A Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow

Ponca City, We love you writes "NPR reports that with snow blanketing much of the country, the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes; but for scientists who study the climate, there's no contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow. 'The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were, say, 30 years ago means there's about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was... in the 1970s,' says Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate scientist. 'So one of the consequences of a warming ocean near a coastline like the East Coast and Washington, DC, for instance, is that you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warming.' Increased snowfall also fits a pattern suggested by many climate models, in which rising temperatures increase the amount of atmospheric moisture, bringing more rain in warmer conditions and more snow in freezing temperatures."

Comments

Re:Science or Religion?

[CrazyJim1]

Regardless if Global Warming is real or not, there is a definitive political agenda for pushing that it is real. If the world's governments need to unite to combat global warming, the formation of world government fits some people's agendas. Real or Fake, there is a certain group of powerful people that will be pushing it on you.

In other news Obama did the first thing I liked, he commissioned the first nuclear power plant in 30 years claiming it is better for the environment than coal or gas. I'm glad nuclear is being opened up again so we can make better power plants. If the USA pursues an aggressive energy creation policy so we have a surplus, and vehicles are made that run on electricity/hydrogen, we could be paying less to fuel up our cars in 20 years. And cheaper fuel equates to cheaper food. Cheaper food and fuel results in more money we can donate in charity to help the poor. And a lower global poverty level results in less abuses of the environment.

Re:Science or Religion?

[Paltin]

Sure, AGW can be falsified.

Here are some ways, just off the top of my head:

1. Show that combustion of coal, gas, andother fossil fuels does not emit carbon dioxide.

2. Show that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has not changed due to the release of human combustion; one way this could happen would be some uptake mechanism kicking in.

3. Show that carbon dioxide's absorption spectrum is such that is does not absorb shortwave infrared radiation, or is not transparent to longer wave radiation.

4. Show that the heat that ends up trapped at the Earth's surface escapes in some other manner that is proportional to the increase in temperature.

Okay, get at it! Good luck!

Mind you, the interactions in the extremely complex weather system you mention are tougher to deal with, but they're a result of people trying to figure out what the effects of warming will be; not an effort to measure the warming itself, and thus not necessary to address your one question.

PS- Phil Jones said there was no statistically significant warming; and any time series with as much noise as global temperature measurement and only 15 measurements since 1995 will be impossible to find a statistically significant (p.05) change. Of course, we have a lot more data then that, and we do have statistical significance in longer time series.

Re:Science or Religion?

[sumdumass]

Are you really only willing to do something if there is a punishment if you don't? I'm sorry, but that's not the way I view things.

Let me change that to reflect the reality we are facing. I'm only willing to something that punishes me now, if there is a punishment later that would be worse.

The problem is that there are increased costs with changing now. Sure, if it was competitive in pricing, it wouldn't be a punishment now and the benefits would likely encourage a change now. If you can and are willing to afford a change right now, then do it, but forcing more expensive energy costs onto other people is really a punishment unless they are willing to take on the burden just like you are.

Let me make myself clear again: I don't give a shit whether AGW is true or not. Whatever the case, doing what we would need to do were AGW true are STILL good things! Do you not care about the fauna and flora going down the drain due to pollution? Do you not care about having a breathable atmosphere in downtowns? Do you not care about having clean water to drink for years to come? If you've answered yes to any of those questions, AGW should be irrelevant. Limiting our pollutive tendencies would *also* help that, and that's why I say we should keep going.

Well, not really. You see, there is more then one way to skin a cat. Of course if your skinning the cat for a specific purpose, then your options are limited or different then just getting the job done.

Cats aside, if we were reducing pollution because of AGW, then we would be considering natural gasses as a pollutant and working to get rid of those. That doesn't necessarily mean that the amount of soot (smog, dust, whatever) in the air would be lowered too. However, if we were ignoring AGW and tackling the problems like breathable air in the city or safe drinking water, then we could use filters on emissions stacks that are far less complicated and expensive then ones needed to mediate the natural gasses too. In one case, we might have to stop using a source of energy like coal or something where in the other, scrubbers would be sufficient.

So again, it's about cost and availability which translates back down to punishment to some degree. If I could afford it and the sun would cooperate, I would switch entirely to solar power but that's not a reality I would be able to see in any near future. I don't think that it's anyone is anti change, they just do not want to down grade or have to pay more without a justification that works for them.