The Goreacle: Snowstorms caused by global warming

Again, there’s almost no reason to pile onto Gore anymore. His words are pure humor at this point.

So al says ” Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture.” So global warming cause both moisture and cold?

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-al-gore-could-save-world-admit-man.html
Man-made climate-change – or anthropogenic climate change, or anthropogenic global warming – is what is driving the world to ruin.
HOW?
SIMPLE:
It’s driving up the cost of everything including food. This is increasing global unemployment and national and international conflict.
ALL OVER A HOAX.
Oil is nearly TWICE as expensive now as in 2005, even though consumption/demand is only up 9%.
YUP: In 2005 the world consumed 77 billion barrels and in 2009 only 85 billion – but TODAY, the price is nearly twice as high.
SURE: the price isn’t any where near the outrageous BUBBLE PRICE of 2008 (a bubble which helped push the USA and world into a horrific recession!).
Nevertheless, the price remains TOO DAMNED HIGH BASED ON DEMAND – especially if you consider that since 2006 BILLIONS MORE barrels of proven reserves have been located. OPEC had at least a 4% increase – and natural gas is in a global glut – we know have at least a 250 year reserve!! And Canadian oil sands and Brazil’s off-shore finds have all increased the supply of proven global energy reserves.
One of the MAJOR reasons THE PRICE OF OIL IS TOO DAMN HIGH is … Al Gore.
Well… er um: not just oil, but ALL ENERGY! And food. YUP: 2 of our most basic needs.
Yup: Gore and his army of alarmists dupes and alarm-exploiters have successfully raised the cost of ALL ENERGY (and also FOOD because crops once reaped for food are now reaped for industrial energy).
Costs for all manufacturing has gone up as a result – and manufactured goods, margins have declined for many, and the cost of living has suffered a double whammy: goods are more expensive and so is food.
Al Gore can stop this INSANITY by admitting AGW was all wrong.
Carbon taxes and other subsidies for so-called “green energy and the so-called green economy would vanish – meaning governments could cut deficits and this would immediately help lower interest rates.
The use of CHEAP COAL could once again be increased, and quickly – thus lowering energy costs for everyone – including all industry.
Food costs will come down for two reasons: more supply of food, and fertilizers (which need a lot of energy to be manufactured) would become cheaper again.
People would immediately feel wealthier as gas prices and food prices decline almost immediately.
This wealth effect would mean they would spend and invest more and this will make the global economy grow – leading to more prosperous and healthy lives for everyone – especially the poor.
And the Third World could abandon fear of industrialization and begin to invest in the power plants and cement factories and asphalt factories – and yes sweat shops – so they can build homes and highways and roads and electrical grid which will lead them as it led us: to better way of life for all their people.
THERE ARE ONLY TWO THINGS PREVENTING AN IMMEDIATE, ROBUST AND SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY:
AL GORE AND AL QAEDA.
OSAMA WON’T LISTEN TO REASON.
WILL AL GORE?

http://www.kscnet.ru/ivs/kvert/current/kzm/index.html
But this couldn’t possibly be a driver, huh?

I got this from Zero Hedge.. I think it is apt.
…just as I am affected by the maniac, so I am affected by most modern thinkers. That unmistakable mood or note that I hear from Hanwell [an insane asylum], I hear also from half the chairs of science and seats of learning to-day; and most of the mad doctors are mad doctors in more senses than one. They all have exactly that combination we have noted: the combination of an expansive and exhaustive reason with a contracted common sense. They are universal only in the sense that they take one thin explanation and carry it very far. But a pattern can stretch for ever and still be a small pattern. They see a chess-board white on black, and if the universe is paved with it, it is still white on black. Like the lunatic, they cannot alter their standpoint; they cannot make a mental effort and suddenly see it black on white.
~C.K. Chesterton

So Al, answer me this very simple question if you can:
What type of weather can we expect to see if global warming was not happening?

Dear Globull Warming God –
The high today in my Denver suburb was ZERO. Could I have a little global warming please? We’re supposed to be around -20 tonight with wind chills in the -40 range.
If we could get back to Friday’s 66 degrees, I would appreciate it.
Signed,
Freezing My A** Off
PS: The dogs don’t want to go outside to do their business, so this is really important.

