Skiers Rejoice! Up to 12 ft. of Snow Expected in the West

November 5th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Alpine Meadows, CA basecam, 4 November 2015.

Alpine Meadows, CA basecam, 4 November 2015.

A series of Pacific storms mixed with some cold Canadian air is expected to result in up to 12 feet of new snow during the next week to 10 days over portions of the western U.S.

The latest GFS model forecast shows that about a dozen states will be receiving substantial pre-Thanksgiving snows, likely helped out by the current strong El Nino (graphic courtesy of WeatherBell.com, click for full-size):

GFS model forecast total snow accumulation by Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015.

GFS model forecast total snow accumulation by Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015.

A few states have already opened ski resorts early, with about 10 states now reporting snow on the ground.

While El Nino usually results in less snowfall over the West, this isn’t always the case, and the presence of the warm ocean “Blob” off the west coast is likely making this El Nino more unpredictable in its impacts on U.S. weather.


39 Responses to “Skiers Rejoice! Up to 12 ft. of Snow Expected in the West”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. mpainter says:

    If Pacific moisture combines with frequent Canadian cold fronts, it could be a miserable winter. All the unfortunate victims of such a combination will be praying for…global warming!

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi mpainter,

      The snow-pack could be a mile thick and cover the entire California land mass. After about a month the head of Jerry Brown, face covered with a gas mask attached to a giant oxygen tank, would poke through the ice and declare a drought! A few minutes later the California legislature, securely sequestered in a large oxygen chamber, would surface with a whole new set of regulations to ration the still enormous glacial ice, including a renewed effort to prevent the frozen ice remains of once living Californians from watering their lawns!

      Have a great day!

      • mpainter says:

        Have a great day? I had a good laugh.
        But we know that the AGW zealots would screech about CO2 and the media would refrain.

        • Simon says:

          And I wonder why? Perhaps it is the fact we are in uncharted territory in terms of modern temperature records. I’ll let you into a little secret….. Snow in one place does not mean the planet is cooling. That’s just weather.

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Simon,

            You make a valid point, but there exists much more evidence than that. How about expanding glaciers over an entire continent?

            http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting

            Have a great day!

          • mpainter says:

            Ignorance, that’s why. The Holocene has been sliding into a new ice age ever since the end of the Climatic Optimum eight K ya. The last part of the Holocene is known to climatologists as the “Neoglacial”. Warming is entirely beneficial, cooling is a killer, despite the chorus of screeches of the misinformed. Atmospheric CO2 is the friend of the biosphere but it has been demonized by a crowd of modern day witch hunters.

  2. Password Protected says:

    As a Canadian, please take as much of our cold air as your heart desires. It’s our nature to share with those in need.

  3. dave says:

    Until a few years ago it was common to imply that global warming somehow “trumped” weather.
    You had expansive statements, such as “Our children won’t know what snow is!”

  4. Aaron S says:

    This Blob is interesting. It shows how little we actually know about climate and how complex the system really is. Im curious if it would leave a mark in annual sedimentation below it that would be worth evaluating the frequency of the event. Drop a core or two!!!

    • aaron says:

      I think similar ocean temp patterns occurred in the 50/60s. Probably just before sea ice grew.

      What was the circum polar vortex doing then?

  5. rah says:

    And I remember being told that the ski industry would be on it’s last legs by now due to lack of snow.

  6. Sam says:

    The anomalous Blob is taking a hit and when the next Niño update comes out, I’d say we will tie or break a record for region 3.4. All regions have dramatically warmed the last two weeks. This will be a warm winter. I’ve done an analog analysis of when the November AO averages +0.5 or greater back to 1981, the AO tends to stay positive most of the winter. It’s also the same in reverse. Last year was an exception in February, but winter as a whole wasn’t that bad. Anyone that predicts a below normal cold winter this year, really doesn’t understand history too well. And this Niño isn’t done peaking since subsurface warmth is substantial. And the Eurasian snowfall theory by Mr. Cohen has holes in it all over it.

    • FTOP says:

      The heavy snowfall already blanketing Siberia has some predicting enhanced polar vortex conditions resulting in another cold winter for North America.

  7. aaron says:

    Warm blob and weak circum polar vortex. I wonder if there is any cycliality to the weak vortex and wavey jet stream. Solar correlation?

