Snowfall “…a very rare and exciting event”

From the Independent, March 20th, 2000:

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

According to reports I’ve read, that is the Independent’s most viewed story of the past 10 years. It has become the modern equivalent of the famous “Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus“.

Now, for the second year in a row, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales is covered with snow. Meanwhile, AGW proponents like George Monbiot are furiously spinning to make it look like AGW causes more snow, rather than less, as the CRU scientist said 10 years ago.

(Update) WUWT commenter Murray Grainger writes:

The very same Independent has already published the rebuttal:

Expect more extreme winters thanks to global warming, say scientists

It isn’t working. Give it up kids.

I was alerted in Tips and Notes to this image from sat24.com by WUWT reader Joel Heinrich, but found an even better one from the Aqua satellite. See below.

Here is the image from the AQUA satellite, as you can see, except for a small part in the Southwest, snow is everywhere.

Click image to enlarge.

The image above has been cropped and annotated. Original source here

See last year’s image here

About these ads

213 thoughts on “Snowfall “…a very rare and exciting event”

  1. Oh the weather outside is frightfull….

    And a Merry WHITE Christmas to all in the UK and Ireland.

    The ancestral homes of most of my clan (with honorable mention to the Vikings who came in to those places long ago…)

  2. It would be interesting to document the view of global warming from the early days to the present with all the shifting of the goal posts and renaming of the idea to accommodate the events that went the wrong way for CAGW. This morphing of a theory to chase the inconvenient events would be an instructive psychology of this process.

  3. Now that Anthropogenic Global Warming or Anthropogenic Climate Change or Anthropogenic Climate Disruption is the explanation for everything, it is clear that we have seen the birth of a new religion.

    Science it is not.

  4. Wonder if that gray “smudge” in east-central England is just less snow, or black-carbon from industrial plants.

  5. So why is David Viner still employed as a “senior research scientist” at CRU since the only applicable part of his title may be “senior”?

  6. It’s been gloriously cold, sunny here today, in Devon, SW England, crisped snow lies on the ground glittering in the Sun and tonight is likely to be *extremely* cold. And, I don’t deny that reality (or the recent years of warm weather) for a second.

    I also know what the global temperature trend is…

  7. Anthony? Turn your computer off, go and enjoy Christmas with your family.

    Do it NOW

    Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you and your family

    Take care

    Warren in NZ

  8. Being wrong about most everything carries no penalty in a world where mainstream media assists in reinventing reality. In a world where folks will substitute a media account for what they can see outside their own windows, “truth-telling” is a lonely and impoverished profession.

  9. Well, a Happy Merry White Christmas and New Years to all the folks in that beautiful land. (Here too; 355 mm or 14 inches on the 24th with a bit more each day — big storm coming in about a week)

    I wonder if GB is sinking into the sea from all that extra weight?
    ———————————

    I wrote a bit for Tips & Notes about sea level after seeing photos in the WSJ regarding villages in GB. Could we have a discussion during Anthony’s sabbatical on an open thread. Doesn’t have to be technical. Those that live near or visit coastal places could relate info from family.
    What I wrote earlier is short so I’ll repeat it here:

    TIPS & NOTES 12/7/2010
    Sea level?

    In its Sat/Sun edition (Nov. 27-28) the Wall Street Journal had a review (by Ferdinand Mount) of a book titled “Villages of Britain” authored by Clive Aslet. An accompanying photo (b/w) of Tobermory, Isle of Mull (56.622691, -6.06716) shows a row of seaside buildings (very colorful in Web images). One web reference claims ‘Tobar Mhoire’ (Well of Mary) has been a small settlement here from the earliest times, while the modern Tobermory was established in 1789. This coast seems to be rather fixed relative to sea level. See the masthead photo here and the photo below that:

    http://tour-scotland-photographs.blogspot.com/2010/04/old-photograph-tobermory-scotland.html

    Another WSJ photo shows the ruins of Saint Andrew’s Church on the Suffolk coast at Covehithe (52.376516, 1.705589). This site has pictures, including of the hogs and their houses. Covehithe seems to have been a much larger settlement at one time, apparently washed away by the sea. This site

    http://www.aboutbritain.com/towns/covehithe.asp

    explains:

    “The village of Covehithe was previously known as North Hales, in which time it was much larger than it is today due to the sea encroaching more and more each year, the extent of this can be seen with ordinance survey maps.

