Damn.....too cold to protest global warming

[sirs]

It’s Too Cold To Protest Global Warming At Yale

Yale anti-fossil fuel campaigners have indefinitely postponed a protest that was set for this weekend due to “unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues.”
 
Fossil Free Yale, a group pushing the university to divest itself from fossil fuels, told the Yale Daily News that frigid, snowy weather set for this weekend will mean their global warming protest will have to be postponed.

FFY’s Mitch Barrow said that “unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues, including some cancellations from speakers and performance groups” would mean they would not be able to rally on Global Divestment Day — a day where environmental groups urge institutions like Yale to divest from fossil fuels, like coal, natural gas and oil.
 
As this reporter writes this article, the weather in New Haven, Connecticut where Yale is located stands at -9 degrees Fahrenheit with wind chill. Saturday is expected to have weather in the low 30s with snow and Sunday will be 20 degrees with snow and rain, according to the Weather Channel.
 
The Yale Daily reports that FFY “had organized a series of events to rally support for its cause, including performances from student groups, guest speakers and a collaborative art installation” to protest Yale’s decision not to divest from fossil fuels six months ago. FFY remains adamant that the event is more than just about activities, it’s about “a shift in the way in which FFY will both be articulating its goals and engaging with the administration.”

“[The event] here on campus will reflect the growing movement as we recognize that we are participating in a global day of action,” FFY member Maya Jenkins told the Yale Daily. “Globally, the divestment campaign is really turning up the heat against fossil fuels by changing the traditional conversation around them.”
 
Environmentalists began pushing for schools in the last couple of years, signaling a new approach to how they plan on tackling global warming. If they can’t regulate them out of existence, they will target their investors.
 
“The fossil fuel divestment movement has grown exponentially over the last two years–now it’s going global,” said May Boeve, executive director of 350.org, the group that started the divestment movement. “From the Pacific Islands to South Africa, from the United States to Germany, people are standing up and challenging the power of the fossil fuel industry. We know that fossil fuels are the past and clean energy is the future.”
 
But divestment has been criticized by global warming skeptics, conservatives and even liberals. The American Security Project, a D.C.-based left-wing think tank, argued that divestment will “not cause any meaningful ?nancial impact to fossil fuel companies, but could hurt the universities and colleges dependent on fossil fuel share dividends.”
 
So far the divestment movement has met with little success as most colleges and universities have rejected calls to divest themselves of fossil fuel holdings, saying it would hurt their abilities to provide scholarships and other opportunities for students.
 
Harvard was one such school to reject fossil fuel divestment. In protest, 40 students with Divest Harvard staged a sit-in in the same building as Harvard President Drew Faust’s office. But even as some students become more adamant about divesting, others are finding it to be counterproductive.
 
“Disrupting University business is not open debate, it is not free speech, and it is not a productive way to move forward on this desperately critical issue,” reads a Harvard Crimson editorial. “Harvard deserves better, and so does the environment.”
 
The North East has been pummeled by poor weather and snow all week and Yale’s divestment rally is not the first global warming event to be cancelled. Earlier this week, a state legislature forum on global warming was cancelled due to bad weather.

[Xavier_Onassis]

When it is REALLY cold, it does not snow. Now it is warmer, and there is more snow.

[sirs]

That's a contradictory statement, if you didn't notice   

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is nothing contradictory about this at all. Antarctica would be a desert if it were not so cold, as precipitation is very slight.

[sirs]

The contradiction is that supposedly snow can occur when its warmer.  Been here in Southern CA most of my life, and we only get snow when it gets colder.  Needs to be at least below 33degrees, F.  The higher the elevation, the better.  The other requirement is rain, which then can take that cold and turn it into snow.  So cold & rain are what's required.  Warm & ran gets you......more rain

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why yes, it is true, snow is frozen water, so it has to be below freezing to fall as snow. However when it is REALLY cold, as in the Arctic or Antarctic, it does not normally snow. I have lived in Washington State, Iowa and Missouri in the winter and snow does not fall when it gets really really cold.

Why is that? The colder it gets, the less moisture can be absorbed by the atmosphere. If there is very little moisture, there can be very little snow.



Here is what an actual meteorologist says about this:

CAN IT BE TOO COLD TO SNOW?

METEOROLOGIST JEFF HABY

One phrase that is heard from time to time is that, "it is too cold to snow today". In actuality, earth's troposphere is not too cold to snow but rather it is "too dynamically stable to snow". Dynamic stability may be present due to low-level cold air advection, a lack of upper level divergence, and/or a lack of low level convergence. Also, if dynamic lifting does occur it may not produce precipitation that reaches the surface due to low relative humidity values in the lower troposphere.

The ingredients for snow are: (1) a temperature profile that allows snow to reach the surface, (2) saturated air, and (3) enough lifting of that saturated air to allow snow to develop aloft and fall to reach the surface. In a situation when it is said "it is too cold to snow" there is in reality not enough lifting of air that causes snow to reach the surface.

