Snow in the age of global warming + who really likes Joe Biden?

The pictures tell the story. A very interesting site tooCheck out the archive.

Global

Northern Hemisphere

Southern Hemisphere

This is her take on the election and the popularity of Joe Biden.

Supposedly 81 million actual people, not just ballots, voted for Joe Biden. There is ample reasons to suspect that foul play bumped this number by several million. You can find the evidence of it if you’re looking for it with an open mind. Even if not the case (doubtful), actual enthusiasm for this highly popular president is shall we say … laughable. One way to track this is the like-to-dislike ratio on White House Youtube Videos. The actual like-to-dislike ratio, not the manipulated one.

As you know, I analyzed this a short while ago in my article White House Youtube Dislike Manipulation. I am happy it inspired someone to keep a persistent watch on the most popular administration ever:

Check out this election tracker site that she cited.

This entry was posted in American politics, Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Snow in the age of global warming + who really likes Joe Biden?

  1. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    That’s exactly what I’ve been saying using the area extent of snow cover, which is even better than the total amount of falling snow. Snow cover extent records the boundary of the snowline, ie where the temperature is zero C. So it’s a thermometer – if the temperature rises the snow line moves north (there isn’t enough land in the southern hemisphere for good data).

    And the snow cover data shows that the snow line has not moved for about 25 years, on average. In that time pCO2 has risen over 10% in total and about 30% relative to the preindustrial baseline. Yet it’s had no effect on the zero C isotherm.

    That shows conclusively that the adjusted global temperature “data” the government agencies point to is not worth the paper it’s printed onto. Nothing is happening in the real world.

    Unlike the temperature record this snow data is hard to fake, because the extent is just read off satellite pics. There’s no need for adjustment, so no opportunity for the climate activists to introduce a warming trend where none exists. So they don’t report this data, and make it hard for anyone to see it.

    The original data on snow cover is here.

  2. Suburban Boy says:

    There’s entertainment value (if nothing else) in CSIRO’s 2003 predictions of far lower snowfalls in 2020 and a nearly snow-free Australia 2050, available at this link:
    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/hennessy_2003a.pdf

  3. Baa Humbug says:

    Nothing is happening in the real world.

    Exactly Bruce. We’re heretics.
    The Globe isn’t “warmer” nor does the system have “more energy in it” due to rising CO2 levels.
    The notion that gasses can “trap heat” is nonsense.

  4. Spurgeon Monkfish III says:

    who really likes Joe Biden?

    The imbeciles currently manipulating the pathetic syphilitic geriatric corruptocrat.

  5. Fair Shake says:

    With the additional snow in the Southern Hemisphere the world will eventually flip upside down. And finally the South will become the North. Bwahaha (evil laugh, swishes cape, runs back to lair)

  6. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    The notion that gasses can “trap heat” is nonsense.

    Baa – Technically they can, same as a blanket can. Adiabatic heating. If you have enough molecules in the way then the energy has a hard time finding its way to space.

    I do think CO2 has a slight warming effect, but it is almost completely overwhelmed by water – which absorbs in the same wavelength ranges and acts as a conveyor belt for heat, by evaporating at the surface and condensing again in the high troposphere – where the latent heat is radiated upwards.

  7. Ellen of Tasmania says:

    I’m weary of weather hyperbole. Heard on the news that Tassie was in for an extra!! bad!! get-ready-for-it!! cold blast!! this coming week.

    So I checked the untrustworthy Weatherzone for the coming week. Oh No!! It looks like Tuesday is going to be a 3 – 12 degree day.

    Tassie – hit with Autumn weather in Autumn.

    The British genes are strong in this one, so I’m happy to talk weather but, come on, it’s mid May and getting a bit colder.

  8. m0nty says:

    Even if not the case (doubtful), actual enthusiasm for this highly popular president is shall we say … laughable. One way to track this is the like-to-dislike ratio on White House Youtube Videos. The actual like-to-dislike ratio, not the manipulated one.

    Hahahaha, oh this is hilarious. Dislike trooferism, what a bunch of clowns the right are.

  9. Roger says:

    Someone had to trawl through NASA data to discover that snowfall has risen 3% since 1990.

    Lesotho just had a blizzard and Scotland has experienced its heaviest May snowfalls since 1979.

    The lower troposphere was warmer in 1980 than it is presently.

    Just who are the denialists?

  10. Boambee John says:

    Hahahaha, oh this is hilarious. Dislike trooferism, what a bunch of clowns the right are.

    Low energy attempt at trolling by the fat fascist fool munty.

    Sad!

  11. Terry says:

    Montifa @May 8, 2021 at 10:20 am:
    ‘Hahahaha, oh this is hilarious. Dislike trooferism, what a bunch of clowns the right are.’

    …says the guy with the red nose, cheap makeup, and oversized shoes.

