Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints

[Deltabravo]

[quote="Deltabravo" pid='116383' dateline='1559841863']


I would be interested to know what else you do/don't fully believe in like this. I said before, but if you were a flat earther, I would not be suprised at this point. Because "What else are they lying about" right

Does it have the capacity to reflect heat back? Not according to the principles of thermodynamics which tell us that heat energy does not pass from a cold place to a warm place. 

Does CO2 reflect sunlight away from the Earth?  Yes.  Whatever sunlight gets past the atmosphere, hits the planet and heat at lower altitudes is a result of increased mass of air and gases at low altitudes and absorbed heat in land and sea radiating back out into the air.

Most of the radiation coming to Earth from the sun is not thermal, and CO2 is mostly transparent to it, letting most of it through.
The radiation coming off of Earth is mostly thermal, which CO2 is partially opaque to, letting some through but bouncing some of it back to Earth.

As far as I am aware, all the energy coming from the sun is by way of light.  The atmosphere reflects 30% of it.  The rest is absorbed by land, sea and the atmosphere. 

It's warmer near the ground because that is where the heat is absorbed by water, land, a denser atmosphere.  There's a compensatory system.  This heat causes water to from clouds which distribute water around the planet, spreading out the heat and also reflecting it back into space. 

This causes increases in life forms which then create CO2 which is also a gas which also reflects light.

However, CO2 from human sources apparently does not act the same way as gaseous H2O. According to climate change scientists, it creates an ever-increasing rise in heat which will kill everything on earth.

[Rainy_D]

 According to climate change scientists, it creates an ever-increasing rise in heat which will kill everything on earth.

You forgot something...

According to climate change scientists, once CO2 hits the Tipping Point ™ it creates an ever-increasing rise in heat which will kill everything on earth.

[LostLocke]

As far as I am aware, all the energy coming from the sun is by way of light. 

When you say "light" I assume you mean visible light, as technically, all radiation on the EM spectrum is light.
But that said, the solar radiation that hits the the surface is approximately 49% infrared, 42% visible, 8% UV, and then trace amounts of gamma rays, x-rays, and microwaves.

[Deesse23]

Does CO2 reflect sunlight away from the Earth?  Yes.

Wrong, and in more than just one way

#1 No, Co2 is almost completely transparent to most frequencies of the solar spectrum (but near IR @ ca 2µm). 
#2 You keep saying that "CO2 reflects". Noone (but maybe you) thinks CO2 reflects. Co2 is not a fucking mirror. CO2 absorbs and emits radiation of different wavelenghts
#3 Sun"light" is not really a thing when we are talking about absorprtion and emission of radiation by CO2. Radiation of a certain frequency or a band (like optical frequency or IR or UV) is a thing.

tl;dr: Delta is not only talking bullshit, hes having the wrong discussion, and he doesnt even know it. He needs to learn basic physics, which i told him numerous times, and whch he still chooses to ignore.

Most of the radiation coming to Earth from the sun is not thermal, and CO2 is mostly transparent to it, letting most of it through.
The radiation coming off of Earth is mostly thermal, which CO2 is partially opaque to, letting some through but bouncing some of it back to Earth.

Exactly, as anyone (but an ignorant fool like Delta) can see. Watch the Suns spectrum and how CO2 has ab-sofucking-lutely no absorption lines. Watch Earths black-body-spectrum and see this pesky "mountain" at 10µm+. A frequency range where H2s unfortunately doesnt absob very well (meaning: heat that Earth can radiate into space.....if there isnt too much CO2)
Of course he will retort by stomping his feet and repeating his mantra: "CO2 cant reflect from cold to warm" (a strawman which noone but himself claims at all and which has ab-sop-fucking-lutely-noting to do with the topic at hand).

Can someone now bring Delta back to the kiddie table with all the anti vaxxers and flat earthers......thankyourverymuch.

[Deltabravo]

As far as I am aware, all the energy coming from the sun is by way of light. 

When you say "light" I assume you mean visible light, as technically, all radiation on the EM spectrum is light.
But that said, the solar radiation that hits the the surface is approximately 49% infrared, 42% visible, 8% UV, and then trace amounts of gamma rays, x-rays, and microwaves.

