On Feb 22, 9:00*pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
"V-for-Vendicar" wrote:
Nope, you are still too stupid to know the difference betweenclimate
and weather,

wrote

*Climate is what you EXPECT, *weather is what you GET.

Proving my point quite nicely.

(crap cut)
Didn't expect snow in Greece or Saudi Arabia did you Vendicar?
What's the probability that this will happen with exponentially
increasing
worldwide temperatures? I'd guess somewhere between slim and none-
A. McIntire

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:56:30 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 23, 6:06*am, T. Keating wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:14:17 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Feb 21, 6:24*am, dave wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 19, 1:25 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
*Nope, you are still too stupid to know the difference betweenclimate
and
weather,

(cut crap)

* Climate is what you EXPECT, *weather is what you GET.
*Didn't expect snow *in Greece or Saudi Arabia did you Vendicar?
What's the probability that this will happen with *exponentially
increasing
worldwide temperatures? *I'd guess somewhere between slim and none-
A. McIntire

Or Brazilian tornadoes...

Anomalous weather phenomena are expected to increase due to global
warming; *snow on the Mediterranean MAY be such a sympton. *It might be
prudent to assume that it is, as opposed to latching onto the snow as
simplistic false proof that there is no warming.

That's wrong! * With more CO2 in the atmosphere, there would

not really.. *see below..

theroretically be little change in the tropics, *where the CO2 effect
is swamped by water vapor. *Most of the change in temerature would be
in the dryer areas closer to the poles. * The average temperature
gradient between equator and poles would drop, REDUCING weather
volatility- A. McIntire

With more CO2 in the atmosphere results in higher vertical (20-40
mile) *thermal gradients, where most violent/extreme weather events
obtain their energy.

*Verses delta gradients spread over thin atmospheric shell several
thousand miles in length. *

I.E. Delta T per km Vert Delta T per km *horiz.. *

. Weather fronts provide enough energy to destabilize, nearly all the
rest of the energy comes the local V delta T.- Hide quoted text -




Not even the extreme AGW folks at RealClimate believe severe drops
in
temperature are the result of global warming. From

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-tale-of-three...


"Due to Global Warming, one of the predictions for the changes we'd
see
is for greater variability in weather due to more energy in the
atmosphere. Hotter hots. Wetter wets. Dryer dries. And even, in
places, colder colds.-Comment by Jeffrey Davis - 9 Apr 2007 @ 7:19 pm


[Response: Actually, I don't think this is a fair statement.

Whoa... You disagree with you own link... tsk.. tsk..

As I pointed out previously

1. The vertical delta T(per km)(3 to 4C/km) over any point of
earth's surface represents far more potential energy than the
horizontal thermal gradients of weather fronts (0.001 to 0.02 C/km
average)

2. Increasing CO2 levels is having a far greater impact on vertical
delta T (divisor ~30km) than horizontal delta T's(divisor ~2000km) .

wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:57 pm, dave wrote:
wrote:

Acutally, the people most apt to use the term "volatility" would be
those trading on stocks, bonds, or commodities.
Volatility is the measure of the state of instability. You think
weather
would be more volatile with global warming, I say that cooling would
have a more volatile effect.- A. McIntire
So McIntire is a stock broker?

So you're not smart enough to understand the definition?- A. McIntire

I thought Beta was the scientific term used to express in numbers the
"volatility" of a security.

As we are often talking about fluid dynamics (and almost never about the
markets), the "volatility" which applies would be the one which concerns
evaporation of water, which increases proportionately with atmospheric
temperature. Since vaporized water is a greenhouse gas, this
"volatility" results in a positive feedback loop.

On Feb 23, 6:57 pm, dave wrote:
wrote:

Acutally, the people most apt to use the term "volatility" would be
those trading on stocks, bonds, or commodities.

Volatility is the measure of the state of instability. You think
weather
would be more volatile with global warming, I say that cooling would
have a more volatile effect.- A. McIntire

So McIntire is a stock broker?

He makes you a retard, ****wit.

wrote
Didn't expect snow in Greece or Saudi Arabia did you Vendicar?

It's a pretty regular occurrance, growing less and less in frequency all
the time.

Have you ever been skiing in Iraq. I know people who do so.


wrote
What's the probability that this will happen with exponentially
increasing
worldwide temperatures?

Your question can only be answered if the extent of the warming is
specified.

You are too stupid to realize that such specificaition is required.

MOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN N

wrote
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-tale-of-three...

As is typical, McIntyre offers a dead non-existant link to support his
nonsense.

wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:57 pm, dave wrote:
wrote:

Acutally, the people most apt to use the term "volatility" would be
those trading on stocks, bonds, or commodities.
Volatility is the measure of the state of instability. You think
weather
would be more volatile with global warming, I say that cooling would
have a more volatile effect.- A. McIntire
So McIntire is a stock broker?

