Russia gets heaviest snowstorm in 100 years!!!

[bripat9643]

Skooks -

Does it not seem ironic to you that you go on and on about kooks - on a thread where the kooks were proven right and you were proven wrong?

Please point out where you were proven right.

 

[skookerasbil]

As my graph above points out with spectacular levels of pwn.........

 

[Saigon]

Please point out where you were proven right.

The basis of this thread is skooks claiming that the colder it gets, the more snow there is. Hence if russia is getting a lot of snow....

This claim is nonsensical - in actual fact, in cold countries it snows MUCH more at -3C than it does at -20C.

Climate change in my part of the world means more snow. It is more humid and warm than it was, thus it also snows more. It just depends where you live.

The funny thing is, we have posters here claiming they love science and want science - not one can admit that this issue with snow is a clear, known, simple fact.

 

[Oddball]

And if you got less snow, you'd also claim that it was because of Goebbels warming.

Doesn't matter what happens....

 

[Saigon]

Oddball -

The issue you are struggling with is that although climate change is global - the impact of climate change is different from area to area, depending on geography, winds, etc.

Florida's weather changes in a different way to that of Kansas. Finland & Russia will - and do - get more snow. Warmer countries which used to get occasional snows will now get less, because warming temperatures will mean it never gets cold enough to snow.

To understand this isn't difficult, but it requires a little thought.

At the point you actually want to understand this, I'm sure you won't find it difficult to grasp, but at the moment your political views make that impossible.

 

[mamooth]

According to Oddball and Skook's 'tard science, Antarctica must get vast amounts of snow because it's so cold.

Meanwhile, back in reality, most of Antarctica is a desert because it's so dang cold.

Conclusion: Skook and Oddball are retards.

(I do apologize to retarded people for comparing them to Skook and Oddball.)

 

[Oddball]

Antarctica is a desert....Central Russia is not.

Conclusion: Mamoonbat is a moonbat.

 

[Oddball]

Oddball -

The issue you are struggling with is that although climate change is global - the impact of climate change is different from area to area, depending on geography, winds, etc.

Florida's weather changes in a different way to that of Kansas. Finland & Russia will - and do - get more snow. Warmer countries which used to get occasional snows will now get less, because warming temperatures will mean it never gets cold enough to snow.

To understand this isn't difficult, but it requires a little thought.

At the point you actually want to understand this, I'm sure you won't find it difficult to grasp, but at the moment your political views make that impossible.

Sure, sure, sure...I get it just fine...No matter what happens -drought or flood, heat wave or cold snap, lots of tornadoes or no tornadoes, whatever- it's all the fault of anthropogenic Goebbels warming.

Of course, your collectivist authoritarian central planner politics are completely above reproach!

 

[polarbear]

Please point out where you were proven right.

The basis of this thread is skooks claiming that the colder it gets, the more snow there is. Hence if russia is getting a lot of snow....

This claim is nonsensical - in actual fact, in cold countries it snows MUCH more at -3C than it does at -20C.

Climate change in my part of the world means more snow. It is more humid and warm than it was, thus it also snows more. It just depends where you live.

The funny thing is, we have posters here claiming they love science and want science - not one can admit that this issue with snow is a clear, known, simple fact.

So why don`t you apply the same argument to the Greenland Glaciers..??
Their rate of growth depends on precipitation and they have grown in the past to a thickness of several kms. Are You saying then all that ice was courtesy of a "warming period" lasting several millennia ?

It snows in a cold region when a mass of warmer moist air moves in, not because this region has "warmed up" because of man made greenhouse gasses.

In Central Canada it`s mostly the current jet stream pattern that determines if and when we get snow..the same goes for most of Russia.
Farther North it`s also the polar wind pattern ( "Polar Easterlies") that bring moist air & snow.

You people are a strange lot. Only a few months ago OldRocks posted an article and argued that Central Canada`s climate had "warmed" when we had hardly any snow in Manitoba (during 2010)...while in fact it was a brutally cold & long Winter, lasting from October till the end of May.

This year we also had some huge snow storms during a few "warmer" ~ - 20 C days then it cleared and the temperature went down to - 32 C...and all that snow is of course still here...so what`s Your point...???

As far as Greenland is concerned..I know it, and it`s glaciers well...here are a few pictures I took:

So according to You that`s a "cold region" of Greenland...