“What type of weather can we expect to see if global warming was not happening?”
That is easy: AGW causes all weather. Therefore, you would need a significant period of *no weather* to disprove AGW.

So, when snowfall isn’t disappearing forever, it’s reappearing in greater quantities than ever?
All we really need to know about the current state of climate science is that every time an anomaly occurs, virtually every climate scientist reflexively invokes AGW.
Forget natural variability and a dearth of meaningful data on the history of our own climate. Nah, we don’t need facts, and what little facts we do have can be manipulated and tortured into saying pretty much whatever we want them to say.
What an effing scam.

Jeremy says:
Again, there’s almost no reason to pile onto Gore anymore. His words are pure humor at this point.
But it’s so much fun. Especially, since Spotted-Owl has done his best to get filthy rich at the expense of the rest of this country and, indeed, the world. I have no sympathy.

“…it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when [AGW] Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.”
George Orwell – “1984”
Al Gore – 2011

MikeCal says:
February 1, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Billy Liar says:
February 1, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Thank you gentlemen. Thats cleared that up nicely.
In all seriousness though, wouldn’t you just love to see him struggle to get his vast intellect into gear when asked that simple question.

It’s true! It’s true! The crown has made it clear.
The climate must be perfect all the year.
A law was made a distant moon ago here:
July and August cannot be too hot.
And there’s a legal limit to the snow here
In Camelot.
The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot.
By order, summer lingers through September
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
But in Camelot, Camelot
That’s how conditions are.
The rain may never fall till after sundown.
By eight, the morning fog must disappear.
In short, there’s simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it gives a person pause,
But in Camelot, Camelot
Those are the legal laws.
The snow may never slush upon the hillside.
By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear.
In short, there’s simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.

I say its the volcanoes putting the additional moisture into the atmosphere now. Also the ash aerosols and gases are the driving force for the additional cloud formation and the ability to bring that moisture back down in the form of rains, floods, snow and heavy snows.  Eyjafjallajokull melted 100 million cubic meters of ice into steam, but there’s been a lot of other eruptions since then. The one I posted above, Merapi, Anak Krakatau, the one below and others.
New explosions at Kirishima shatter windows 8 km away – and its all caught on webcams! | Eruptions | Big Think
http://bigthink.com/ideas/26712
Eddie

“Lot’s of BS out there for sure, but one thing that everyone who considers themself a student of climate ought to know is that the greater rates of accumulation of snow occur during warmer periods in earth’s history, not glacial periods.”
I guess these “students” need to put a dunce cap on.

Looks like R. Gates has a lot of letters to write to Washington.

Here in Australia the AGW crowd have been turning their ‘story’ around…it’s a bit like a supertanker; it’s being going down the ‘increasing drought’ for so many years with clowns like Tim ‘Ghost Metropolis’ Flannery predicting that BRISBANE would become desert about now!
Their spin machine, like a stunned boxer trying to regain his composure is now frantically attributing all severe weather to GW… but you can hear that they spout the line without the same conviction they once had.
The wheels are coming off the wagon, the public are losing faith…great.
Finally the ABC and the BOM, having failed to predict the recent floods, are now over predicting everything about this cyclone. I’ve made a note of some of their claims for future reference.

@ R Gates
I hope you will flesh out the details of that; how the increased albedo leads to greater warmth and then more snow and then more albedo, leading to more warmth.
It sounds like an astrological recipe; take a few facts, add whatever you want, then serve repeatedly until somebody swallows it.

Anyone else here think that Gore has turned into a pudgy Don Knotts?
(Apologies to Don.)

CO2 levels track, but trail global warming, by 800 years. It’s driven from ocean waters by warmth. Colder waters absorb more of it. From 1940 to 1970 CO2 was rising even as cooling was happening. We find times (Medieval warming) when the earth was warmer than present, in pre industrial times. The significant element of the solar output that our climate tracks is the magnetic. More sun spots means we get warmer, fewer means we get colder. A recent Japanese climate study proved that the Maunder Minimum deep solar quiet caused the little ice age. It also proved the Svensmark theory, that weaker magnetic shielding by the sun means we get more clouds and precipitation. That’s the major player in the climate shift. The Earth is about to go colder for decades due to our current deep solar quiet.

