|
It was legit crazy. 51cm in one night: 
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
call to action posted:What? Snow/water ratios increase at lower temperatures until a certain point. The same amount of moisture falling will produce more snow at -12C than -2C. Yes, but the air can't hold as much moisture at very low temperatures. "It's too cold to snow" is nonsense, but you don't tend to get heavy snow at very cold temperatures because the air is more dry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Yes, but the air can't hold as much moisture at very low temperatures. "It's too cold to snow" is nonsense, but you don't tend to get heavy snow at very cold temperatures because the air is more dry. Maybe at very, very low temperatures experienced within the Arctic/Antarctic circles. In my state, Colorado, the colder it is the more it snows nearly 100% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
call to action posted:What? Snow/water ratios increase at lower temperatures until a certain point. The same amount of moisture falling will produce more snow at -12C than -2C. The saturation mixing ratio at -2C is 3.25 grams of water per kilogram of air. At -12C it is 1.5 grams of water per kilogram of water.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
sorry y'all i was mainly shitposting in response to what I read as a "If global warming why snow?" flyby.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
call to action posted:Maybe at very, very low temperatures experienced within the Arctic/Antarctic circles. In my state, Colorado, the colder it is the more it snows nearly 100% of the time. For what it's worth, the point isn't whether or not it snows, but the amount of precipitation that occurs when it does. The heaviest snowfall should happen in a range that's just shy of freezing, where the air can hold the most water while still being cold enough that it doesn't precipitate out as rain or sleet. Heavier, more severe snowfall is definitely a potential consequence of warming in general since there aren't very many regions where temperatures will rise so much that snowfall isn't possible in the winter any more. It goes hand in hand with shorter, warmer winters. I'm not an expert, though, so it's entirely possible there's something here I'm missing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:The saturation mixing ratio at -2C is 3.25 grams of water per kilogram of air. At -12C it is 1.5 grams of water per kilogram of water. Yes, I'm aware that colder air can hold less moisture. You're conflating that with the snow/liquid ratio - less water can result in MORE snow at lower temperatures due to this effect. This is what makes snowman snow (very wet, collapses into slush when compressed) vs. gnar pow pow (very light and airy, not very moist but very voluminous)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
i'm from colorada and i know a lot about snow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Yeah okay so while the mass of snow that is falling is less in colder conditions, the snow/water ratio is different leading to less dense precipitation and higher depths of accumulation. Because most people refer to snow accumulation when talking about how much snow fell, you would be right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
call to action posted:Maybe at very, very low temperatures experienced within the Arctic/Antarctic circles. In my state, Colorado, the colder it is the more it snows nearly 100% of the time. As a fellow Coloradan, using how the weather works here to infer things about weather elsewhere is pretty dodgy. If you're among 80% of the population, and live on the Front Range, this is especially true. We get more snow when it is "cold" generally, because that cold air is from an arctic southerly thrust interacting with warm wet air from the pacific. It feels very cold on the ground, but it is actually the warmth of air higher up that brings the moisture that condenses as snow. Try to note also how, before really big snows, it is generally warmer. Whereas, when we used to get actual cold days for weeks in a row, it would become very dry. I'm sure there are chapstick sales numbers somewhere that attest to this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Apparently, personal experience TRUMP!S elementary meteorology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
...So, we're pretty much down to trying to somehow solve climate change through individual action now then, right? Since the state has catastrophically failed and is obviously not going to be able to respond in time even if somehow Democrats manage to stop being comical losers long enough to hold power again? :| FML Pretty sure there is no good outlook going forward from there, both because people are too stupid & petty to make sufficient changes on their own and because the footprints of private homes aren't large enough even if we could magically convince everyone to reduce their energy consumption.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
The Ender posted:...So, we're pretty much down to trying to somehow solve climate change through individual action now then, right? Since the state has catastrophically failed and is obviously not going to be able to respond in time even if somehow Democrats manage to stop being comical losers long enough to hold power again? http://isdeathcertain.com/
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
The Ender posted:...So, we're pretty much down to trying to somehow solve climate change through individual action now then, right? Since the state has catastrophically failed and is obviously not going to be able to respond in time even if somehow Democrats manage to stop being comical losers long enough to hold power again? In the US, there's always the court system. I'm taking Environmental Law & Reg this semester and current events are an inevitable part of the discussion. A large part of the Trump administration's problems are going to stem from them not really having any idea how their branch of government works or the checks placed upon them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
I think that's why they hired a bar license printed on galena ore using an amalgam of coal waste and fracking fluid as ink.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Fasdar posted:As a fellow Coloradan, using how the weather works here to infer things about weather elsewhere is pretty dodgy. If you're among 80% of the population, and live on the Front Range, this is especially true. I was only referring to the snow/liquid ratio, but thanks for the other info! Someone tried to say that colder air always meant less precipitation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Antarctic ice has been hitting new all time record lows like every day. https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/836686326791446528