    I wonder if it correlates with the multi-decadal eb and flow of arctic sea ice extent and mass.

    Could arctic sea ice surge in just a few years during 10-15 years (reduced melt with ocassional increased growth) of a 60-80 year cycle and generally decline for 20-30?

    Might CO2 also have 10-30ppm multi-decadal saw-tooth pattern? It wouldn’t show in ice cores.

    Was there ever very much old artic sea ice? Was it mostly from the LIA?

  8. Toneb says:

    JohnKl says:
    November 5, 2015 at 9:49 PM
    Hi Simon,

    “You make a valid point, but there exists much more evidence than that. How about expanding glaciers over an entire continent?”

    There is a fundamental physical principle my friend that states that warmer air can contain more WV.
    IOW: Increased snowfall is not equivalent to it being colder.
    It is actually equated to warming.
    On a continental scale such as in Antarctica this is the case.
    Do you really expect a continent at an average height of 8000ft to start melting in it’s interior at this stage in the game?
    Like the idiot on here years ago who said that greater snowfall (LE) from the Great lakes was indicative of colder weather.
    A meteorologically free zone.
    Err, no, the heavier sno2 was due to the warmer lake temps that winter.
    As you US cousins say…
    “have a great day”

    • mpainter says:

      Also, my friend, you should check out the facts before you comment about water temperatures of the Great Lakes in recent years. Another surprise for you: unusually low temperatures, unusual persistence of ice into summer.
      Have an even greater day.

  9. mpainter says:

    Right, toneb, and there are those who claim that record low temperatures are due to global warming. Is this your position?

    Because I would point out that this century has seen thousands of record low temperatures recorded in N America and the global warmers will blame this and the price of rice on CO2, if they fancy that they can spook people that way.

    Furthermore, the water vapor content of the air does not depend so on air temperature as you claim, witness Sahara versus the humid tropics. So much for your “fundamental principle”.

    In fact, atmospheric water vapor content varies according to SST and we know that this fluctuates. Witness the present El Nino.
    We also know that SST is determined by insolation, or, insolation conjoined to a variable rate of meridional ocean overturning, as in ENSO.
    Also, you should know that atmospheric temperature does not determine SST. Rather, SST determines atmospheric temperatures. Thus CO2 has no effect on SST. GHG warm the air; they do not warm the surface. The antidote to the AGW scare is informed science. I recommend that you take the trouble to inform yourself.

  10. Toneb says:

    “Right, toneb, and there are those who claim that record low temperatures are due to global warming. Is this your position?”
    Of course not.
    GW does however affect the NH PJS in the summer making it weaker & more meandering – so extremes in both directions are more likely (chiefly up).
    There is also a correlation and science that indicates that open Arctic waters in Autumn set up an earlier and more rapid Eurasian snow-field leading to a more negative AO over the winter. This favours a “wavier”/blocked PJS and colder winters over Europe and the E States.

    “Furthermore, the water vapor content of the air does not depend so on air temperature as you claim, witness Sahara versus the humid tropics. So much for your “fundamental principle”.”

    No, my friend, you need to understand meteorology.
    In global terms it does.
    Regionally other factors come into play. The Sahara lies under the sub-tropical belt of HP, with air descending from aloft to the surface … it dries out as a result through depth and arrives at the surface very, very dry. that.s why it gets especially hot … no clouds you see. IOW the air is not advected in along the surface it is high level tropospheric air descended.

    “In fact, atmospheric water vapor content varies according to SST and we know that this fluctuates. Witness the present El Nino.”

    Again not under the sub-tropical HP regions. Descending air. You do know the physical effects on a parcel of descending air?

    “We also know that SST is determined by insolation, or, insolation conjoined to a variable rate of meridional ocean overturning, as in ENSO.”

    Correct … but irrelevant to my comment.

    “Also, you should know that atmospheric temperature does not determine SST. Rather, SST determines atmospheric temperatures. ”

    Get away … never knew that!!

    But what’s it got to do with my original comment?

    “Thus CO2 has no effect on SST”.

    Sorry it does. Water has no idea that the extra photons (W/m^2) came from a CO2 molecule or the Sun. It absorbs it just the same. And yes I know about the “skin” argument, if you’d like me to explain?