    #hilariousindeed

  12. Kneel says:

    “I do think CO2 has a slight warming effect, but it is almost completely overwhelmed by water…”

    While it’s true that (EM) radiation transfers heat, and that heat exchange to and from space is reliant on this only, in the atmosphere things are different.

    Convection/advection (wind, if you will) is more efficient than radiation, and latent heat (evaporation and condensation of water) is more efficient still. Both are bounded at the tropopause (that is, they dominate in the troposphere). THAT is simple physics and easily proven – heat metal to red hot, place in a vacuum. Cools very slowly. Allow air around it (and associated convection) and it cools quicker. Spray small amount of water on it, so the water evaporates, and it cools even quicker (much more than the temperature and volume of water would indicate).
    Even ignoring that (which we shouldn’t, but do), then take a look at spectral absorption lines and relative abundance – as you say water dominates, even ignoring latent heat. Much wider lines, more of them and much overlap with CO2.
    Then again, check the CO2 numbers from Muona Lua (sp?) – hardly any change from the near global lockdowns and associated approximately 10% reduction in anthropogernic CO2 emissions. In that curve, there is no difference to previous years.

  13. Baa Humbug says:

    Bruce of Newcastle says:
    May 8, 2021 at 9:49 am

    The notion that gasses can “trap heat” is nonsense.

    Baa – Technically they can, same as a blanket can.

    Clouds trap “heat” Bruce, but gasses can’t.
    When that Swedish bloke did a lab experiment with CO2 and IR, he had CO2 constrained in a glass cylinder, it had nowhere to go.
    Higher energy due to IR but nowhere to go equals higher temperature (heat) and higher pressure.
    In the atmosphere gasses aren’t constrained, they are free to expand and rise. The bigger the distances between molecules can equal lower temperature despite the said molecules having more energy. They can’t be at a higher temperature, hence the lapse rate.

    This is how refrigeration works and the earliest refrigerant used was CO2.
    But as we all know, CO2 is irrelevant to temperature because we live on a water planet. We are cooled by convection and evaporation, not by refrigeration.

  14. Professor Fred Lenin says:

    81 million ballots for the child molestor ? 135millionregistered voters Trump got 70million and the perervert won by 11 million votes Thats creative accountancy wonder how those figures would go in a tax department audit ? Jail time for the originators of the lie.

  15. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Clouds trap “heat” Bruce, but gasses can’t.
    When that Swedish bloke did a lab experiment with CO2 and IR, he had CO2 constrained in a glass cylinder, it had nowhere to go.

    Baa – Adiabatic heating is where you increase the pressure. More pressure = more gas molecules = more insulation = hotter surface temperature. Which is why the temperature at 1 bar in Venus is about 50 C but the temperature at the surface at 90 bar is 450 C or so.

    So yes gases trap heat. More gas more heat trapped. But combustion is C + O2 = CO2. There’s the same volume of gas on both sides of the reaction. Because there is no change in Earth’s surface pressure due to conversion of O2 to CO2 there’s no significant warming.

    I think you do get a little over land, especially deserts, since there the CO2 absorption spectrum isn’t overwhelmed by the water cycle. But that is a tiny forcing because there isn’t much desert on the planet, relative – indeed it’s getting less due to the CO2 fertilization effect.

  16. Leo G says:

    So yes gases trap heat. More gas more heat trapped.

    This “trapped heat” is some kind of extensive quantity then, related to internal energy?

  17. Baa Humbug says:

    Bruce 6:26pm
    More pressure = more gas molecules = more insulation = hotter surface temperature.

    Sorry for the late reply mate.

    The Swedish bloke didn’t add more gas molecules to the glass cylinder to increase the T of the gas inside. He exposed it to IR which excited the existing molecules which then measured as higher T. No extra molecules required.
    This is why his experiment, which fraudulent climateers rely on, doesn’t apply to an open atmosphere where the gas is free to expand, rise and exhibit lower T. (What happens to the number of molecules per sqm when gas expands?)

    So yes gases trap heat. More gas more heat trapped.

    Unless you’re on the Moon where there is no atmosphere, no gasses. Yet, within hours of sunrise the temperature of the surface reaches boiling point. Same distance from the Sun as Earth (for all intents and purposes).
    If gasses trapped heat, the Earth surface (bone dry deserts for comparison) would reach higher T’s than the Moon surface, no?

    If you heat a square of surface, rather than trap any heat there, gasses quickly cool that surface via conduction and take it away by rising away from the surface. That’s why your coffee cools when you blow on it. That’s why when you put out your camp fire, the area immediately around the fire spot cools to the same T as surrounding areas. No heat is “trapped”

    The only thing that does some “trapping” is clouds. A full cloud cover at night stops the warmed near surface air from rising. The gas itself is trapped, just like in Arrhenius’ glass cylinder.
    IMHO

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.