What is the relationship between weather and climate?

Weather is what’s happening outside the door right now; today a snowstorm or a thunderstorm is approaching. Climate, on the other hand, is the pattern of weather measured over decades.

NASA and NOAA plus research centers around the world track the global average temperature, and all conclude that Earth is warming. In fact, the past decade has been found to be the hottest since scientists started recording reliable data in the 1880s. These rising temperatures are caused primarily by an increase of heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere created when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses.

Hotter air around the globe causes more moisture to be held in the air than in prior seasons. When storms occur, this added moisture can fuel heavier precipitation in the form of more intense rain or snow.

At the same time, because less of a region’s precipitation is falling in light storms and more of it in heavy storms, the risks of drought and wildfire are also greater. Ironically, higher air temperatures tend to produce intense drought periods punctuated by heavy floods, often in the same region.

These kinds of disasters may become a normal pattern in our everyday weather as levels of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere continue to rise.

Link -
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/cold-snow-clima...
==========================================

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 2:29pm:



And now cue # with one of his 'warmist wiki' post about the Joe Bast being connected with Big Oil' or some other mythical 'evil empire' group...

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 5:19pm:


LOl ok you can if you like....but don't expect us to believe YOU anymore than we do #

I think we had climate change here today!!

Pissed down like never before!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 6:31pm:


So it has happened before. Definitely weather.

lee wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:


These kinds of disasters may become a normal pattern in our everyday weather as levels of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere continue to rise.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 7:53pm:

What lee said is now documented: if patterns start up - particularly with respect to time- that haven't happened before lee has a sword of his own making to fall on!   

** Ya gotta have it up there he said!! <..where is that head tapping emoticon when you need it??> 

So where has the man made co2 induced catastrophic warming gone??

Because everything else is a smokescreen conjured up by the failed model junkies and their political controllers. The warmists are nothing but useful idiots doing the snake oil sales....

Deniers are not doing themselves any favours quoting Heartland.

Its not a peer reviewed scientific site, so its simply opinion like most denier blogs.

Important sounding names like "Heartland Institute" only add superficial integrity.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:16am:


Environmental scientist James Lovelock, renowned for his terrifying predictions of climate change's deadly impact on the planet, has gone back on his previous claims, admitting they were 'alarmist'.

'The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,' he told  'We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.
'The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world.
'[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.'

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:24am:


There are probably an infinite number of theories, but I do not weight them all equally.

Neither should you.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:


So the main claim to fame of "all reputable climate scientists" is predicting warming that didn't show up. Bad call there boys and girls. Which is not overcome by shouting it more loudly.


If you listen carefully you may hear it....a repetitive slurping sound...for those of you who know it you will recognize it straight away...as the familiar sound of Dr J suckin it...then the swallow...and then, like Oliver, the request for more... 

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:16pm:


Unfortunately "more than expected" is neither a scientific term nor does it differentiate whether said claim is statistically significant. Which it isn't.

Oh, can you show us the supposed link between so called man made co2 and this bizarre ocean warming claim?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:26pm:

We are progressing ?
From where?, and to where ?

namnugenot wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 10:13am:


So what?!?

C02 being a greenhouse gas is THE big deal here.

namnugenot wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:42am:

Got a link?? 

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 2:43pm:


Yes...so what..are you hard of reading?

If being a greenhouse gas is the problem we have a big one in dihydrogen monoxide which accounts for about 95% of all global greenhouse effects.
However the gas with the greatest greenhouse potential...as evaluated by the IPCC at 23,900 times  that of CO2 and a lifespan in the atmosphere of 800-3200 years...is sulfur hexafluoride...a byproduct in the manufacture of polysilicon....used in solar panels...now that's funny.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 10:48am:


Oh that is sooo super...except along with a lot of manufacturing that of polysilcon has been shiftng to China (about 40% in 2012) which has somewhat lower standards...you do understand the concept and implications of a global atmosphere...don't you? So piss in the pool is piss in the pool. You also realise how quickly world polysilicon production is increasing?

namnugenot wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 11:06am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 7:28am:


I think that science would be very interested in your hypothesis that there is no carbon cycle and that matter can be created from nothing thereby exploding the law for the conservation of mass.

muso wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 11:02am:


Lot of different things count as greenhouse gases, including ozone, when you stick them in beakers and take measurements but how things behave in isolation is not necessarily how things work in the real world. But that doesn't stop you attributing and predicting with 100% certainty how things work and what will happen outside beakers does it? You say the contribution of sulphur hexafluride is tiny but so then is the increase of the amount of CO2 increase attributable to the combustion of fossil fuels or .008% of total atmospheric makeup and the "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is 0.004 of sulphur hexafluoride. This is misleading however as, for example, had there been no anthropogenic modification of vegetation such as it's removal...you know...to build houses like you live in and to progress agriculture that feeds you (or in measuring everything as DRAH proposed you do where is this accounted for), much, if not all, of that increase would vanish. The global historical scientific climate record does not support that CO2 drives global temperature in any case as evidenced by 450 million years of ice-core data.



. 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 5:19pm:


Plant fuel is burnt releasing CO2 that is taken up by plants... So DRAH...you live in the forest do you?...find your computer growing on some sort of shrub did we? 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 9:05pm:


Good...then you can answer the question!