    “GHG warm the air; they do not warm the surface. The antidote to the AGW scare is informed science.”

    No, ask Roy. GHG’s certainly do warm the ground – in the form of back-radiation…. whence the ground warms the air.

    PS: I am informed .. I am a retired Meteorologist.

    ” I recommend that you take the trouble to inform yourself.”
    I do that all the time thanks … along with the 32 years of knowledge gained while working for the UKMO.

    Sorry if have you wrong ,but you come across as very arrogant my friend – and also woefully ignorant of meteorology and radiative physics … your knowledge is gained from? …. let me guess, err, “sceptics” blogs perhaps?

    Have a nice day.

  11. mpainter says:

    Toneb, you are a name caller full of theory but with the usual incapacity to assimilate observations, as is typical of global warmers. The late warming trend has been shown to be due to reduced cloud albedo circa 1985-2002. This of course, means increased insolation, hence warmer SST. The AGW hypothesis has no observational support_none_. In fact, all observations are contrary and the AGW hypothesis has collapsed.

    Now, you have sneeringly questioned my knowledge and I must reply and I promise you that you will not like to hear it:

    I have a BS in Geology. Geology encompasses the natural sciences and I have had university instruction in all the natural sciences including physics, chemistry, geochemistry, geophysics, oceanography, zoology, botany, glaciology, and _meteorology_ (plus some post graduate study in this field). These are supplementary to my courses in Geology. I have also had instruction in basic psychology, anthropology, and sociology at the university level.
    The fundamentals that I possess in these natural sciences make it easy to expand my understanding on my own, as in radiative physics.

    Now, geology is mostly a study of cause and effect. It is a study of present day natural processes. One gains the outlook that nature tells you her ways, but in a sort of cypher. I pride myself on having the knack of deciphering nature. I am appalled at the lack of this ability that I see in the global warmers, whose science is all theory, no observation.
    I kindly extend a helping hand toward you and you bite it. Tsk, tsk.

  12. mpainter says:

    To continue, toneb.
    Again, you claim warmer air can hold more water vapor. Yes, _can_ but does it? That is my point: you give a theoretical axiom and I refuted it by example. You told me nothing new regarding the Sahara,HP,subtropics,etc. thanks anyway.

    I live in the subtropics. Tropical moisture provides over half of our precipitation. El Nino, for example. Other times we have the “blocking” HP. So you are wrong with your claim that the subtropics are unaffected by SST variations. Invariably, El Nino years are wet and La Nina years are dry. The farmers and the ranchers in these parts understand these principles very well, better than the Met meteorologists, it seems.

    Too glib on the denial that AGW does not cause record cold but immediately followed with the claim that it did via the pjs. Not your best and all too typical of AGW types.

    And, it’s true: SST determines air temperature and not the other way around. But you seem astonished at such a thing.

    As for CO2 warming water, water absorbs according to wavelength. Water is opaque to LWIR.

  13. Toneb says:

    mpainter

    “The late warming trend has been shown to be due to reduced cloud albedo circa 1985-2002. This of course, means increased insolation, hence warmer SST. ”

    No it hasn’t or please provide a peer-reviewed paper showing the correlation and causation physics.

    “This of course, means increased insolation, hence warmer SST.”

    No it doesn’t as it hasn’t happened and couldn’t as increased insolation over ocean will increase WV content (integrated globally). What goes up must come down my friend. Regional effects and such as the MJO will modulate however.

    ” The AGW hypothesis has no observational support_none_.”

    The observational evidence is overwhelming – and hand-waving denial of that fact is not science.

    “In fact, all observations are contrary and the AGW hypothesis has collapsed.”

    This what you indeed would think if you only frequent *sceptic* Blogs.
    The world has discovered that it is not balanced on turtles and that it is most certainly not flat …. why? – because of ~150 years of science – which entails diligent and farsighted people discovering things and not simply *believing*.

    “The fundamentals that I possess in these natural sciences make it easy to expand my understanding on my own, as in radiative physics.”

    So not a specialist then. Point taken.

    “You told me nothing new regarding the Sahara,HP,subtropics,etc. thanks anyway.”

    Really? then why did you use it as proof that warmer air does not hold more WV. Anyone knowledgeable in meteorology would not have.

