It snows more when it's warmer

[-FX-]

If you careful compare the snow amounts with the temperature, especially the daytime high temperatures, you find that when it is warmer than the average, there is more snow, both in amounts, the extent, well as the precipitation involved.

The public is simply misinformed.

While it may seem counterintuitive to attribute more snow to the planet warming, Trenberth observed that this only seems to be the case because the general public is insufficiently informed about how climate change works.

"[People need] education that winter warming may mean more snow, not less," Trenberth added.

The problem is a lot of people think warming means less snow, but in fact as it gets warmer it snows more. Eventually snow in warm summer months will make people realize they need to stop questioning authority, and do as their masters tell them.

[LarsMac]

Snow is as much a function of humidity as it is temperature.
And altitude.
Just sayin'

[fragment]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Snow is as much a function of humidity as it is temperature.
And altitude.
Just sayin'

Yes. And it's a non-linear relationship.

Where I live the amount of precipitation falls as snow (not much) is largely dependent on temperature. At the top of nearby mountains, nearly all precipitation falls as snow.

Decrease the temperatures while precipitation stays the same, I get more snow, but the top of the mountain doesn't.

Snow by itself is not a very good proxy for temperature. You need to do the actual scientific work of using theory to build models including the relevant factors and estimating parameters. But some people seem to think science is little more than chucking data into Excel and running a linear regression, if they even get that far.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by fragment

Where I live the amount of precipitation falls as snow (not much) is largely dependent on temperature.

That's actually true for everywhere on the planet.

If one learns about the Wegener–Bergeron–Findeisen process, one realizes that just as the weathermen say, almost all precipitation starts as snow.

Yes, even in the tropics, rain starts as snow. (it is possible for a very light sort of rain to form with out starting as snow, but it's not rain as we think of rain)

What ends up hitting the ground is completely dependent on temperature.

Originally Posted by fragment

At the top of nearby mountains, nearly all precipitation falls as snow.

That's because it's cold up there. It snows more when it's cold, not when it is warm.

Originally Posted by fragment

Decrease the temperatures while precipitation stays the same, I get more snow, but the top of the mountain doesn't.

Obviously. That's exactly how it works. However, the stumbling block here is the term "more snow", specifically the word "more". And there is another problem, which we will circle back to.

Originally Posted by fragment

Snow by itself is not a very good proxy for temperature.

Patent nonsense. It's not a proxy, it is a direct relationship. It will not snow when it's warm enough to melt snow, and it will always snow when it's cold enough to not melt the snow.

In the old days, before woke science and propaganda over weather (which is 100% due to the climate change/global warming movement), none of this would be argued over, much less would anyone be trying to tell you it snows more because it is warmer.

However, as is often the case, it's not a simplistic matter.


Circling back ..

Originally Posted by fragment

Decrease the temperatures while precipitation stays the same, I get more snow, but the top of the mountain doesn't.

I know it seems like that is all there is to it, but it's more complicated than that.

[-FX-]

Circling back ..

Originally Posted by fragment

Decrease the temperatures while precipitation stays the same, I get more snow, but the top of the mountain doesn't.

That is true, but also not true. As so often is the case, there is more to it than the simple view.

It's more complicated than that. Usually, something this well known, this established, we could simply look to Wikipedia to easily find the answers. Unfortunately, for the scientific hard nosed fact-actually-matter sort of person, Wikipedia has zero information on this. Not just a small amount, there is actually nothing. No article, and nothing about it in the article for snow. I always find that fascinating, when the woke-as-fuck Wikipedia has nothing. Not even on some unrelated page.

How is that even possible? Well, for starters, Wikipedia also has no entry for the global warming theory, the basic global warming theory, or even the CO2 theory of the Ice Ages, which is also astounding for the level of ignorance it shows.

Circling onward, the reason your explaining is in error will be explained.

Originally Posted by fragment

Decrease the temperatures while precipitation stays the same, I get more snow, but the top of the mountain doesn't.

The problem here is the term "more snow". If the amount of precipitation stays the same, and the temperature decreases, there is almost always more snow. It's the other factors involved with snow formation, and snowfall that makes it complicated.

We will ignore all of those for the moment.

1 inch of precipitation can produce 2 or 3 inches of snow, or 10 inches of snow, or 15 inches of snow, or 30 inches of snow, or 50 inches of snow.

Here's the reason the term "more snow" is the stumbling block. 30 inches of snow is more snow than 10 inches. Even when it's exactly the same amount of precipitation. The factor, the important factor, is the temperature. When it's cold enough for water to fall as snow, the colder it is, the more snow there is. From the exact same amount of water.

