Here Al Gore responds to Bill O’Reilly of Fox News on his blog:
An Answer for Bill February 1, 2011 : 11:43 AM
Last week on his show Bill O’Reilly asked, “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?” and then said he had a call into me. I appreciate the question.
As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming:
“In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.”
“A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”
================================================================
Apparently, Gore has never noted that climate scientists once thought snowfall would disappear. But wait, there’s more.
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Apparently, Mr. Gore is unable to track the global monthly temperature either. There is no “global warming” this month.
Note to Al, the global temperature has been falling in December and January in concert with a strong La Niña.
When values are Negative: Cooling/La Niña | Positive: Warming/El Niño
Al, please note the pretty blue colors:
NOAA Aqua satellite TLT channel 5 shows us globally below normal at this point. I’ve helpfully added a big purple arrow to help Mr. Gore read the graph.
Dr. Roy Spencer takes him to task here. We’ll have the final January UAH global temperature anomaly in the next day or so. I hope Bill O’Reilly points it out to him on Fox.
=================================================================
h/t to my local friend David Walton, who has been trying for two years now to get me a tip that I was not already on top of, proof that persistence pays off.
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.
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.
R. Gates writes:
Goodness, man, your mind is stuck in the eternal calm of a glacier. This conversation was not about glaciers. This conversation was about changes in temperatures in the last two or three years and its possible effects on what we are observing today. Are you not capable of talking about weather fronts and weather that is changing?
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)
Sam Parsons says:
February 2, 2011 at 8:34 am
R. Gates writes:
Goodness, man, your mind is stuck in the eternal calm of a glacier. This conversation was not about glaciers. This conversation was about changes in temperatures in the last two or three years and its possible effects on what we are observing today. Are you not capable of talking about weather fronts and weather that is changing?
____
I was responding to the general blathering on by certain groups about a new glacial period or a cooling period when big snowstorms hit. Neither the last glacial period, nor cooler periods like the so-called “Little Ice Age” were marked by increasing snow accumulations– but rather, the exact opposite.
In regards to weather. Yep, it happens…and when the world gets warmer you get both more heavy rain and snow events, and when the world gets cooler you get less. Simple physics born out by over a hundred thousand years of ice core data. The fact that 2010 was the wettest year in the modern records is important data, but some AGW skeptics would prefer to dismiss this fact. and focus instead on ad hominem attacks.
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…
R Gates…
Speaking of ‘general blathering’, Gates says: “…when the world gets warmer you get both more heavy rain and snow events, and when the world gets cooler you get less.”
Based on Gates’ own assumptions, the planet has been cooling.
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.
Smokey says:
February 2, 2011 at 11:30 am
R Gates…
Speaking of ‘general blathering’, Gates says: “…when the world gets warmer you get both more heavy rain and snow events, and when the world gets cooler you get less.”
Based on Gates’ own assumptions, the planet has been cooling.
____
You are quite out of the loop on the facts here Smokey. 2010 was the wettest year on record and one of the warmest. Warmth=greater precip. Always has. But carry on with creating your own laws of physics….
@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.)
R. Gates says: February 2, 2011 at 11:32 am
“Did you have a specific scientific/climate related question here?”
Yes, very simple. 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?
Gates says:
“Neither the last glacial period, nor cooler periods like the so-called Little Ice Age were marked by increasing snow accumulations– but rather, the exact opposite.”
Where is all that increased precipitation?
Gates takes it as gospel that government agencies would never “adjust” their putative facts in order to gain extra funding. But funny thing, these links demonstrate a contradiction from the official Party line…
Precipitation is now declining.
We know that Gates feeds off the pseudo-science purveyed by the non-science, censoring blog RealClimate. But he runs into a brick wall of facts here at WUWT: contrary to Gates’ true belief, relative humidity is declining. Relative humidity translates into precipitation at some point on the adiabatic chart. Less R.H. = less precipitation.
And extreme weather events are declining – even in modern times when reporting of every death is easy. The fact is, the weather is moderating.
So: less flooding, because the atmosphere holds less moisture, and fewer severe weather events. But facts don’t matter to the Kool Aid contingent. They’re frightened of this clown’s always-wrong predictions of DO-O-O-O-O-M!
Just The Facts says:
February 2, 2011 at 12:03 pm
R. Gates says: February 2, 2011 at 11:32 am
“Did you have a specific scientific/climate related question here?”
Yes, very simple. 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?
______
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. By I know where you’re going with this…is heavy snow caused by extreme cold or extreme moisture?