    “So you are wrong with your claim that the subtropics are unaffected by SST variations.”

    That’s NOT what I said – I said that the Sahara is under the sub-tropical HP belt. It also happens to be land NOT sea!

    “The farmers and the ranchers in these parts understand these principles very well, better than the Met meteorologists, it seems.”

    Please limit yourself to what I said and NOT what you think I said.

    “Too glib on the denial that AGW does not cause record cold but immediately followed with the claim that it did via the pjs. Not your best and all too typical of AGW types.”

    Again lack of comprehension my friend.
    I agreed with you that AGW does not on the whole cause lower temps – and certainly will not eventually. But the climate system is very complex and indeed a contorted PJS allows air to stagnate more easily. Given that over a snow-field under HP cold temps will occur.

    “But you seem astonished at such a thing.”

    Ah, an American cousin!!
    Forgot that you don’t get irony.
    Please look up the concept and apply it to may comment (Get away … never knew that!!). And please note the exclamation marks.

    “As for CO2 warming water, water absorbs according to wavelength. Water is opaque to LWIR.”

    Of course it warms water, it is a photon – energy. It cannot impinge on a H2O molecule and have no effect!
    LWIR is absorbed in the first mm or so, the skin of the ocean, which warms the ocean below by altering the deltaT and therefore the heat flux into the atmosphere. Warmer water at the top, colder further down, which means an increased gradient and LESS heat flux to the atmosphere FROM BELOW.
    Shocking that someone supposedly educated in science would think that EM energy cannot heat water.
    Try putting an insulated pan of water in an oven and set it to a low temp. So you expect the water not to warm? Really.

  14. mpainter says:

    So much error in your thinking my fine, jocular friend, I don’t know where to begin. This will take several days.
    Let’s begin with your first error, which happens to be your very first assertion. This is the Lake Effect Snowstorm which you incorrectly attributed to “warmer” lake waters. You implied warmer water meant more snow and that colder air temperature was of no consideration (the belief of ..ignorant..persons, that cold air error) In fact, there are a number of factors that determines the severity of the storm. Warmer water alone does not suffice.
    Wikipedia is a good place to start if you wish to, ahem,…inform….yourself on the matter. It gives these eight factors as determining the severity of the Lake Effect Storm: instability,fetch, wind shear, upstream moisture, upwind lakes, synoptic forcing, orthography and topography, and snow and ice cover. You will no doubt wish to read up on this to, ahem, …inform…yourself so I will not comment any further on this multitude of factors except for one: the instability. This depends not on water temperature but on the ..difference..between surface temperature and that aloft, put at 850 millibars. So you see, exceptionally cold mass of air is indeed a cause of greater snowfall.
    Happy reading. More later. Much more.

  15. mpainter says:

    So much error in your thinking my fine, jocular friend, I don’t know where to begin. This will take several days.
    Let’s begin with your first error, which happens to be your very first assertion. This is the Lake Effect Snowstorm which you incorrectly attributed to “warmer” lake waters. You implied warmer water meant more snow and that colder air temperature was of no consideration (the belief of ..ignorant..persons, that cold air error) In fact, there are a number of factors that determines the severity of the storm. Warmer water alone does not suffice.
    Wikipedia is a good place to start if you wish to, ahem,…inform….yourself on the matter. It gives these eight factors as determining the severity of the Lake Effect Storm: instability,fetch, wind shear, upstream moisture, upwind lakes, synoptic forcing, orthography and topography, and snow and ice cover. You will no doubt wish to read up on this to, ahem, …inform…yourself so I will not comment any further on this multitude of factors except for one: the instability. This depends not on water temperature but on the ..difference..between surface temperature and that aloft, put at 850 millibars. So you see, exceptionally cold mass of air is indeed a cause of greater snowfall.
    Happy reading. More later. Much more.

  16. mpainter says:

    The study: John McLean, 2014 Late Twentieth Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover. You can download it over the internet. McLean also maintains a website if you wish to discuss his findings. Promise me that you will note fact in a rigid, doctrinaire fashion. He puts an increase of 2.5-5 W/m^2 of increased insolation globally. This is the sort of study that is avoided by the global warmers. Such is the state of climate science.
    For me, this determines the issue. Roy Spencer also believes that variations in cloud cover is the key to fluctuations in the global temperature index.
    The McLean paper is good, hard science based on data from NASA Earth Observatory.
    The global warmers have nothing to compare to it, just some frantic arm waving about CO2 and it’s supposed horrors.
    This study accounts for the increase in SST and the warming stepup at 2000-2002. It also accounts for the “pause”, so it all falls into place. Bye, bye AGW, hello science.

