>Obviously temperature is one of the causes of the total amount of snow rather than the other way round.
Can someone explain how this is 'obvious'?
How can this be a claimed scientific way to tell cause and effect and then drop a sentence like that in the middle of the explanation?
Even if you accept that it's true that temperature determines snowfall, it seems there is likely some feedback loop in there. The fallen snow doesn't just disappear, wouldn't it affect later measured temperatures? Remove a bunch of (cold) snow from an area and the average temperature of the area should increase faster than if you had left the snow, no?
Can someone explain how this is 'obvious'?
How can this be a claimed scientific way to tell cause and effect and then drop a sentence like that in the middle of the explanation?
Even if you accept that it's true that temperature determines snowfall, it seems there is likely some feedback loop in there. The fallen snow doesn't just disappear, wouldn't it affect later measured temperatures? Remove a bunch of (cold) snow from an area and the average temperature of the area should increase faster than if you had left the snow, no?