    There seems to be little on the Web regarding Covehithe but for this coast there is a long history and much information; here is a link to everybody’s favorite “don’t use” site:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunwich

    This place is 12.3 km south of Covehithe (52.277197, 1.632324).

    Dunwich was the capital of East Anglia 1500 years ago and was a prosperous seaport and centre of the wool trade during the Early Middle Ages, with a natural harbour formed by the mouths of the River Blyth and the River Dunwich, but the harbour and most of the town has since been lost to coastal erosion. The town’s decline began in 1286 when a sea surge hit . . .

    Examining these two places it is hard to draw the conclusion that one of Earth’s biggest threats is sea level rising because of the combustion of carbon based fuel.

  10. I don’t get it!! If rising Co2 levels is causing a warmer planet and creating more snow and a colder northern hemisphere then wouldn’t reducing Co2 levels cause a colder planet and create less snow & ice in the northern hemisphere? or is it all Bull?

    Or;

    If the rise in Co2 levels are going to create a warmer planet then wouldn’t the reduction of Co2 levels create a colder planet?

    Another thing I dont get! Those two countrys covered with snow and Ice they have to pay 100+ billion in taxes because some are saying the planet getting is too warm, How much colder do they want the planet to be? and why is the media not Informing the public about this?.

    What is going on? am I losing my freaking mind?

  11. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/expect-more-extreme-winters-thanks-to-global-warming-say-scientists-2168418.html

    “The researchers used computer models to assess the impact of the disappearing Arctic sea ice, particularly in the area of the Barents and Kara seas north of Scandinavia and Russia, which have experienced unprecedented losses of sea ice during summer.”

    I wonder how the Russian convoys of WWII got on with all the sea ice in the Barents sea? If we have lost the ice now then I would expect there to have been at least some ice back in the 1940s. A bit odd then that convoys ran from June 1941 to May 1944 in almost every month.

    “The model simulations show that, when you don’t get ice on the Barents and Kara seas, that promotes the formation of a high-pressure system there, and, because the airflow is clockwise around the high, it brings cold, polar air right into Europe, which leads to cold conditions here while it is unusually warm elsewhere, especially in the Arctic,” he explained.”

    Is that really how high pressure systems are formed?

  12. Perhaps there is another reason for the 100 year cold record this year. A friend sent me this. Thoughts anyone?

    Hi Werner,
     
    I saw this clip today: http://silverbearcafe.com/private/12.10/freeze.html It claims the gulf stream may have been stopped by the BP event in the gulf.  Have you heard or read other info confirming this theory or fact?  What do you think.  Here is a related clip: http://www.youtube.com/user/MrGlasgowtruther#p/a/A03C7B00575CB38D/0/cMqRScmeu9I

  13. E.M.Smith I have that ancestry on my mom’s side-Her family- Anderson, were from the
    highlands of Sutherland, Scotland.
    descendants of the Vikings that saw that the Scots women were good looking but going to the bother of dragging one to the longboat without her putting up a fight wasn’t worth
    it so they stayed..
    Here’s one of my favorite Kipling poems;

    http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/thorkilds_song.html

    had that one taped to the bulkhead on my old DC-7 Retardant Tanker.
    After along fire season, it fit well….

  14. John F. Hultquist says:
    “I wonder if GB is sinking into the sea from all that extra weight?”

    Don’t forget places like Winchelsea and Rye that are now a couple miles inland from their original positions on the coast.