  17. mpainter says:

    You say “LWIR is absorbed in the first mm or so, the skin of the ocean, which warms the ocean below by altering the deltaT and therefore the heat flux into the atmosphere. Warmer water at the top, colder further down, which means an increased gradient and LESS heat flux to the atmosphere FROM BELOW.
    Shocking that someone supposedly educated in science would think that EM energy cannot heat water.”
    ###
    Mostly incorrect.

    1. LWIR is absorbed within the first few microns.For example, the fifteen micron band is absorbed within five microns. Not “within the first mm or so”.
    2. The delta t is altered diurnally, having to do with insolation. The presence of ghg in greater or lesser quantities having nothing to do with it. In fact, it is short wave IR that is caught in the upper mm that determines delta t, this interval coolest at the interface. Your statement “warmer water at the top, colder further down” does not apply to the physics of the surface, but only below the upper mm: see a profile of the sea surface temperature for this interval. Cooling from below this interval occurs at night, via convective overturning. There can be no convection at day under usual conditions.

    This is another area of study that , you need to, ahem..inform.. yourself on.

  18. mpainter says:

    You say: “Shocking that someone supposedly educated in science would think that EM energy cannot heat water.”
    ###
    I never expressed nor implied such and I will thank you to withdraw that false attribution. My position is that DWLWIR has no effect on SST, water being opaque to IR.
    Another point: you put an indirect process for CO2 warming SST: by altering delta t, not by direct heating of sea water. This I see as a concession by you that CO2 does not warm SST.

  19. Toneb says:

    mpainter:

    “Let’s begin with your first error, which happens to be your very first assertion. This is the Lake Effect Snowstorm which you incorrectly attributed to “warmer” lake waters.”

    In the year in question the lakes were warmer than normal – basic meteorology requires that you have a cold unstable airmass blowing with the correct alignment across the lake. I rather took it for granted that you would know that.

    “You implied warmer water meant more snow and that colder air temperature was of no consideration (the belief of ..ignorant..persons, that cold air error) In fact, there are a number of factors that determines the severity of the storm. Warmer water alone does not suffice.”

    Get away!! (remember irony?).
    See above.
    Like I said I’m a retired Meteorologist – do you question your doctor on his expertise after visiting wiki.
    Your hubris is staggering.
    Second thoughts … you probably do, it’s evident in your manner.

    “Wikipedia is a good place to start if you wish to”

    No it’s not – the place to visit is my knowledge gained from qualifying as a meteorologist – and if hazy on any thing to visit my library of notes.
    Again staggering, arrogant hubris.

    “instability,fetch, wind shear, upstream moisture, upwind lakes, synoptic forcing, orthography and topography, and snow and ice cover.”

    Instability (natch, see above). Fetch (natch, see above). Upstream moisture (not a requirement in most cases, except when the wind is strong and time spent over water is therefore limited). Upwind lakes (same). Synoptic forcing (not a requirement – and actually can reduce snowfall due to organisation creating vortices (Polar Low) that direct the main flow off course from the warmer water. BTW: I live on the east coast of England that occasionally has a LE from the off the North Sea, and have been on duty analysing in real time (I note you live in the Tropics). Snow/ice cover (inherent in airmass depth of cold).

    “You will no doubt wish to read up on this to, ahem, …inform…yourself so I will not comment any further on this multitude of factors except for one: the instability.”

    What like you do … From Wiki?
    Again staggering hubris and arrogance.

    TBC

  20. Toneb says:

    Posting problems on here – I try again

    cont

    “So you see, exceptionally cold mass of air is indeed a cause of greater snowfall.”

    No – as you have tried and failed to teach me to “suck eggs” and also as an example of your comprehension problems … I did NOT say that a cold airmass does not cause exceptional snowfall, just that snow does NOT EQUAL cold and that advection across a warmer water surface causes greater snowfall than over a colder one EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL.