What I was talking about was that heat is transmitted from the sun by whatever "light waves" it emits. I wasn't intending to get into a discussion about the light spectrum.

I'm actually not an indulger conspiracy theory. 

I have a real problem, though.  No one talked about human caused climate change until the last twenty years and during that time I was working and doing stuff that completely occupied my mind.  All of a sudden, within the last 10 years I started to realize it was a "thing" but I've only very recently realized it was such a dominant idea in US politics. 

Now, I watch Stephen Colbert and he makes fun of Trump and then says climate change and I realize it's become part of the political disalogue.  It's not here, at all.  No one talks about it.

This winter, for instance, we went skiing here in Cyprus.  I was floored at the amount of snow.  Then I looked at some photos of the rock in the sea near our home and thought I'd look at what it was like in 1974. 

Right now, the snow levels and sea levels appear to be almost exactly what they were in 1975 before there was any talk of human-caused climate change.  For the past few years, I'd been thinking we were in the end times.

It reminds me of Mark Twain.   "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated".

[Deesse23]

What I was talking about was that heat is transmitted from the sun by whatever "light waves" it emits. I wasn't intending to get into a discussion about the light spectrum.

Too bad thats where the real topic is (spectrum) and thats why the point will be always be over your head, way over your head.

The fact that you are still talking about *heat* the Sun transmits only shows your lack of scientific education. *Heat* is usually used as a term for IR radiation, because thats the only way for humans to percieve this band of the spectrum: by feeling heat with according receptors in our skin. Likeweise noone (but maybe you) would use the term *heat* for the UV radiation part of the Suns spectrum, which humans cant detect, but shield themselves from by way of Melanin. Noone would use *heat* for the most important and most abundant part of the solar spectrum, the visible part. What *heat* does the colour green at 555nm have?

Its not heat, its energy, all across the spectrum. This energy can be converted into *heat* (which is a human codeword for radiation on the IR band).

[Deltabravo]

What I was talking about was that heat is transmitted from the sun by whatever "light waves" it emits. I wasn't intending to get into a discussion about the light spectrum.

Too bad thats where the real topic is (spectrum) and thats why the point will be always be over your head, way over your head.

The fact that you are still talking about *heat* the Sun transmits only shows your lack of scientific education. *Heat* is usually used as a term for IR radiation, because thats the only way for humans to percieve this band of the spectrum: by feeling heat with according receptors in our skin. Likeweise noone (but maybe you) would use the term *heat* for the UV radiation part of the Suns spectrum, which humans cant detect, but shield themselves from by way of Melanin. Noone would use *heat* for the most important and most abundant part of the solar spectrum, the visible part. What *heat* does the colour green at 555nm have?

Its not heat, its energy, all across the spectrum. This energy can be converted into *heat* (which is a human codeword for radiation on the IR band).

Heat is what we experience when the speed at which molecules move within any substance increases. Their speed increases because they are exposed to "energy" from an external source which, in the case of energy from the sun, is transmitted in "waves".  How you describe it can be more or less technical depending on your audience

The problem with climate change is...

To say that humans cause global warming initially seems plausible because humans create "heat" by burning fossil fuels.  But the problem with that line of argument is that you can't create energy in a closed system such as a planet existing in vacuum.  You can only transfer energy stored in one material into another material. The only way you can heat up an entire planet is for the energy to come from somewhere else, ie., the sun.

Then you have the problem that the temperature hasn't increased as models predicted, so now the narrative has changed to climate "change" as opposed to "warming".  So we're supposed to forget that this was about humans pumping "energy" into the eco-system which was going to, logically, keep on warming the planet up since our behaviour just carries on and on and there is nothing in the eco-system to compensate for it. 

So, the argument changes to one involving how CO2 has this incredible ability to let light or "energy" pass through and then when it bounces back, the CO2 reflects the energy back down and warms up the lower atmosphere, like some kind of "greenhouse".   The whole "change" ie., lots of volatile weather, theory now rests on the optical qualities of a heavy gas which is bad if man creates it but ok if produced naturally.  CO2 is part of nature, and the planet has coped with far greater amounts of it than we are presently experiencing.  And, it's beneficial as it's a building block of nature, and it cools down the atmosphere.  What you are doing is seeing a rise in temperature caused by the sun and then an increase in CO2 and instead of recognizing CO2 as a reaction to a rise in temperature, which results in cooling, you are saying it "caused" the temperature to rise.