  15. Awhile ago we had a contest on Kate McMillans site Small Dead Animals. We now don’t use AGW, ACC or ACD. It’s now known as ICS.

    “Irritable Climate Syndrome”

    Kinda says it all…..

    Paul

  16. Fools, fools, anyone would know that it is all due to declining ice cover in the Artic as the spin doctors explain.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1341388/Global-warming-Britain-longer-colder-winters-melting-sea-ice-plays-havoc-weather-patterns.html

    The problem is that this spin reaks of desperation and the public is unlikely to buy into it.

    Now what were their model, a few years back, predicting? Oh yes, CO2 causes warming particularly at the poles, thereby leading to melting of the ice caps (and catastrophoic sea level rises). This will causer warmer, shorter winters in the Northern Hemishpere with less snow. Hence the 2000 article.

    Now they say a warmer artic with less ice leads to a colder Northern Hemishere.

    Funny that when (during the recent instrument record) the Artic ice was at a minimum a few years back, the jet streams were not altered and UK and Europe did not experience such a harsh winter as was experienced in 2009/10 and as is presently beeing experienced in 2010/11. Could it just be that a reduction in the extent of summer ice does not lead to the climate shift the warmist now suggest.

    All of this merely etablishes precisely how bad the models are at forecasting.

  17. TheTempestSpark says:
    December 24, 2010 at 9:55 am
    “What is going on? am I losing my freaking mind?”

    No; you’re only watching the collapse of an invalid theory.

  18. Given their failed predictions at this rate they’ll have to resort to a multi-verse theory of warming; yes it isn’t warming here but our CO2 emissions are teleconnecting to the parallel dimension and won’t somebody please save the Zezgher’phrwts!

  19. Because of these devastating extreme weather events, I have begun circulating a petition to end Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climactic Disruption. It is gaining signatures among the AGW crowd. But I think this is a banner we can all agree on. Trust me, events like this take all the fun out of living.

  20. It’s not unusual in the UK to have a short run of snowy winters. 1979 – 1981, 1984 – 1987 come to mind. Then we had two freakishly mild ones in Scotland with almost no snow at all until March. Being a weirdo, I put it down to the triple conjunction of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, which might be total bollocks, but happened to coincide.

    I wouldn’t ascribe 2 snow cold winters in the UK to anything myself.

  21. I enjoyed the “Yes Virginia” article, and how fitting it is.

    “Not believe in Global Warming! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch all the weather radars on Christmas Eve to catch Global Warming, but even if they did not see Global warming on the radars, what would that prove? Nobody sees Global warming, but that is no sign that there is no Global Warming. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.”

    That’s it then, Global Warming exists just like Santa.

    p.s. It’s 4:20am Christmas day here in Brisbane. Still no sign of Santa. I musta bin a bad bad boy.

    Merry Christmas to all and I hope you all have a happy and healthy new year.

  22. Here is an Off Topic (OT) but perfectly illustrative joke.
    A business needs to hire an accountant.
    The first applicant is asked “How much is 2 + 2?”
    “4” comes the answer.
    The next applicant is asked “How much is 2 + 2?”
    “What do you want it to be?”

    Science should not be in the shambles it is now. These charlatans that call themselves climatologists have through their machinations, provided the “what do you want it to be” answer to the environmentalists who have joined forces with the one-world government crowd to achieve their joint goals.

    I saw in another blog where it was asserted that “scientific integrity” has become an oxymoron. We scientists must fight the “what do you want it to be” perversion of science.

  23. Do they mean this extreme,

    Has anyone watched The unforgettable Spike on UK ITV, there is one hilarious ten second sketch with Spike pretending to be a MET OFFICE weatherman, it says it all.