That's a scientific fact, a certainty. However, the other factors are the wind, the amount of uplift, and what happens on the way down from where the snow formed. There are also all the factors of what kind of surface the snow lands on as well.

But from a pure scientific POV, all factors except temperature being the same, the lower the temperature, the more snow there will be. That is what is missing from Wikipedia.

It's called the snow ratio, and it's a well know ratio. Anyone who studies meteorology knows about it, even while Climate experts don't.

So ,back to your mountain example. If it's cold enough to snow where you are, way up on the mountain, where it's much colder, there will be more snow. Because it's colder.

The same .1 inch of precipitation that you get as an inch if snow, might be 3 or 5 inches of snow up there. Because it snows "more" when it's colder. This simple point is incredibly difficult to explain to a woke moron, but I have high hopes for you.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

You’ll die like a dog with the rest of us, fellow poor.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Circling back ..

That is true, but also not true. As so often is the case, there is more to it than the simple view.

It's more complicated than that. Usually, something this well known, this established, we could simply look to Wikipedia to easily find the answers. Unfortunately, for the scientific hard nosed fact-actually-matter sort of person, Wikipedia has zero information on this. Not just a small amount, there is actually nothing. No article, and nothing about it in the article for snow. I always find that fascinating, when the woke-as-fuck Wikipedia has nothing. Not even on some unrelated page.

How is that even possible? Well, for starters, Wikipedia also has no entry for the global warming theory, the basic global warming theory, or even the CO2 theory of the Ice Ages, which is also astounding for the level of ignorance it shows.

Circling onward, the reason your explaining is in error will be explained.

The problem here is the term "more snow". If the amount of precipitation stays the same, and the temperature decreases, there is almost always more snow. It's the other factors involved with snow formation, and snowfall that makes it complicated.

We will ignore all of those for the moment.

1 inch of precipitation can produce 2 or 3 inches of snow, or 10 inches of snow, or 15 inches of snow, or 30 inches of snow, or 50 inches of snow.

Here's the reason the term "more snow" is the stumbling block. 30 inches of snow is more snow than 10 inches. Even when it's exactly the same amount of precipitation. The factor, the important factor, is the temperature. When it's cold enough for water to fall as snow, the colder it is, the more snow there is. From the exact same amount of water.

That's a scientific fact, a certainty. However, the other factors are the wind, the amount of uplift, and what happens on the way down from where the snow formed. There are also all the factors of what kind of surface the snow lands on as well.

But from a pure scientific POV, all factors except temperature being the same, the lower the temperature, the more snow there will be. That is what is missing from Wikipedia.

It's called the snow ratio, and it's a well know ratio. Anyone who studies meteorology knows about it, even while Climate experts don't.

So ,back to your mountain example. If it's cold enough to snow where you are, way up on the mountain, where it's much colder, there will be more snow. Because it's colder.

The same .1 inch of precipitation that you get as an inch if snow, might be 3 or 5 inches of snow up there. Because it snows "more" when it's colder. This simple point is incredibly difficult to explain to a woke moron, but I have high hopes for you.

That's a fairly good layman's explanation of the thing, but not entirely complete.

[fragment]

If I wanted to be the same sort of bad faith pedant as you I'd point out that you have just claimed it is constantly snowing when and wherever it is cold enough, no matter if the sun is shining, there are no clouds, etc.

Originally Posted by -FX-

it will always snow when it's cold enough to not melt the snow

It's not a proxy, it is a direct relationship.

Not mutually exclusive.

However, the other factors are the wind, the amount of uplift, and what happens on the way down from where the snow formed.

Hence the unrealistic "amount of precipitation the same" which I used to provide a simple illustration of concepts to aid education and communication. "If we ignore friction" and all that. I'm not making an attempt to provide a useful predictive model that includes all relevant factors.

snow ratio

Is irrelevant if using water equivalent to measure precipitation that falls as snow. Which is the obvious measurement to use if comparing precipitation rates between rain and snowfall.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

That's a fairly good layman's explanation of the thing, but not entirely complete.

You are correct.

There are multiple factors, some of them counterintuitive.

[Pan Narrans]

The fun part is, he already had trouble with this concept during his previous run here.

Þæt wæs god þræð btw.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by -FX-

You are correct.

There are multiple factors, some of them counterintuitive.