I get the impression most people here have come of age since this whole global warming thing became a "thing".   I'm the opposite.  This science was completely "fringe" until someone started talking about it in the 90's and it started as ozone depletion, then warming, and now "change" all caused 100% by human activity.

[Deltabravo]

So, all man-made CO2 is produced at ground level, and it is heavier than the other gases which make up air. As a heavier gas it tends to drop down once it cools.

Can anyone provide any peer-reviewed articles showing the exact mechanism of how this type of CO2 gets up into the higher atmosphere? And, at the same time, what the measuring tools are and where precisely they are located?

[Deesse23]

So, all man-made CO2 is produced at ground level, and it is heavier than the other gases which make up air.  As a heavier gas it tends to drop down once it cools.

Can anyone provide any peer-reviewed articles showing the exact mechanism of how this type of CO2 gets up into the higher atmosphere? And, at the same time, what the measuring tools are and where precisely they are located?

Go outside and make a personal observation. Hint: wait for a windy day
Why would a heavy gas drop only when it cools?
What would be the relevance of Co2 in the upper atmosphere..... For the topic at hand?

[Deesse23]

So, the argument changes to one involving how CO2 has this incredible ability to let light or "energy" pass through

Please stop exposing your ignorance and invest in some basic physics education. I am fucking serious. You are wasting your time here.
The ability of CO2 and all other gases to absorb radiation (or not!) at certain bands of wavelenght is not *incredible* its well known physics, middle school level, and can be demonstrated in the most simple physics labs. Didnt you read the charts i provided? They show all you need to basically know. If you dont understand them (and you didnt, thats why you left them out in your reply and doubled down on your nonsense) you are lacking the basic knowledge.
You have to let go of the notion that just because you do not understand something it has to be wrong. Havent you ever considered that its you who is just not educated to be able to understand? Get.some.fucking.physics.classes. How more often does that need to be said?

I get the impression most people here have come of age since this whole global warming thing became a "thing".   I'm the opposite.  This science was completely "fringe" until someone started talking about it in the 90's and it started as ozone depletion, then warming, and now "change" all caused 100% by human activity.

It doesnt matter what age you were brought up in. It does matter if you understand basic physics. You dont. Its that simple. Evidence? Your first paragraph (which i omitted) where you tried to demonstrate that you understand *heat* and energy. Goess what you demonstrated? That you dont understand any of it. But of course that escaped you.

Its really the classic Dunning Kruger: too ignorant to understand how ignorant.

[LostLocke]

This science was completely "fringe" until someone started talking about it in the 90's and it started as ozone depletion, then warming, and now "change" all caused 100% by human activity.

A: Ozone depletion was a separate issue, and has mostly been resolved.
B: The first time scientists proposed climate change due to humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere was in the 1890s. So sure, it might have been "fringe" prior to the 90s, only it's the 90s of a century earlier, and not the 90s that brought us grunge music and the internet boom.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

This winter, for instance, we went skiing here in Cyprus.  I was floored at the amount of snow.  Then I looked at some photos of the rock in the sea near our home and thought I'd look at what it was like in 1974.  

Right now, the snow levels and sea levels appear to be almost exactly what they were in 1975 before there was any talk of human-caused climate change.

You really are fucking clueless...

We had a banner year here in Colorado for snow fall in the mountains. The lowest snow base was 193% of normal and the average of all the basins was 230% of normal. All this despite the average temperatures being 1-3 degrees F warmer than average. That warmer air allows more moisture into the air. Global warming trends provide more moisture to the atmosphere. Hence, more snow despite a warming trend. It really isn't hard for someone with an average IQ to figure this shit out.

Thing is, places like Cheyenne, Denver, and Colorado Springs, places that historically face heavy snow falls every year, aren't getting them. They're getting more rain at times when they should be getting snow. As warming continues, the temperatures in the mountains will become unable to sustain freezing temperatures, even in winter. When that happens, the snow levels that "floored" you will disappear. You can cherry pick all the photos and petroleum industry funded "scientists" off the internet you like, but your efforts will do nothing more about global climate change than to shield you from the truth.