And this must be a "warm region" then..:

While in fact it is the same mountain range viewed only a few miles away, from the other side...the "lee side" where the snow drifts accumulated to km thick glaciers.

Maybe You should check with Your occult leaders, because they have been saying this kind of rubbish in a lot of newspapers, not just this one:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. 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.

And garbage like this has been quoted & posted by every global warming freak in this forum.
So You have no business whatsoever to insult Skook or anyone else who started laughing at idiots like you, after much of Europe, Russia and the U.S. East Coast got dumped on.

 

[mamooth]

No matter what happens -drought or flood, heat wave or cold snap, lots of tornadoes or no tornadoes, whatever- it's all the fault of anthropogenic Goebbels warming.

You're the only one making that claim. Why do you believe something so effin' stupid? Seriously, no one else is making a claim that dumb. It's only you acting like such a raging dumbass.

We do all know why you pull that mewling crap. You fail laughably whenever you try talking about science. And you even understand, on some level, what a moron you are. But your political cult has ordered you to go after those awful liberals, and being the loyal herdbeast you are, you don't dare disobey your masters.

Hence, you need a dishonest excuse to divert any talk about science into one of your idiot tirades. When any actual science is brought up, you untwist your panties and auto-squeal "You just say everything is caused AGW!". That fact that it's a crazy lie doesn't bother you. Indeed, that actually makes it more attractive to you, as you tend to get the shakes if you can't lie about liberals 12 times a day.

Anything you'd like to add to that very accurate synopsis?

 

[mamooth]

So You have no business whatsoever to insult Skook or anyone else who started laughing at idiots like you, after much of Europe, Russia and the U.S. East Coast got dumped on.

Your crazy rants aren't worth slogging through. They consist of a lot of cherrypicked points which may be true individually, but which are strung together through senseless pseudologic to get to an equally senseless conclusion. Look at you here, unable to fathom that "precipitation" and "temperature" are different things, failing at the same fundamental logic that all the other denialists fail at.

That's a problem almost all denialists share, a nearly complete inability to use logic and reason correctly. But then, if they could reason, they wouldn't have fallen so hard for denialism and the right-wing-crank political cult in general.

 

[mamooth]

You didn't mention any that I've seen.

Still doesn't excuse you running away from them. Every scientist knows about them. Your ignorance on the topic just shows how unqualified you are to talk about it.

Nonetheless, anthropogenic Goebbes warming fails the traditional acid tests of sound on (at least) 3 counts.

You'd sound less like the extreme-right-wing-fringe political cultist that you are if you'd lose the Nazi comparisons. It's especially ironic, considering that your side are the only ones trying to throw scientists in jail for having an opinion that your party doesn't like. You display Nazi tactics, yet you deny it and then project your Nazi way of thinking on to others.

1) Unfalsifiable....

Crazy lie, especially given that I directly gave you two of them. We've been over it before, how you spout that big lie to give yourself an excuse to evade talking about any actual science.

2) No physical static control.

Gibberish. First, you don't even know what you're babbling about. Second, "physical static control" has never been a requirement for science. Third, there are quite a lot of those "physical static controls" in AGW science.

3) Not reproducible in context and on demand.

More gibberish. For example, much of medical science is not "reproducible in context and on demand". You need to explain your double standard here.

Though there's a fourth, I can't remember it off hand.

No matter. You'll just make something up. You always do. Or you can run back to the crank website you pulled that nonsense from and find it.

 

[Oddball]

No matter what happens -drought or flood, heat wave or cold snap, lots of tornadoes or no tornadoes, whatever- it's all the fault of anthropogenic Goebbels warming.

You're the only one making that claim. Why do you believe something so effin' stupid? Seriously, no one else is making a claim that dumb. It's only you acting like such a raging dumbass.

We do all know why you pull that mewling crap. You fail laughably whenever you try talking about science. And you even understand, on some level, what a moron you are. But your political cult has ordered you to go after those awful liberals, and being the loyal herdbeast you are, you don't dare disobey your masters.

Hence, you need a dishonest excuse to divert any talk about science into one of your idiot tirades. When any actual science is brought up, you untwist your panties and auto-squeal "You just say everything is caused AGW!". That fact that it's a crazy lie doesn't bother you. Indeed, that actually makes it more attractive to you, as you tend to get the shakes if you can't lie about liberals 12 times a day.