A lot of Science is counterintuitive.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by Pan Narrans

The fun part is, he already had trouble with this concept during his previous run here.

Þæt wæs god þræð btw.

Sweet Jesus did that boy get owned.

[Basset Hound]

The correct saying is 'There's more snow when it's warmer' because coca grows more when it's warmer.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

That's a fairly good layman's explanation of the thing, but not entirely complete.

There are several exceptions to the expectations, probably even more. High mountains, where it is always cold enough for snow, and the polar regions, the great ice sheets and high elevations there, those areas do get more snow when it's warmer.

Warmer meaning "warmer in the surrounding areas that have open oceans", to provide the source of moisture. These areas are of great uncertainty, when it comes to the theory. Like with the CO2 theory, the greenhouse theory of climate change, basic global warming theory, the definitions of words, as well as what they actually mean, clouds the matter.

“Climate change” and “global warming” are often used interchangeably but have distinct meanings. Similarly, the terms "weather" and "climate" are sometimes confused, though they refer to events with broadly different spatial- and timescales.

The Carbon Dioxide theory of climate change is not the same thing as the basic global warming theory, and neither are the same as the AGW theory.

[-FX-]

The formation of the vast ice sheets, and massive glaciers that covered so much of the Northern Hemisphere, and why this happens, at regular intervals, and has happened for over a million years now, it was the discovery of these events, and especially the warm interglacial periods, that started the search for "why?", and "how?".

From Arrhenius, who first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect, to Guy Callendar, To Plass, and then a whole bunch of other scientist, these questions have remained.

Plass was quite honest in his paper, wondering aloud how the peak warming period of the interglacial could lead to such massive glacier building, which is still an unresolved problem for the theory. He put forth several ideas, but to this day, nobody has answered that big question.

What is known, and until the woke tried to corrupt science, was well known, is that just 5000 years ago the entire planet was much warmer than present. This well documented Altithermal, or Holocene climactic optimum, was a time of dry climate for some areas, a very wet climate for others, with the Sahara a wet and thriving region, with the largest network of rivers ever known, and the largest lake in the world, Lake MegaChad.

There was far less ice, everywhere, the sea level was much higher, and there was far less snowfall. The tree lines were higher, trees grew all the way to the Arctic Ocean, and African animals roamed Europe.

Aside from the Antarctic, there was less snow, not more. Only a clown or ignoramus believes warmer equates with more snow. The idea is so absurd, that until the first of the extreme winters (with a fuckton of snow) impacted the Northern Hemisphere, nobody would have ever suggested it.

In fact, until it started happening, everyone onboard with the global warming parade was predicting not only less snow, but even a complete absence of snow. They don't want you mentioning it, but it happened all the same.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by fragment

If I wanted to be the same sort of bad faith pedant as you I'd point out that you have just claimed it is constantly snowing when and wherever it is cold enough...

That's just more of your horseshit. However, it is possible you are just stupid, so I never assume malice.

What I write is clear and always available, nobody needs to do the "fake" news thing and try and tell people what was said, or claimed.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by -FX-

What I write is clear and always available, ...

Perhaps that is true, but you always manage to obfuscate the point you appear to be trying to make.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Perhaps that is true,

One thing I know with certainty. If a conclusion was reached with out using science, research, study, logic, reason and thought, none of those are going to have any effect on the person who is holding fast to a belief.

It's easy to see it in others, usually impossible when considering your own beliefs.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

That's a fairly good layman's explanation of the thing, but not entirely complete.

Indeed. I don't think it can be made complete. A lot of atmospheric science isn't complete.

Originally Posted by fragment

Where I live the amount of precipitation falls as snow (not much) is largely dependent on temperature. At the top of nearby mountains, nearly all precipitation falls as snow.

Decrease the temperatures while precipitation stays the same, I get more snow, but the top of the mountain doesn't.

That may not be true. If the temperature drop is at both locations, the mountain top might get more snow. Not more precip, but a greater amount of snow from the same precipitation. Because of the snow ratio.

Originally Posted by LarsMac

A lot of Science is counterintuitive.

And some "science" is rubbish, so corrupted by beliefs and politics, it isn't even science.

Originally Posted by fragment

Is irrelevant if using water equivalent to measure precipitation that falls as snow. Which is the obvious measurement to use if comparing precipitation rates between rain and snowfall.

The real problem in a discussion that is nebulous, is often the terminology. A much larger problem is when the "science" is about trying to persuade, rather than about the science.

Everybody talks about the weather, but few read the scientific literature about it.