[Inkubus]

...This winter, for instance, we went skiing here in Cyprus.  I was floored at the amount of snow.  Then I looked at some photos of the rock in the sea near our home and thought I'd look at what it was like in 1974...

Theirs no doubt now, you're trolling.

[Deltabravo]

...This winter, for instance, we went skiing here in Cyprus.  I was floored at the amount of snow.  Then I looked at some photos of the rock in the sea near our home and thought I'd look at what it was like in 1974...

Theirs no doubt now, you're trolling.

How old are you?  The whole global warming dogma grew out of a concern back in the 1980s that the temperature was visible rising.  It was noticeable hotter.   I experienced it. Everyone thought the ski industry was going to collapse.

Either you aren't very old or you are just gaslighting.

[Inkubus]

Troll it is then.

[Deltabravo]

This winter, for instance, we went skiing here in Cyprus.  I was floored at the amount of snow.  Then I looked at some photos of the rock in the sea near our home and thought I'd look at what it was like in 1974.  

Right now, the snow levels and sea levels appear to be almost exactly what they were in 1975 before there was any talk of human-caused climate change.

You really are fucking clueless...  (Editors note by DB.  Note the use of ad hominems while accepting the truth of my statement about observed snowfall)

We had a banner year here in Colorado for snow fall in the mountains. The lowest snow base was 193% of normal and the average of all the basins was 230% of normal. All this despite the average temperatures being 1-3 degrees F warmer than average. That warmer air allows more moisture into the air. Global warming trends provide more moisture to the atmosphere. Hence, more snow despite a warming trend. It really isn't hard for someone with an average IQ to figure this shit out.

Thing is, places like Cheyenne, Denver, and Colorado Springs, places that historically face heavy snow falls every year, aren't getting them. They're getting more rain at times when they should be getting snow. As warming continues, the temperatures in the mountains will become unable to sustain freezing temperatures, even in winter. When that happens, the snow levels that "floored" you will disappear. You can cherry pick all the photos and petroleum industry funded "scientists" off the internet you like, but your efforts will do nothing more about global climate change than to shield you from the truth.

Yes, that's right, it's been a good year for snow. 

So why are our observations not conforming to the expectations from climate change science?  It's either because our observations are wrong and we aren't seeing what we think or the models are wrong.

file:///C:/Users/john/AppData/Local/Temp...0135-1.pdf

The above article examines the issue and concludes:

4. Discussion and Conclusions In this paper, the observed changes in Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent since 1967 were compared to the changes predicted by the CMIP5 climate models. In total, 196 climate model runs (taken from 24 climate models and 15 climate modelling groups) were analyzed. A longer time-series that was also available for Northern Hemisphere spring (March–April), beginning in 1922 [28], was also compared to the equivalent climate model predictions. According to the climate models, snow cover should have steadily decreased for all four seasons. However, the observations show that only spring and summer demonstrated a long-term decrease. Indeed, the trends for autumn and winter suggest a long-term increase in snow cover, although these trends were not statistically significant. Moreover, the decrease in spring (and to a lesser extent, summer) was mostly a result of an almost step-like decrease in the late-1980s, which is quite different from the almost continuous gradual decline expected by the climate models. The CMIP5 climate models expected the decline in snow cover across all seasons because they assume: (1) Northern Hemisphere snow cover trends are largely determined by their modelled global air temperature trends. Geosciences 2019, 9, 135 20 of 23 (2) They contend that global temperature trends since the mid-20th century are dominated by a human-caused global warming from increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations [29]. The fact that the climate models expect snow cover trends to be dominated by a human-caused global warming is confirmed by the formal “detection and attribution” studies of spring snow-cover trends [15,17]. However, the inability of the climate models to accurately describe the observed snow cover trends indicates that one or both assumptions are problematic. Several possible explanations exist: (a) The models may be correct in their predictions of human-caused global warming, yet are missing key atmospheric circulation patterns or effects which could be influencing Northern Hemisphere snow-cover trends [36,37,41,42]. (b) The models might be overestimating the magnitude of human-caused global warming, and thereby overestimating the “human-caused” contribution to snow-cover trends. This would be consistent with several recent studies which concluded that the “climate sensitivity” to greenhouse gases of the climate models is too high [56–58]. © The models might be underestimating the role of natural climatic changes. For instance, the CMIP5 models significantly underestimate the naturally occurring multidecadal trends in Arctic sea ice extent [1]. Others have noted that the climate models are poor at explaining observed precipitation trends [47,48,59], and mid-to-upper atmosphere temperature trends [44–46]. (d) The models might be misattributing natural climate changes to human-caused factors. Indeed, Soon et al. [32] showed that the CMIP5 models neglected to consider any high-solar variability estimates for their “natural forcings”. If they had, much or all of the observed temperature trends could be explained in terms of changes in the solar output. It is possible that more than one of the above factors is relevant, therefore we would encourage more research into each of these four possibilities. At any rate, for now, we recommend that the climate model projections of future and past snow-cover trends should be treated with considerable caution and skepticism. Changes in the Northern Hemisphere snow cover have important implications for society [6] and local ecosystems [7]. Therefore, it is important that people planning for future changes in snow cover do not rely on unreliable projections. One short-cut which regional and global climate modellers could use to potentially improve the reliability of their snow cover projections is to apply “bias corrections” to bring the hindcasts more in line with observations. This is a technique which has now become a standard procedure in climate change impact studies, e.g., see Ehret et al. [60]. However, we agree with Ehret et al. [60] that any such bias corrections should be made clear and transparent to the end users. In the meantime, more than 50 years of satellite data exist (Figure 4a, Figure 5a, Figure 6a, Figure 7a, and Figure 8a) to estimate the climatic variability in snow cover for each of the seasons, as well as nearly 100 years of data for spring snow cover (Figure 9a). Consequently, the observed historical variability for each of the seasons is a far more plausible starting point than the current climate model projections for climate change adaptation policies.


 
So, the actual snow cover is not what models predict and this report says that the actual historical records are the starting point, not flawed models which have got it wrong.

[SYZ]

I have a real problem, though.  No one talked about human caused climate change until the last twenty years and during that time I was working and doing stuff that completely occupied my mind.  All of a sudden, within the last 10 years I started to realize it was a "thing" but I've only very recently realized it was such a dominant idea in US politics...

No  (Your "real" problem seems to be your ignorance of climate science).


You need to consider these issues where human causes have been known to increase global warming:

• Simple chemistry—when we burn carbon-based materials, CO₂ is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)

• Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO₂ that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)

• Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO₂ we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)

• Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)

• Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO₂ emissions (research beginning in 1930s)

• Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)

Your alleged 20-year period of reporting is nonsensical, and easily belied by the above dates.  And you really need to
move on from your fixation with Cyprus and your favourite measuring stick—the "rock"—its tides, and your skiing there.  
You need to research sea level changes over the entire planet, and check the historic ice magnitude figures both from
the Arctic sheet and the Antarctic land mass.

According to the Cyprus Bureau of Meteorology, climatic changes have affected Cyprus. The changes are obvious in precipitation
and temperature data.  The average annual Precipitation in the period 1991/92 - 2007/08 (17 hydrometeorogical years) is
457 mm or 9% lower than normal (503mm, period 1961-1990).  The average annual temperature in the period 1991-2007
was 17.7ºC or 0.50ºC higher than normal (17.2ºC, period 1961-1990).  According to the above rate of changes, it is
expected that by 2030 precipitation will decrease by 10 - 15% and temperature will increase by 1.0ºC - 1.50ºC compared
to the normal values of the period 1961- 1990.

(Precipitation is defined as rain, snow, sleet, or hail.)

[GenesisNemesis]

I have a real problem, though.  No one talked about human caused climate change until the last twenty years and during that time I was working and doing stuff that completely occupied my mind.  All of a sudden, within the last 10 years I started to realize it was a "thing" but I've only very recently realized it was such a dominant idea in US politics. 

So what? What does "no one talked about x thing" have any bearing on whether or not x is true or whether you should trust what those people are saying? You keep making non sequiturs.