Washington politicians:
“….and having no snow is consistent with what the models will predict….”
3:17 video

Climate science as practiced by AGW boffins is NOT science. It’s climate narrative.
Anyone claiming proficiency in science, and everyone with an undergraduate degree in science, must be familiar with Karl Popper and falsification:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows.
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of “corroborating evidence.”)
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem.”)
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

Someday Al Gore will be sitting in his office, and he’ll realize that there is no global warming.
Then, he’ll turn to his scientists and say, “Why the hell did I ever listen to you guys?”

OK Al baby, now please explain to us why the longest lasting and biggest cyclone exists on Jupiter. It is hardly warm out there. (300 years and counting). Al needs to stop believing in this stuff and take a course in Chod. One coming up in Bhutan in April.

Al, please note the pretty blue colors:
———
So what direction are the moisture bearing winds across the USA?
From the Pacific or the Atlantic!
There is colder than average water around California but it is average around the more northern seaboard.
For the Atlantic there is a strip of above average temps at the top of the map.
It would be of interest to show a map with the tracks of moist air parcels shown.
I did go looking for synoptic maps over time for the USA but came up empty. It looks like USA weather reporting has been dumbed down.

@ ShrNfr says:
February 1, 2011 at 10:08 pm
=======================
Al Gore believes nothing from what he says to the sheep, he’s probably wishing for some victims now with the cyclone in Australia, just so he can get his propaganda going on forever.

Good old Al, the world’s getting warmer so more moisture, its a simple physics fact that warm air contains more moisture, according to Al and many others of his fellow travellers.
So the Sahara Desert will soon bloom, and be fertile, as I understand the air is very hot in the Sahara so it must contain lots of moisture, so the desert drought is over?

Just a general comment about snow accumulation and warmer temps:
Over a hundred thousands years of ice core history tells the story quite clearly– when it gets warmer, snow accumulates faster. The coldest periods, i.e. glacial advances, were the periods of lowest actual accumulation of snow. There is not one expert who would dispute this fact. Now, we are definitely not in a glacial period right now, nor anything close. This could change very quickly however, and the ice core record clearly shows that as well. If it does change, expect the accumulation of snow to decrease over a period of time with colder winters and colder summers. During the Maunder minimum for example, the ice cores show that the rates of accumulation of snow (at least in the Greenland ice cores) decreased, even though the winters and summers were colder.

Ian Mc Vindicated says:
February 1, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Al Gore has a political agenda.

No, he has a “money agenda”. He has never earned an honest buck in his life, so when he lost to Bush in 2k, he had to figure out a way to live. he did. it is called scamming the public.

It would be a waste of my time to describe Mr. Gore in any other term but:
CLUELESS!
(And a liar, too–refer to Jimbo’s February 2, 2011 at 12:23 am post)

Steve Keohane says:
February 2, 2011 at 8:26 am
R. Gates, please, we are talking about an inflated 0.7°C in the past 130 years, and this causes more snow? BS! The typical AGW flatulence is that warmer is dryer, but using their logic it is wetter too! Heaviest snowfall in my experience occurs above 10°F, below that it diminishes rapidly with temperature. The accumulation toward glaciers is not volume of snow, rather that it remains from one year to the next, which can only be caused by cold. Warm causes snow to melt.
____
Uh, did you read my long post on warmth and increased precipitation, and cold and glacial advance? You repeated many of my points. But in terms of the world being warmer, regardless of the cause of the warmth, a warmer world is a world with greater precipitation. 2010 was one of the warmest on record and was THE wettest on record. All consistent with the physics behind evaporation and proven out by hundreds of thousands of years of ice core data…