So you're not smart enough to understand the definition?- A. McIntire

I've noticed that the realists quote institutions and other collective
bodies, while the denialists are more apt to cite single individuals
e.g. Lindzen and this McIntire dude.

On Feb 24, 8:15*am, dave wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:57 pm, dave wrote:
wrote:

* Acutally, the people most apt to use the term "volatility" would be
those trading on stocks, bonds, or commodities.
Volatility is the measure of the state of instability. *You think
weather
would be more volatile with global warming, I say that cooling would
have a more volatile effect.- A. McIntire
So McIntire is a stock broker?

I've traded in stocks. Anyway, this quibbling about words is
tangental to the fact that increased global warming would result in
fewer extreme weather events

On Feb 24, 5:55*am, T. Keating wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:56:30 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:06*am, T. Keating wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:14:17 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Feb 21, 6:24*am, dave wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 19, 1:25 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
*Nope, you are still too stupid to know the difference betweenclimate
and
weather,

(cut crap)

* Climate is what you EXPECT, *weather is what you GET.
*Didn't expect snow *in Greece or Saudi Arabia did you Vendicar?
What's the probability that this will happen with *exponentially
increasing
worldwide temperatures? *I'd guess somewhere between slim and none-
A. McIntire

Or Brazilian tornadoes...

Anomalous weather phenomena are expected to increase due to global
warming; *snow on the Mediterranean MAY be such a sympton. *It might be
prudent to assume that it is, as opposed to latching onto the snow as
simplistic false proof that there is no warming.

That's wrong! * With more CO2 in the atmosphere, there would

not really.. *see below..

theroretically be little change in the tropics, *where the CO2 effect
is swamped by water vapor. *Most of the change in temerature would be
in the dryer areas closer to the poles. * The average temperature
gradient between equator and poles would drop, REDUCING weather
volatility- A. McIntire

With more CO2 in the atmosphere results in higher vertical (20-40
mile) *thermal gradients, where most violent/extreme weather events
obtain their energy.

*Verses delta gradients spread over thin atmospheric shell several
thousand miles in length. *

I.E. Delta T per km Vert Delta T per km *horiz.. *

. Weather fronts provide enough energy to destabilize, nearly all the
rest of the energy comes the local V delta T.- Hide quoted text -

Not even the extreme AGW folks at RealClimate believe severe drops
in
temperature are the result of global warming. *From

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-tale-of-three...

"Due to Global Warming, one of the predictions for the changes we'd
see
is for greater variability in weather due to more energy in the
atmosphere. Hotter hots. Wetter wets. Dryer dries. And even, in
places, colder colds.-Comment by Jeffrey Davis - 9 Apr 2007 @ 7:19 pm

[Response: Actually, I don't think this is a fair statement.

Whoa... *You disagree with you own link... tsk.. tsk..

Of course not! You forget, my input to this thread was started by
Vendicar's idiotic statement,

"Anomalous weather phenomena are expected to increase due to global
warming; snow on the Mediterranean MAY be such a sympton. It might
be
prudent to assume that it is, as opposed to latching onto the snow as
simplistic false proof that there is no warming. ".
As I pointed out,
extreme weather events, like snow in the Mediterranean, would be
expected to DECREASE under global warming - A. McIntire

On Feb 24, 11:11 am, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
wrote

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-tale-of-three...

As is typical, McIntyre offers a dead non-existant link to support his
nonsense.

If you weren't a halfwit, wou would have noticed the link ended in
"three..." indicating the full link had been cut. Then, if you
weren't
too lazy and stupid to figure it out for yourself, you could have gone
into 'www.climateaudit.org", gone to the search block at the top of
the
thread, typed in "a tale of three", and found the following full
link.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ng/sw#more-432

And then you could have typed in a couple of lines from my quote to
verify the response, item 34, on April 9, 2007:

"Jeffrey Davis Says:
9 April 2007 at 7:19 PM
30

Due to Global Warming, one of the predictions for the changes we'd see
is for greater variability in weather due to more energy in the
atmosphere. Hotter hots. Wetter wets. Dryer dries. And even, in
places, colder colds.

[Response: Actually, I don't think this is a fair statement. There is
evidence for the dry places getting dryer, and wet places getting
wetter - mainly in the tropics and subtropics. And there is evidence
for greater intensity of rainfall events due to increased specific
humidity. Evidence for greater variability per se is much weaker if it
exists at all. What we are seeing this month are extreme excursions of
the jet stream - but in most of the models there is a weak increase in
the 'NAO' pattern, which is actually associated with less winter
variability in the jet stream and reduced extreme cold outbreaks. I am
not aware of any study suggesting that extreme cold events should be
more likely or more extreme. Be careful not to fall into the
contrarian trap of blaming everything (and therefore explaining
nothing) on global warming.... - gavin]"

- But of course you were too lazy and stupid to find anything for
yoruself, as was apparent earlier, from your disparagement of Anthony
Watts, and inability to check the GISS data for yourself- A. McIntire