[Deltabravo]

Yes, I'm strangely fixated on what is going on in the real world, and not in climate modelling. lol  Whereas most people here accept what they are told without question and fixate on abusing other people by calling them names if they don't agree with them. I'll repost this since no one has had the courtesy or courage to review what it says and undermine anything it says, which is that climate models have been...well...how do I say it...wrong:

4. Discussion and Conclusions In this paper, the observed changes in Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent since 1967 were compared to the changes predicted by the CMIP5 climate models. In total, 196 climate model runs (taken from 24 climate models and 15 climate modelling groups) were analyzed. A longer time-series that was also available for Northern Hemisphere spring (March–April), beginning in 1922 [28], was also compared to the equivalent climate model predictions. According to the climate models, snow cover should have steadily decreased for all four seasons. However, the observations show that only spring and summer demonstrated a long-term decrease. Indeed, the trends for autumn and winter suggest a long-term increase in snow cover, although these trends were not statistically significant. Moreover, the decrease in spring (and to a lesser extent, summer) was mostly a result of an almost step-like decrease in the late-1980s, which is quite different from the almost continuous gradual decline expected by the climate models. The CMIP5 climate models expected the decline in snow cover across all seasons because they assume: (1) Northern Hemisphere snow cover trends are largely determined by their modelled global air temperature trends. Geosciences 2019, 9, 135 20 of 23 (2) They contend that global temperature trends since the mid-20th century are dominated by a human-caused global warming from increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations [29]. The fact that the climate models expect snow cover trends to be dominated by a human-caused global warming is confirmed by the formal “detection and attribution” studies of spring snow-cover trends [15,17]. However, the inability of the climate models to accurately describe the observed snow cover trends indicates that one or both assumptions are problematic. Several possible explanations exist: (a) The models may be correct in their predictions of human-caused global warming, yet are missing key atmospheric circulation patterns or effects which could be influencing Northern Hemisphere snow-cover trends [36,37,41,42]. (b) The models might be overestimating the magnitude of human-caused global warming, and thereby overestimating the “human-caused” contribution to snow-cover trends. This would be consistent with several recent studies which concluded that the “climate sensitivity” to greenhouse gases of the climate models is too high [56–58]. © The models might be underestimating the role of natural climatic changes. For instance, the CMIP5 models significantly underestimate the naturally occurring multidecadal trends in Arctic sea ice extent [1]. Others have noted that the climate models are poor at explaining observed precipitation trends [47,48,59], and mid-to-upper atmosphere temperature trends [44–46]. (d) The models might be misattributing natural climate changes to human-caused factors. Indeed, Soon et al. [32] showed that the CMIP5 models neglected to consider any high-solar variability estimates for their “natural forcings”. If they had, much or all of the observed temperature trends could be explained in terms of changes in the solar output. It is possible that more than one of the above factors is relevant, therefore we would encourage more research into each of these four possibilities. At any rate, for now, we recommend that the climate model projections of future and past snow-cover trends should be treated with considerable caution and skepticism. Changes in the Northern Hemisphere snow cover have important implications for society [6] and local ecosystems [7]. Therefore, it is important that people planning for future changes in snow cover do not rely on unreliable projections. One short-cut which regional and global climate modellers could use to potentially improve the reliability of their snow cover projections is to apply “bias corrections” to bring the hindcasts more in line with observations. This is a technique which has now become a standard procedure in climate change impact studies, e.g., see Ehret et al. [60]. However, we agree with Ehret et al. [60] that any such bias corrections should be made clear and transparent to the end users. In the meantime, more than 50 years of satellite data exist (Figure 4a, Figure 5a, Figure 6a, Figure 7a, and Figure 8a) to estimate the climatic variability in snow cover for each of the seasons, as well as nearly 100 years of data for spring snow cover (Figure 9a). Consequently, the observed historical variability for each of the seasons is a far more plausible starting point than the current climate model projections for climate change adaptation policies.

Go back to my previous post of this and read what the article says about the importance in climate of snowfall.  It's not some insignificant thing that happens and you go out and make snowmen.  It has a huge effect in climate and one which I don't see mentioned by the IPCC who also don't correct for the models the rely on getting this wrong.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

[quote="Deltabravo" pid='117228' dateline='1560100852']This winter, for instance, we went skiing here in Cyprus.  I was floored at the amount of snow.  Then I looked at some photos of the rock in the sea near our home and thought I'd look at what it was like in 1974.  

