‘Climate Change’ Is Causing Heavy Snow Or Something


Is there anything that disproves the Warmist assertion that a tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 causes Bad Weather? And impacts everything?

How climate change is causing heavy snowfall

Picture this: A snowstorm moves in and temperatures are just cold enough for all snow.

What happens to that same storm if you add extra moisture and slow the storm down?

You guessed it. It dumps even heavier snowfall.

The climate connection to Minnesota’s April blizzard is where we start Climate Cast. Here’s the rundown of the show:

Wetter climate, bigger snow events. Dominic Winski, a Dartmouth College researcher who has studied snowfall patterns, explains this connection.

It’s always some excuse with this cult. Hotcoldwetdry.

However, for the sake of argument, let’s say that that warning causes this (despite Warmists having told us that snow will end due to AGW): where’s the proof that this is all anthopogenic?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “‘Climate Change’ Is Causing Heavy Snow Or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    A 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 is not “tiny”. Humans would be unhappy with a 40% decrease in atmospheric O2. Or a 40% increase in basal blood glucose or potassium or sodium.

    Atmospheric CO2 is the highest in about 1 million years, covering nearly the entire evolution of man. And human civilization is only 10,000 years old.

    And first principles demonstrate that your “tiny” increase in CO2 is enough to cause warming of our only Earth. This has been known for at least a century and no Denier “scientist” has been able to refute it. The surprise would be if the Earth’s surface WASN’T warming.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      There is no scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

      None, nada, zilch.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    … without using anomalies and magnified scales, it would be difficult to detect “climate change”.


  3. Jl says:

    Here J goes with his looney “40% increase in CO2” as if that actually means anything. It also increased 40% when it went from 100ppm to 140ppm. If 40% is somehow bad, please explain what’s bad about 140ppm. It also increased 40% when it went from 200ppm to 280ppm, or when it went from 50ppm to 70ppm. Please give us examples of why those 40% increases would have been bad for the planet. In fact, there’s countless examples of it increasing 40%, which shows that using percentages is meaningless. If we are to believe the hype, it’s the concentration that counts

  4. Jl says:

    And J, how is this the increase in CO2 bad for the planet? In addition to a greening of the earth, these have gone hand in hand with fossil fuel usage. https://twitter.com/ecosensenow/status/971437090729746432?s=21

Pirate's Cove