  24. Merry Christmas to everyone around the world…. from a cold but sunny UK.

    The current estimated mean Central England Temperature (CET) for December so far is minus 0.7 celsius (up to 23 December). I think that’s about 30.9F. This would make it the second coldest December in the CET series that goes back to 1659! However, we we are promised some milder Atlantic air after Christmas this month so the outturn figure may be a little higher, but I suspect this month will still end up the coldest December in Central England since 1890 (which had a mean temperature of minus 0.8C). In all only six CET Decembers since 1659 have previously had a mean below 0C/32F – of which three were in the Victorian ‘Dickensian’ period!

    By the way I think the slightly greyer tone on the satellite photo may just represent thinner snow in East Central England. For example in parts of central Yorkshire the snow is pretty thin, but we are surrounded to north, east, south and west by areas that have had considerable snow in the last week

  25. Paul Coppin asks :-

    “So why is David Viner still employed as a “senior research scientist” at CRU since the only applicable part of his title may be “senior”?”

    Apparently Viner has now got a cushy number at the British Council in charge of promoting climate change! Nice work if you can get it.

  26. A very distinct change has occurred over the past few years in how the average person sees the climate debate.

    Even in my work, which is for a government environmental agency, only a few die hards still try to push the official line. Most just don’t want to talk about it.

    Those outside of work, with very few exceptions (usually progressive ideologues), say they don’t believe a word of the official line and see climate as a natural process.

    With this change in the popular perception of climate, I cannot see how western governments can continue for much longer on their current campaign of throwing ever larger amounts of money at a problem that most see as a waste of money.

    In the US even prominent Democrats are balking (such as West Virginia’s Senators) at the EPA’s heavy handed regulatory approach to CO2.

    I suspect we will see a reversal of course beginning in the new year. This will be accompanied by wails from the green left, but with the American people (and even labor left) turning away, the wails will be muted.

    I don’t think it is time yet to put down our guard, but the momentum appears to have genuinely shifted. It is time to start becoming more optimistic.

    Damn shame though that our economy has been so damaged by this madness.

  27. Phillip Bratby says:
    December 24, 2010 at 9:07 am

    It’s very unusual for Ireland to be mostly covered in the white stuff.
    ————————–
    Bl**dy hell Phil, that’s what I was going to say!

    latitude says:
    December 24, 2010 at 9:16 am

    Isn’t this the second time in the same year too?
    —————————
    Yes it is! It’s like all my Christmases have come at once! I like to snowkite and I’ve had three sessions within 15mins walk of where I live (east coast Scotland) at an elevation of only 100m, in the first month of winter. I was able to ski back to my abode on each occasion.

    Unprecedented!

  28. Potsdam Climate Institute now says to expect warmer colder winters

    http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/23/potsdam-climate-instutute-now-says-to-expect-warmer-colder-winters/

    It’s remarkable how the media and climate institutes all sing the same “new” looney tune if circumstances defeat their previous mantra’s, isn’t it?

    But please don’t think it’s a conspiracy.

    It’s a consensus based on the best available scientific standards, think of it as the “Gold Standard of Science.

  29. Beng, I don’t think there actually is a whole lot of industry left in Sheffield and Leeds. Most of it has gone to India and China by now.
    I think they just missed the snow this time around. During the first burst, last week in November, I know from a friend there they got around 15in of level white stuff.

    For the record I’m in Lower Normandy, France, we’ve had about a foot during the last week. That’s after 2 1/2 feet last winter. OK, my house is at around 600ft, but that’s silly numbers for this part of the world.

    Happy Christmas to all here, especially Anthony – and enjoy your break, you deserve it!

  30. The fearless crew of the might HMS CRU has spotted an iceberg dead ahead, thwarting thier hallowed prediction of snowless winters. Emergency stop, full reverse, and like the Titanic, the propellers caviate and do nothing. Likewise the steering rudder is useless in the foam.
    The doomed ship is history and so is the reputation of the predictors.
    Thier words cavitate in a swirling mess of froth.
    Snow has a way of muting a lot of noise, does it not?

  31. So models indicate that due to anthropogenic CO2, winters will be warmer and snow a rare event. Models also show that due to anthropogenic CO2, winters will be colder and snow more profuse.