Right now, the snow levels and sea levels appear to be almost exactly what they were in 1975 before there was any talk of human-caused climate change.

You really are fucking clueless...  (Editors note by DB.  Note the use of ad hominems while accepting the truth of my statement about observed snowfall)

We had a banner year here in Colorado for snow fall in the mountains. The lowest snow base was 193% of normal and the average of all the basins was 230% of normal. All this despite the average temperatures being 1-3 degrees F warmer than average. That warmer air allows more moisture into the air. Global warming trends provide more moisture to the atmosphere. Hence, more snow despite a warming trend. It really isn't hard for someone with an average IQ to figure this shit out.

Thing is, places like Cheyenne, Denver, and Colorado Springs, places that historically face heavy snow falls every year, aren't getting them. They're getting more rain at times when they should be getting snow. As warming continues, the temperatures in the mountains will become unable to sustain freezing temperatures, even in winter. When that happens, the snow levels that "floored" you will disappear. You can cherry pick all the photos and petroleum industry funded "scientists" off the internet you like, but your efforts will do nothing more about global climate change than to shield you from the truth.

Yes, that's right, it's been a good year for snow. 

So why are our observations not conforming to the expectations from climate change science?  It's either because our observations are wrong and we aren't seeing what we think or the models are wrong.

file:///C:/Users/john/AppData/Local/Temp...0135-1.pdf

The above article examines the issue and concludes:

4. Discussion and Conclusions In this paper, the observed changes in Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent since 1967 were compared to the changes predicted by the CMIP5 climate models. In total, 196 climate model runs (taken from 24 climate models and 15 climate modelling groups) were analyzed. A longer time-series that was also available for Northern Hemisphere spring (March–April), beginning in 1922 [28], was also compared to the equivalent climate model predictions. According to the climate models, snow cover should have steadily decreased for all four seasons. However, the observations show that only spring and summer demonstrated a long-term decrease. Indeed, the trends for autumn and winter suggest a long-term increase in snow cover, although these trends were not statistically significant. Moreover, the decrease in spring (and to a lesser extent, summer) was mostly a result of an almost step-like decrease in the late-1980s, which is quite different from the almost continuous gradual decline expected by the climate models. The CMIP5 climate models expected the decline in snow cover across all seasons because they assume: (1) Northern Hemisphere snow cover trends are largely determined by their modelled global air temperature trends. Geosciences 2019, 9, 135 20 of 23 (2) They contend that global temperature trends since the mid-20th century are dominated by a human-caused global warming from increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations [29]. The fact that the climate models expect snow cover trends to be dominated by a human-caused global warming is confirmed by the formal “detection and attribution” studies of spring snow-cover trends [15,17]. However, the inability of the climate models to accurately describe the observed snow cover trends indicates that one or both assumptions are problematic. Several possible explanations exist: (a) The models may be correct in their predictions of human-caused global warming, yet are missing key atmospheric circulation patterns or effects which could be influencing Northern Hemisphere snow-cover trends [36,37,41,42]. (b) The models might be overestimating the magnitude of human-caused global warming, and thereby overestimating the “human-caused” contribution to snow-cover trends. This would be consistent with several recent studies which concluded that the “climate sensitivity” to greenhouse gases of the climate models is too high [56–58]. © The models might be underestimating the role of natural climatic changes. For instance, the CMIP5 models significantly underestimate the naturally occurring multidecadal trends in Arctic sea ice extent [1]. Others have noted that the climate models are poor at explaining observed precipitation trends [47,48,59], and mid-to-upper atmosphere temperature trends [44–46]. (d) The models might be misattributing natural climate changes to human-caused factors. Indeed, Soon et al. [32] showed that the CMIP5 models neglected to consider any high-solar variability estimates for their “natural forcings”. If they had, much or all of the observed temperature trends could be explained in terms of changes in the solar output. It is possible that more than one of the above factors is relevant, therefore we would encourage more research into each of these four possibilities. At any rate, for now, we recommend that the climate model projections of future and past snow-cover trends should be treated with considerable caution and skepticism. Changes in the Northern Hemisphere snow cover have important implications for society [6] and local ecosystems [7]. Therefore, it is important that people planning for future changes in snow cover do not rely on unreliable projections. One short-cut which regional and global climate modellers could use to potentially improve the reliability of their snow cover projections is to apply “bias corrections” to bring the hindcasts more in line with observations. This is a technique which has now become a standard procedure in climate change impact studies, e.g., see Ehret et al. [60]. However, we agree with Ehret et al. [60] that any such bias corrections should be made clear and transparent to the end users. In the meantime, more than 50 years of satellite data exist (Figure 4a, Figure 5a, Figure 6a, Figure 7a, and Figure 8a) to estimate the climatic variability in snow cover for each of the seasons, as well as nearly 100 years of data for spring snow cover (Figure 9a). Consequently, the observed historical variability for each of the seasons is a far more plausible starting point than the current climate model projections for climate change adaptation policies.