Just The Facts says:
February 2, 2011 at 7:52 am
“But the reason that “southern New York turned into the tundra?” is because January temps were significantly colder than our short historical record. Does the 25% of you that’s skeptical agree with this fact? Or are you just going to continue playing obfuscation games like Al?”
___
Did you have a specific scientific/climate related question here? It’s been a cold winter in some parts of the N. Hemisphere and the immediate causes are well known and it is only the more distant causes that are under debate (AGW vs. Natural Fluctuations). We can talk about the AO, or La Nina, or the NAO, or even the PDO. We could talk even about the current rather lethargic sun. All of this, however, would not change the fact that 2010 was the wettest on record, and this is not an indication of an impending global cool-down, but rather, the exact opposite. This is simple physics and is diplayed quite readily in hundreds of thousands of years of ice core data spanning the last glacial period into the holocene.

@R. Gates
“Over a hundred thousands years of ice core history tells the story quite clearly– when it gets warmer, snow accumulates faster. ”
So, essentially, you wouldn’t mind posting some proper references to said fact of yours to the rest of us who appear not to read the same story the same way you read it?
On a side note, it always gets warmer from winter to summer, although during that time it usually then tend to snow less the warmer it gets (to believe otherwise is just belief). Ironically, for you and your hippie generalizations, it actually snows more going from summer to winter as in it snows more the colder it gets (but of course rational people know this because it is observed fact.)

Gore and Mann had made a plan,
to fetch a pile of big bucks.
But Gore fell down, and broke his crown,
and Mann spent 10 in the hand cuffs.

Just The Facts says:
February 2, 2011 at 3:28 pm
R. Gates says: February 2, 2011 at 2:55 pm
“An effect cannot be its own cause…i.e. .8 inches of precipitation over average cannot be the reason there was .8 inches precipitation over average.”
What? The question here is whether the primary cause of record snowfall in New York, was increased precipitation or decreased temperature. If it was warmer, more of the precipitation would have been rain versus snow. My question stands as stated: “What was the primary reason that New York City received record snowfall amounts in January 2011? Was it the because precipitation was .8 inches above average or because the temperature was 2.4 degrees F below average?”
“A quick glance at this chart that I’ve supplied many times tells the story nicely over the past 20,000 years or so for what happened with the Greenland Ice Cap:”
No matter how hard you try at redirection and obfuscation, this thread is not about “the past 20,000 years”. When Bill O’Reilly asked, “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?”, he was referring to January, 2011, not the “past 20,000 years”. Regardless of what occurs during periods of glaciation, the answer to Bill’s question is, because it was cold…
______
Seems you and Bill have answered all the questions…so why are you asking me?
But your assumptions I think are completely wrong, and thus Bill’s question indicates his ignorance for how weather and climate work. Are you and he looking for a “primary” cause of events that have multiple equally important and interacting causes. The climate, like the weather, and like all natural systems have multiple interacting causes.
Snowstorms (like all weather) happen from the right combination of moisture, temperature, pressure, jet stream location, etc. etc. etc. Thus, the weather in NY is due to all these. A little nudge or change here or there and NY is cold but dry. Change something else and its warm and wet, and yet another change and its warm and dry. The way the physics on earth work is that when its relatively warmer you tend to get bigger snowstorms.
So let’s go back to your question:
“What was the primary reason that New York City received record snowfall amounts in January 2011? Was it the because precipitation was .8 inches above average or because the temperature was 2.4 degrees F below average?”
There is no “primary” reason for the record snowfall amount, as there many equally important interacting reasons, any one of which, if you took it away, would have prevented NY City from having record snowfall n 2011. This probably drives certain types of people crazy as they want a black and white universe, single-cause=single effect universe, but it just ain’t that way.

So, if everyone is truly concerned…why are they still using electricity for their homes, laptops, TVs and other toys. Why are they driving to work? Why are they shopping at stores that use utilities and materials that create pollution in their manufacture? Why aren’t we moving out to the country to live life like primitive peoples? DOES NO ONE CARE?
I’m sitting in a heated house with lights, using my laptop & wifi internet connection to write this while wearing mass produced clothing…

Oops, tried coding something and lost it. This is from that NOAA link above:
“Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world.
Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface.
Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere. ”
~ ~ ~
{And the Greenland ice mass has had another tough year.}
Doesn’t all of this mean something?