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/urban-expeditions/green-buildings/green-urban-landscape-cities-Singapore/ Some interesting green architectural decisions are being made in Singapore. This might be a sneak preview of the future. The Ender posted:...So, we're pretty much down to trying to somehow solve climate change through individual action now then, right? Since the state has catastrophically failed and is obviously not going to be able to respond in time even if somehow Democrats manage to stop being comical losers long enough to hold power again? It's more likely that what we're seeing is the increasing death spiral of the denialist movement. The arctic ice decrease is making mainstream news reasonably regularly now, and it's coming hand in hand with some weird weather. I had thought before that the endgame would be something like Miami having to be abandoned, but the ice shelf fracture is speeding that up. There are also a lot of big moves being made in the business/corporate/trade space; nanotech, cloned meat, solar stations, Saudi Arabia diversification, . The culture's moving faster than the government on this one, and once the government gets with the program, we're going to see a lot of big changes. They probably won't be big enough, at least not initially, but any progress is better than no progress, and holding warming to 2.5 C is still better than 2.6. Long story short: prognostication for more than a few weeks out is, at this point, meaningless. It's all a toxic stew of cynicism, but there's no telling what will happen or what will have an impact. We live in the age of the statistical outlier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Tornados in chicagoland in February. Yup climate change is a joke
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Why that told me nothing about death. All it told me was that Beath was certain. Who or what is Beath and why are we so cock sure of it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:what is Beath Biochromatic aura.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Who or what is Beath and why are we so cock sure of it? That's no way to talk about a lady. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Good news for once? https://twitter.com/laurimyllyvirta/status/836476713500471298
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Good news for once? Don't get your hopes up, someone will be along shortly to explain why this is wildly optimistic/wrong. Normal doom & gloom will soon be restored 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
China of all countries leveling off their emissions at such a rate is just one more piece of evidence that climate change mitigation is a question of will, not capability It's still too late but that doesn't keep it from being good news.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Do we think that data is legitimate? I have a hard time believing 2016 data is compiled yet, let alone 2017.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
I think the generic criticism of the Chinese government's figures is that it's not clear whether they reflect physical reality. Even if the numbers are underestimated it's still a positive message, in that at least one of the top two global carbon emitters thinks it's worthwhile to pretend to reduce emissions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
It's great news, and if true, means we still have a fair shot at RCP2.6 which predicted emissions peaking approximately now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Convergence posted:It's great news, and if true, means we still have a fair shot at RCP2.6 which predicted emissions peaking approximately now. RCP2.6 assumes massive carbon sequestration efforts that won't happen, and there's no indication that we're approaching a global peak in CO2 emissions in any of the data I've seen. Nocturtle posted:I think the generic criticism of the Chinese government's figures is that it's not clear whether they reflect physical reality. Even if the numbers are underestimated it's still a positive message, in that at least one of the top two global carbon emitters thinks it's worthwhile to pretend to reduce emissions. Unfortunately, Mother Physics doesn't really give a poo poo what the good intentions of the Chinese government are. But maybe this data is real, unlike any Chinese economic data.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
call to action posted:RCP2.6 assumes massive carbon sequestration efforts that won't happen, and there's no indication that we're approaching a global peak in CO2 emissions in any of the data I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
call to action posted:Do we think that data is legitimate? I have a hard time believing 2016 data is compiled yet, let alone 2017. The article says Greenpeace did some follow-up research, but at this point, it's entirely understandable to be wary of any data produced by official Chinese sources. If it's true, it's decent news. call to action posted:RCP2.6 assumes massive carbon sequestration efforts that won't happen, and there's no indication that we're approaching a global peak in CO2 emissions in any of the data I've seen. Some of it's happening. India's trying to reforest itself, and the African Great Green Wall is still progressing, albeit slowly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Here's some bad news to get the thread back on track to hopeless nihilism. https://twitter.com/kmcdonovgh/status/837042412858011650
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
That's weather, not climate!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:Some of it's happening. India's trying to reforest itself, and the African Great Green Wall is still progressing, albeit slowly. India:  For further LOLs, this graph is per capita, meaning it would still be getting much worse even if no new children were brought into the mix call to action fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Sorry, polar bears. Pretty sure your natural reign is over, unless you snap evolve into waterbears. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOr5W27iiMg  
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:China of all countries leveling off their emissions at such a rate is just one more piece of evidence that climate change mitigation is a question of will, not capability It's too late to turn back the dial but it isn't too late to minimize the damage, clean up the mess as we best can, and make plans for the changing world. China going "lol gently caress this pollution poo poo" is a huge deal given that they have, you know, over a billion people and a hell of a lot of industry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
WaryWarren posted:That's weather, not climate! Also apparently it happened in 2015, but was included in a recent report which has caused it to appear in the media. Of course who knows, maybe 2017 will beat the record.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Acid Haze posted:Sorry, polar bears. Pretty sure your natural reign is over, unless you snap evolve into waterbears. Maybe they can just move south and start eating our faces off. Most of us deserve it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:China of all countries leveling off their emissions at such a rate is just one more piece of evidence that climate change mitigation is a question of will, not capability This is due to their economy is struggling and not because of policy. Given half a chance to grow past the US, they would put those emissions to shame easily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
The Chinese government probably doesn't give too much of a poo poo about CO2 emissions on general principle but they do care about the Beijing air pollution publicity. If the industry and coal plants had happened to be downwind they might still be cranking them up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:39
|
|