 
So, the actual snow cover is not what models predict and this report says that the actual historical records are the starting point, not flawed models which have got it wrong.[/hide]


Note: He either ignores, or completely fails to understand, or both, the explanation given for the increased snow-fall which fits just fine in the current climate models.

You're not here to debate. You're not here to discuss. You're here to push an agenda that is dangerous in the long term. You refuse to read, or even acknowledge any viewpoint other than your own. You're disingenuous at best. Intellectually dishonest at worst. Worst of all, you're a science denying conspiracy theorist.

Your cherry picked bullshit won't save humanity, but I'm sure it helps you sleep better at night.

Do us all a favor. Never have kids.

[LostLocke]

You just repeated the same wall of text, but once again, you didn't give any sources or references what so ever.
What publication is this from? Who wrote it? What are its sources? Etc, etc, etc...

[SYZ]

...Right now, the snow levels and sea levels appear to be almost exactly what they were in 1975 before there was any talk of human-caused climate change.

You really are fucking clueless...

We had a banner year here in Colorado for snow fall in the mountains. The lowest snow base was 193% of normal and the average of all the basins was 230% of normal. All this despite the average temperatures being 1-3 degrees F warmer than average. That warmer air allows more moisture into the air. Global warming trends provide more moisture to the atmosphere. Hence, more snow despite a warming trend...

Agree totally.  Higher air temperatures = more precipitation. DelaBravo doesn't seem to understand that correlation.  

Although I have to compliment him on his memory if he can recall exactly what the snow levels were in Cyprus 45 years ago!

[Deltabravo]

I have a real problem, though.  No one talked about human caused climate change until the last twenty years and during that time I was working and doing stuff that completely occupied my mind.  All of a sudden, within the last 10 years I started to realize it was a "thing" but I've only very recently realized it was such a dominant idea in US politics. 

So what? What does "no one talked about x thing" have any bearing on whether or not x is true or whether you should trust what those people are saying? You keep making non sequiturs.

It's not a non sequitur.  I was describing my own feelings about the type of discussion going on.  It's a problem for me because I'm used to science being discussed without drama and hysteria, name calling and abuse.  I'm putting forward a position which was normal and accepted until the last 20 years and is now also attacked by a lot of scientists and the response to open discussion here and elsewhere, from the climate change people is abusive.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

...Right now, the snow levels and sea levels appear to be almost exactly what they were in 1975 before there was any talk of human-caused climate change.

You really are fucking clueless...

We had a banner year here in Colorado for snow fall in the mountains. The lowest snow base was 193% of normal and the average of all the basins was 230% of normal. All this despite the average temperatures being 1-3 degrees F warmer than average. That warmer air allows more moisture into the air. Global warming trends provide more moisture to the atmosphere. Hence, more snow despite a warming trend...

Agree totally.  Higher air temperatures = more precipitation. DelaBravo doesn't seem to understand that correlation.  

Although I have to compliment him on his memory if he can recall exactly what the snow levels were in Cyprus 45 years ago!

From his statements in his reply to me, is obvious he didn't read, or didn't understand, anything past "We had a banner year here in Colorado for snow fall in the mountains."

[TheGentlemanBastard]

You just repeated the same wall of text, but once again, you didn't give any sources or references what so ever.
What publication is this from? Who wrote it? What are its sources? Etc, etc, etc...

It's a PDF on his hard drive judging by the "link" he provided.