The phrase "it is too cold to snow today" when referring to only the impact from temperature, may not be true. There is a relationship between temperature and the maximum amount of water vapor that can be in the air. When temperature decreases, the maximum capacity of water vapor that can be in the air decreases. Therefore, the colder it gets the less water vapor there will be in the air.

Even at very cold surface temperatures significant snowfall can occur because: (1) intense lifting can produce significant precipitation even at a very low temperature, (2) the temperature aloft can be much warmer than the temperature at the surface. The relatively warmer air aloft can have a larger moisture content than air in the PBL, (3) Moisture advection can continue to bring a renewed supply of moisture into a region where lifting is occurring, (4) Even at very cold temperatures the air always has a capacity to have some water vapor.

If the air cools to truly frigid Arctic temperatures such as -40 C and below then the moisture capacity of the air will be so low that likely not much snow can occur. Only at these extremely low temperatures is the phrase "it is too cold to snow" fairly valid.

At the temperature of absolute zero ( 0 K, -273 C, -459 F) all air including water vapor condenses and loses all molecular energy. The temperature can not cool below absolute zero.

The ultimate weather education website: http://www.theweatherprediction.com/

[Plane]

One phrase that is heard from time to time is that, "it is too cold to snow today". In actuality, earth's troposphere is not too cold to snow but rather it is "too dynamically stable to snow". Dynamic stability may be present due to low-level cold air advection, a lack of upper level divergence, and/or a lack of low level convergence. Also, if dynamic lifting does occur it may not produce precipitation that reaches the surface due to low relative humidity values in the lower troposphere.

  So snow is possible at any temperature below freezing, if the turbulence is the right sort.

    In practical experience it does seem as if most of the snow falls when it is just cold enough and it tapers off as it gets colder than that.

[Plane]

  I see a lot more hope for science or private enterprise or science and private enterprise to improve the availability of energy other than fossil fuel,  than liberals and government.

  There may be a role for protesters and a role for government , but disruptions by themselves are not going to be effective, in this case they are probably an impediment to science which has some hope of discovering more and better clean energy.

There may be a role for government to play , but this role is bound to be minor in comparison to private enterprise, because the government is more effective at forbidding things than creating things, but Private enterprise is more adept at creating things than forbidding them.

Not to say that the government won't be ready to take credit for whatever solutions ever get found.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is completely logical that the only sustainable sources of energy are those that are constant: The Sun and the heat at the core of the Earth. Burning wood is sustainable if enough trees are planted to sustain the carbon dioxide balance. Water power also depends on the Sun evaporating water in one place and raining down in another. No kind of politics creates energy. Tidal power depends on the Moon, Geysers depend on the Earth's core.

Sustainable is preferable in every way to unsustainable.

Coal is the worst, tar sands are the nest to worst, followed by oil and gas. Part of the price we pay for fossil fuels are respiratory ailments, Land strip mined for coal and tar sands are essentially worthless, as the topsoil is gone and centuries are needed to make the land productive. What business does is harvest the quick bucks with little regard for the costs that can be dodged.

[Plane]

Sustainable is a good feature for energy, but environmentally friendly is another different feature. A sustainable type that causes lots of harm would not be a fix.

Hydroelectric dams are sustainable and relatively clean, but can eliminate some specie of fish.

Wind turbines are pretty good, but the effect on birds and bats needs to be corrected.

Solar panels are getting better, in some situations , really practical.

Fusion will be terrific, when it finally works in practice as well as in theory.

                In all the types of energy production government is already doing all it can to make it better, or is actually getting in the way.

  Science is the way to fix the problems, private enterprise is the best way to distribute the fix.

[sirs]

Why yes, it is true, snow is frozen water, so it has to be below freezing to fall as snow. However when it is REALLY cold, as in the Arctic or Antarctic, it does not normally snow.

IF there's no rain, then of course not       but the idea that it has to be warmer to snow, is polar opposite to what snow requires.  Cold & Rain.  But yea, I suppose it can be TOO cold, but that doesn't equate to warm, which is what you were trying to pull

[Xavier_Onassis]

Private enterprise is pretty sucky at delivering potable water. My water bill is less than half as much as my friends on Key Biscayne. My water is from the City of  North Miami, theirs is from some private company, It sucked at delivering electricity as well, until projects like the TVA and the REA came along. Las Vegas would be a horrid little desert town if not for the Hoover Dam. The Grand Coolie Dam, the TVA and the Hoover Dams and many oth3rs would never have been built by private enterprise.

Imagine what a pain in the ass the Interstate highways would be if they were all for-profit toll roads. Vaccines that prevent disease with one shot are not profitable, and drug companies vastly prefer to sell pills that one must take daily forever. So it makes sense for the government to develop vaccines.

For profit private prisons are an utterly wretched idea. The owners have every reason to keep prisoners in captivity for as long as possible, and no reason to teach them skills so they can function when freed. Plus, these companies cherry-pick the prisoners that are the least likely to cost them money by being ill or by rioting.

Capitalism is a useful tool. But the idea that it does everything best is fallacious. The GOP refuses to recognize this, and therefore is not fit to govern.,