Anything you'd like to add to that very accurate synopsis?

Posted it before, I'll post it again....

A complete list of things caused by global warming

No matter what happens, it's all the fault of anthropogenic Goebbels warming!

Dumbass.

 

[Oddball]

You didn't mention any that I've seen.

Still doesn't excuse you running away from them. Every scientist knows about them. Your ignorance on the topic just shows how unqualified you are to talk about it.

Nonetheless, anthropogenic Goebbes warming fails the traditional acid tests of sound on (at least) 3 counts.

You'd sound less like the extreme-right-wing-fringe political cultist that you are if you'd lose the Nazi comparisons. It's especially ironic, considering that your side are the only ones trying to throw scientists in jail for having an opinion that your party doesn't like. You display Nazi tactics, yet you deny it and then project your Nazi way of thinking on to others.



Crazy lie, especially given that I directly gave you two of them. We've been over it before, how you spout that big lie to give yourself an excuse to evade talking about any actual science.



Gibberish. First, you don't even know what you're babbling about. Second, "physical static control" has never been a requirement for science. Third, there are quite a lot of those "physical static controls" in AGW science.

3) Not reproducible in context and on demand.

More gibberish. For example, much of medical science is not "reproducible in context and on demand". You need to explain your double standard here.

Though there's a fourth, I can't remember it off hand.

No matter. You'll just make something up. You always do. Or you can run back to the crank website you pulled that nonsense from and find it.

I'm running away from nothing.

Your junk science fails on all three of those counts and you know it.

To recap:

1) Unfalsifiable...If it were, then you'd provide clear and unambiguous examples, but you cannot.

2) No static control group...If there was one you could name it.

3) Not reproducible on demand and in context...If it were, you could cite when it was.

All you have is a popcorn fart, sugar britches.

 

[bripat9643]

A complete list of things caused by global warming

No matter what happens, it's all the fault of anthropogenic Goebbels warming!

Dumbass.

Now you can add asteroids smashing into the Earth to your list

 

[Wry Catcher]

More k00k losing..................

Heaviest Snowfall in a Century Hits Moscow | News | The Moscow Times


The OC warmists will say this is expected with global warming. OK........and the only people who buy that narrative are the other like nutters on the internet. The rest of the world is saying ( especially in Russia )........."WTF??!!! Global warming is gay!!!"

Perception is 95% reality s0ns!!!!!

!!! How melodramatic can you get. BTW, Lake-effect snow is produced during cooler atmospheric conditions when cold winds move across long expanses of warmer lake water, providing energy and picking up water vapor, which freezes and is deposited on the leeward shores. The same effect over bodies of salt water also occurs (e.g. ocean-effect snow, bay-effect snow). The effect is enhanced when the moving air mass is uplifted by the orographic influence of higher elevations on the downwind shores. This uplifting can produce narrow but very intense bands of precipitation, which deposit at a rate of many inches of snow each hour, often resulting in copious snowfall totals.

Link: Lake-effect snow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Saigon]

Polar bear .

So why don`t you apply the same argument to the Greenland Glaciers..??
Their rate of growth depends on precipitation and they have grown in the past to a thickness of several kms. Are You saying then all that ice was courtesy of a "warming period" lasting several millennia ?

I suggest you check the facts BEFORE posting nonsense.

Scientists have definitive new evidence that shows all but one of the world's major ice sheets are shrinking.

The study, which will be published in the magazine Science on Friday, marks the first time scientists have come up with a way to measure the changing size of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica that they can all agree on.

Ice sheets are massive continental glaciers larger than 50,000 square kilometres that are found only in Greenland and Antarctica.

Greenland glacier melting 5 times faster than in 1990s - Politics - CBC News

 

[Oddball]

Correlation being?

 

[Saigon]

Oddballl -

Some 97% of the world's glaciers are in decline.

That is tens of thousands of glaciers, spread around the entire world. You can confirm this from a dozen sources. The rate of decline is unprecedented (some glaciers have reduced by half since 1970) and is accelerating at a speed double that of the 1950's.

Forget politics - would you say that collapse in glaciers could be significant in terms of climate?

 

[Oddball]

Doesn't fucking matter.

You'll blame it on anthropogenic sources.

You're a misanthrope, regardless of politics.

Just accept it....I do.