The ice core data and physics are clear on this…colder temps lead to less snow accumulation. Somewhere, all that moisture that fell on NY had to be evaporated and less moisture is evaporated when there is less energy to evaporate it…that’s why colder periods see less accumulation of snow. But this is all relative of course, and has bounds at the extreme where it makes no difference how much colder or warmer it is. With extreme cold you’ll see no snow and with extreme heat, you’ll also see no snow. 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:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
And here’s a nice simple read on the science behind how we know that cold glacial periods see lower accumulations of snow:
http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/p5.htm
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.
1DandyTroll says:
February 2, 2011 at 12:01 pm
@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.)
_____
Here’s a few links for those who really want to research the relationship between warmer temps and greater snow accumulation:
http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/p5.htm
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/greenland.html
http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/cryosphere/7a.html (great interactive learning pages)
_____
And on a side note, the snowiest month in Denver CO, near where I live is March…as The 2nd snowiest is Nov. and the 3rd snowiest is April. Of course, there are always exceptions, like Dec. of 1982 when an MJO event brought Pineapple express moisture right across the Pacific, Southern CA, and then into Colorado where we got a big snow storm…but it was warm Pacific waters that were the initial energy source for that snow.
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.
Good! We can all agree that there is no need for increasing government control and legislation of water usage in the agricultural states or anywhere else, because the result of global warming is now before us: increased water vapor and precipitation. Latest examples – extreme snowstorms in winter and floods in summer.
However, you can bet that the expensive increases in government control of water resources are marching on full force based on scarey AGW drought models:
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/pending_legislation/#Water
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.
R. Gates says: February 2, 2011 at 4:34 pm
“so why are you asking me?”
Because I wanted to see if you would answer the question honestly, or just continue to contort yourself to avoid facing the facts.
“But your assumptions I think are completely wrong,”
How do you know my assumptions, and can you detail them here for us?
“Are you and he looking for a “primary” cause of events that have multiple equally important and interacting causes.”
These are simple stratagems that any reasonable person can see through. You are trying to associate me with Bill O’Reilly, as if that somehow distracts from the facts that I’ve presented, and you are drawing attention to my use of the qualifier “primary”, in order to try to drag me into a semantical argument. I have no time for these games, there is still so much to be learned…
“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.”
Funny, that seems to describe Al Gore and the Warmists perfectly…
“Apparently, Gore has never noted that climate scientists once thought snowfall would disappear. ”
Hmmm… so many misleading thoughts in one sentence.
* It is obvious that NO climate scientist ever thought snowfall would disappear.
* Since the blog entry was about snowfall in NY, perhaps climate scientists have been suggesting snowfall would disappear from New York. But no, the article quoted was about England.
* Perhaps climate scientists thought snow would disappear from England? But no, the very article that was linked to states “winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event””.
So … some climate scientists thought snow would become rare someplace other than where Gore was talking about. Gore never noted what everyone else never noted.
“Apparently, Mr. Gore is unable to track the global monthly temperature either. There is no “global warming” this month.”
So now global warming is a month-by-month phenomenon!?
Of course, we know that climate trends should be compared over 30 years or longer. So Jan & Dec must have been cooler than average compared to some 30+ year period to repute “global warming”. But the graph only compares to the last 20 years (the two warmest decades in recent history). So I tracked global temperatures from a couple sources that used 30+ year climatologies, and they all show Dec was still well above average (and longer periods would show it even more above average). Jan data was not in, but it looks like it should still be (at least slightly) above the long-term average.
So an exceptionally cold (by recent standards) January that still comes in close to long-term averages somehow shows that global warming has stopped? Show me a decade (or even a year!) that comes in below long-term (30+ year) averages and I will seriously consider that global warming has stopped. (Many people expect this change, based on factors such as the sun or the oceans as the key drivers. If they are right, then such a trend should be happening soon. The next decade should prove very interesting to theories of global warming and its causes. )
There’s plenty of legitimate places to call out Gore on his scientific knowledge. Calling him out over such questionable issues seems to be showing weakness, not strength.
R. Gates says: February 2, 2011 at 11:24 am
Steve Keohane says: February 2, 2011 at 8:26 am
[…]
____
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…
Since you claim to live near Denver, I am sure you have heard the years of gloom and doom of no more snow for the ski industry, not only in the state rags, but Pelosi and Reid have specifically spoken to the demise of the ski industry. When does this state of affairs begin? We’ve been hearing this same story for over a decade…
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…
Been surf’n around checking out various threads.
The thing I’m stuck by is how personal and nasty these article are.
Ridiculing people like Gore is great for filler.
Then you bring up a few cherry picked graphs and call it settled.
It’s like you’re playing dodge ball rather than sincere learning.
When do you review the mass of evidence becoming available with every passing season? For example what about the following ?
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?