It's ironic, because the people pushing the "it snowed more because it is warmer" narrative seem to be completely unfamiliar with the science.

The anti-science crowd has been doing a killer job pushing the myth that the big recent snowstorms somehow undercut our understanding of human-caused global warming. But aside from the fact the precipitation isn’t temperature, it turns out that the “common wisdom” the disinformers are preying on — lots of snow means we must be in a cold winter — isn’t even true.

Now that is a very ironic claim. There could be an entire topic on that claim. If one wanted to argue over something that is simply made up.

In this case, it's very easy to show they just made something up.

"...it turns out that the “common wisdom” the disinformers are preying on — lots of snow means we must be in a cold winter — isn’t even true."

Nobody ever said "lots of snow means we must be in a cold winter". And ever the only instance of it being typed out online, (the linked article), it no longer exists. That statement literally doesn't exist on the internet.

Unless you count the internet archive, or this post. Which none of the search engines index.

[seebs]

Snow happens close to freezing. When you get far below freezing, you almost never see snow because the air is too try.

Source: Have lived in Minnesota for a long time, everyone knows about "too cold to snow".

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by seebs

Snow happens close to freezing.

That's one of those nebulous claims. It's not "wrong", but it's almost meaningless.

Originally Posted by seebs

When you get far below freezing, you almost never see snow because the air is too try.

That claim has enough info to be able to say it's wrong.

Originally Posted by seebs

Source: Have lived in Minnesota for a long time, everyone knows about "too cold to snow".

I understand what you are trying to say, and it is true that usually, when it's far below freezing, all the clouds and moisture has fallen out, the air is dry, and there will be no snow.

But it can never be too cold to snow. And the worst blizzards and the greatest snowfall always occurs when it is well below the freezing point. How this happens can actually be explained (it's a well know issue), and it can be illustrated with data.

That isn't in question.

That the activist/warmers don't understand, or maybe don't even know about the snow ratio, is about as ironic and funny as it can get.



That image is from a textbook. Obviously the snow deniers haven't ever opened one.

The only funnier is that the snow ratio doesn't exist on Wikipedia.

[seebs]

"too try" wow nice typing seebs

[-FX-]

I understood what you meant lol

When a big cold front comes down, and after all the moisture is gone, and it's cold as fuck, it is indeed true there is very little chance of snow. It's not that it's too cold to snow, it's that there is no source of moisture to form snow.

If there is a source of moisture, it will continuously snow until the source runs out, or it warms up.

There is actually a pretty good example of this.



Nuclear Snow? Power Plant Yields Snow in Pennsylvania | Climate Central

FYI the temperature was 8 degrees F (-14 C)

And another

Lake ice, and “nuclear power plant effect” snow — CIMSS Satellite Blog, CIMSS

I know this probably won't matter, not even a little bit. In the last 15 years, nobody on the internet has ever said, "Wow! Thank you kind sir. This new information has changed my mind and expanded my understanding of our Universe". I doubt that will change today.

[LarsMac]

Good find.

I hope it does not destroy your ego when I point out that that is actually well-known phenomenon, and not limited to Nuclear power plants.

It's more noticeable with Nuke plants, mostly because the Nukes tend to produce more heat, and therefore more Steam, at any given time than the older and generally smaller Oil, and Coal powered plants.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Good find.

Thanks. It wasn't hard, I have 3 links to that in my 183 snow related links, which are searchable. Make that 186 links, I just added the three that will appear in this post. Here's another one, not a nuclear power plant. (the second example in the previous post is also not a nuclear power plant)

Originally Posted by LarsMac

I hope it does not destroy your ego when I point out that that is actually well-known phenomenon, and not limited to Nuclear power plants.

Of course it's well known, all of this is well known to anyone who has basic knowledge of meteorology, and how snow works. My ego is not involved, so spare us your fake sympathy lol

I was going to uise lake effect snow, or ocean effect snow, which both show the exact same thing. No matter how cold it is, if there is a source of moisture, you get snow when it's cold enough. And the colder it is, the MORE SNOW is created from the same amount of water.

That basic fact is why the brainwashed woketards who claim warmer means more snow, are such complete fools

Lake effect snow 2022

Buffalo, NY
Weather Forecast Office
Lake Effect Summary: January 27-28, 2014

That event is very easy to show the data, which shows exactly why there was so much snow. And of course, the temperatures were extremely low.

Not just at the altitude where the snow formed, it was also very cold at the surface.

Scientific paper on lake effect (Great Lakes region)