Snow Extent in the Northern Hemisphere now Among the Highest in 56 years
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
it is only troubling because you want it be troublingIn spite of this record snowfall that is from the "Lake Effect" Snow, the actual Artic Sea Ice is still considered to be "Very Low"":
Arctic Sea Ice
This is still troubling. The National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado continue to measure Arctic sea ice well below the last 30-year average. This is the time of year with little to no sun and intense cold, where the ice cover can grow rapidly. But at this point, it is below 1 Standard Deviation.
The positive spin is that more snow across the continents can enhance the cold air masses, which can expand the cold and perhaps enhance sea ice growth.
Note: Ocean Water is salty and freezes at a lower temperature than fresh water. This begins at 29ºF.
So if the Cold Air Masses can be enhanced by the excess snow from the various Continents, only then there can be a positive spin on the record snow from the Lake Effects that we saw in the past couple of weeks!!
Snow Cover Now At 56 Year High In The Northern Hemisphere - Just In Weather
November 28 2022 Does it even seem possible that our planet may have the most snow cover to date on modern record? We will be looking at the Northern Hemisphere as a whole and areas with any snow cover. So that epic Lake Effect Snow Storm last week was impressive, but only covers about 1% […]justinweather.com
70 % of the world fresh water is in the Antarctic
90% of the planets ice is in the Antarctic
The Antarctic is frozen 99% of the time
As you point out
.
Salinity however is not constant through the oceans and is in constant flux
your little picture compares to a 30 year average starting 40 years ago, a trivial amount of time
You quote one standard deviation from the mean as if that should be significant
What are the standard errors in measuring millions of square Kilometers of surface water with at least 15% ice?
That has to be an extrapolation of some kind via satellite imaging
Why 15% , not 5% ice or 33.7% ice ?
what is the scientific significance of 15% ?
1% ice in water will be @ the freezing point
15% is likely the limit of detection via the satellite imagery
If so, They are grossly understating the amount of sea water at the freezing point
if you must be troubled, be troubled by the amount of propaganda you are seeing from alarmists or you should be troubled that you do not ask more questions
Holy straw man argument.
Let us know when you're ready to talk facts.
What was the planet doing during the last few mass extinctions and ice ages?
How did it know what to do then?
What has salinity to do with climate change arguments?
More moving goal posts.
This from the guy who admitted to intentionally using partial quotes as a dishonest attempt to make a point.
The same guy who ignores how much the oil industry has spent on disinformation.
Over the years actual scientists of the day said lot's of things that did not pan out.
I'll never say this to even the most zealous climate activist like our
ex-climate-lunatic Minister of Climate Change. You have to be reasonable
if you want your message to get across.
IMO the right thing to say would be something along the line
of: "Stop being a gasoline glutton and start trimming your daily
expenses on fossil fuel if you want to be taken seriously." I'll try
to explain to climate sheeple the necessity of reduction of fossil
fuel usage, climate change or no climate change. Fossil fuel is a
non-renewable resource. Once it is gone it is gone forever. We
must do the utmost to conserve it until the means to phase out
oil, gas and coal entirely without unduly pain are in place.
yeah, like we can power the world with wind and solar
oh wait, no scientist could have possibly thought that nonsense be true, it must have been a delusional activist or a lying politician
the climate alarmism has been around for 50 years of flailed predictions
how long can propaganda hold up against repeated failure... 100 years?
Last edited:
Larue, why do you keep posting this stuff when its been debunked every single time?
You're afraid to enter a real debate so post crap like this then run away.
Why?
This is Exxon's prediction from 40 years ago.
We are at 420ppm CO2 and 1.2ºC, which is about 5 years earlier than they predicted.
But Exxon knew that 420ppm CO2 would warm the planet 1.2ºC, as it has.
Exxon knew.
The scientists have all given similar numbers, Mann, Hansen and the IPCC.
Shell and Exxon's secret 1980s climate change warnings | Benjamin Franta
Benjamin Franta: Newly found documents from the 1980s show that fossil fuel companies privately predicted the global damage that would be caused by their products.
www.theguardian.com