    “Happy reading. More later. Much more.”

    Mr Dunning-Kruger there is nothing you can teach me about Meteorology, just because you scanned Wikipedia.

    BTW: See this….
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/

    for your host’s demolition of your “Dragon Slayer” argument re the oceans not being heated by LWIR (BTW: is that why you’ve not been on WUWT for some months – I know Anthony doesn’t take kindly to them … he actually banned one who physically threatened me there).

    Roy says: “It doesn’t matter whether you call it “reduced rate of cooling”, or “warming”, the result is the same: a higher temperature.
    When an object warms, it doesn’t know whether it’s energy source has increased, or its energy sink has decreased. The effect is the same.”

    TBC

  21. Toneb says:

    cont if posting probs allow (breaking down to smaller bits)

    Oh, and I came across this…
    “Anthony Watts March 11, 2015 at 10:28 am
    mpainter, you should also note that you are on moderation for some previous bad behavior. Perhaps a review of your commenting sty;e is in order?”

    On WUWT you have the “attack dogs” stealey and courtney amongst others to defend you in your virtual self-cheering science denying echo chamber.

    You are apparently extremely arrogant even to that amazingly arrogant “meteorologist” Watts.

    TBC

  22. Toneb says:

    cont:

    mpainter:
    “LWIR is absorbed within the first few microns.For example, the fifteen micron band is absorbed within five microns. Not “within the first mm or so”.”

    Correct in the case of a glass smooth ocean surface but with wind/surface turbulence nearly always present (the ocean is NOT a lab), actually the absorption zone for LWIR could be very much deeper.

    “The delta t is altered diurnally, having to do with insolation. The presence of ghg in greater or lesser quantities having nothing to do with it. In fact, it is short wave IR that is caught in the upper mm that determines delta t, this interval coolest at the interface. ”

    Back radiation from the atmosphere (CO2 included) acts 24/7 and GHG’s have everything to do with it.
    IR warming of the surface skin does affect the deltaT to slow heat flux to the atmosphere above.

    “Your statement “warmer water at the top, colder further down” does not apply to the physics of the surface, but only below the upper mm:”

    That is all that it needed to insulate heat flux (a little) and induce a “warming effect”
    More expansively:
    The cool skin behaves quite differently to the water below, because it is the boundary where the ocean and air meet, and therefore turbulence (the transfer of energy/heat via large-scale motion) falls away as it approaches this boundary. No longer free to jiggle around and transfer heat via this large scale motion, water molecules in the layer are forced together and heat is only able to travel through the skin layer by way of conduction. With conduction the steepness of the temperature gradient is critical to the rate of heat transfer.

    Again refer to Roy’s experiment and this science…

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0426(2001)018%3C0994%3ATMAERI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/

    TBC

  23. Toneb says:

    cont

    “There can be no convection at day under usual conditions.”

    It does NOT involve convection ,,, but rather conduction through the very thin surface layers.

    “This is another area of study that , you need to, ahem..inform.. yourself on.”

    Err no, just another epic Dunning Kruger fail on your part.

    “I never expressed nor implied such and I will thank you to withdraw that false attribution. My position is that DWLWIR has no effect on SST, water being opaque to IR.”

    Yes indeed – what I said – that you deny empirical science that knows full well that LWIR can/does heat a body of water… as of course common sense says it must.

    “Another point: you put an indirect process for CO2 warming SST: by altering delta t, not by direct heating of sea water. This I see as a concession by you that CO2 does not warm SST.”

    No, it’s a direct process – energy does not move by magic – the impinging of LWIR photons does indeed warm water – as the absorbtion/emission of any energy is bound to do, as the process is not perfectly reversible and nor does evaporation overwhelm it. You’re not going to argue that the overall effect of LWIR on oceans is to cool are you?
    It is the NET flow of energy that matters my friend – your arguement follows the same 2D one of the “Slayers” that say the GHE cannot be happening “because heat cannot flow from a cool body to a warm one”.

  24. mpainter says:

    Toneb you are one of the lost. Ocean cooling certainly involves diurnal convective overturning. Interesting that you deny it. Your measure as a scientist. Another measure of you: making false attribution to me. The rest of your garbage I have not the inclination to deal with. Please do not respond to any of my future comments.

Leave a Reply