of its deductive falsifiability.

The funny thing is--You may or may not be old enough to understand these fad "sciences". In 10 years, it'll be something else, and you'll look back on this and feel just a little stupid.

Heywood Jablowme: But neither the completely discredited Gore, nor the dishonest, Soros-financed Hansen and Mann, nor any other climate alarmist will dare debate. None of them. They're scared that people will find out the truth about globaloney.

# Present claims made outside the primary literature as equal to or more credible than studies in refereed journals- even claims made by politicians, or think tanks with clear ideological agendas.
# Attack opinions and/or statements made outside the primary literature, even claims made by politicians, or organizations with clear ideological agendas as if this is equal to or more credible than publishing criticisms in refereed, respected journals.

Denialism always takes the same form. It's only the details that differ.

[inane blather about Mann's reconstruction]

Mann's 1998 reconstruction was one of many.

Climate deceivers' response: "B... bu... but, global cooling proves global warming! Consensus!! The science is settled!! Up is down!! Black is white!! Evil is good!!

...So sayeth:

Jon Snow: sure it's simply an honest mistake on your part

Seems theres been a correlation for more than century with only the past few years showing something different. Am I missing something?