    There is no question about it – if we hadn’t had three cold winters there certainly wouldn’t be any models showing colder and snowier winters – that would have been suppressed at peer review as ‘wrong’, and would not have seen the light of day in the press as it would not have chimed in with the propaganda and the groupthink.

    But now the models have to be revised to account for the facts, which otherwise are looking like an episode that should only happen every 10,000 years or so under the traditional modelling (upon which IPCC AR4 and UKCP08 were based).

    This report referenced in the Independent states that global warming will win out in the end, but it could get a lot colder for a few decades. Oh, how convenient that a new revised model comes to the rescue just when the existing ones are discredited. So now we are expected to reserve judgment on these new models until 2050 or so – just as we were saying the last rites over the current models, we are now expected to believe that we have to wait another 40 years or so to see whether global warming will win out.

    This is simply the religion of charlatans. When cults predict an apocalyptic event on a certain date and it doesn’t happen, they revise the date – the explanation: they made a numerical mistake or didn’t read things quite right. Alternatively, they become like the Delphic oracle, where they pronounce the future but you can never be quite sure the meaning of it. We now have a priesthood of cultists posing as scientists scrabbling around trying to keep us believing in their religion now that it has been falsified. And falsified it has. In 2008 when they compiled UKCP08 the Met Office would have given odds on a string of three severe winters in a row as 1-in-8000, i.e. a once-in-8000 years event. That this episode occured six months later takes it (IMO) into the realm of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that their models are fatally flawed. They keep on lobbying that they need better supercomputing capabilities and that they are under-resourced in software engineering, but improvements in these will not get them a right answer, only the wrong answer quicker.

  32. Claude Harvey says:
    December 24, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Being wrong about most everything carries no penalty in a world where mainstream media assists in reinventing reality. In a world where folks will substitute a media account for what they can see outside their own windows, “truth-telling” is a lonely and impoverished profession.
    —————-
    Wow. Well said.

  33. TheTempestSpark says:
    December 24, 2010 at 9:55 am

    When I ask an AGW disciple where they would like to reverse climate change to it is difficult to get an answer. I usually suggest the MWP as being suitable, then add “it was warmer then than now in the UK you know”. That’s usually met with silence or denial. It’s a simple pleasure but amuses me!

  34. So we’re all going to have ‘warmer-colder-winters’?
    My Head Hurts!! Reckon I need a drink.
    Off to stuff the turkey…..
    Happy Christmas everyone, and a Good (colder-warmer?) New Year.

  35. “a very rare and exciting event”

    So far it is. Since 2000 it has snowed very rarely, while the last 3 winters are exceptions (actually I am not so sure about the first of those 3 I recall it only snowing for a week or so), we have seen hardly any snow in the UK since 2000.

    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” is obviously a generalization. Children will of course know what snow is from those “very rare and exciting events” (not to mention TV).

    His point is a general prediction that snow will become rarer in the UK as it warms.

    The topical nature of the cold in the UK now means that the media are looking for explanations, so out come these lesser accepted theories that the UK will start getting colder winters because of sea ice decline, gulf stream shutdown, etc.

    These theories of what will happen to UK winters are only coupled to manmade global warming in one direction. They are different researchers predicting what will happen to UK winters under manmade global warming. If any particular one is wrong that doesn’t falsify manmade global warming. The fact that a number of contradictory theories for UK winters exist based on manmade global warming shows that manmade global warming doesn’t hinge on any particular response by UK winters.

  36. Mate in U.K emailed me this

    “I’m in North of England and it has been snowing heavily for three days now.
    The wife has done absolutely nothing but stare through the window.

    If it doesn’t stop soon, i guess i’ll probably have to let her in.”

  37. Stephen Skinner says:
    December 24, 2010 at 9:56 am
    Is that really how high pressure systems are formed?

    There are local winds and pressure systems that seem to form in this manner, for example

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_breeze

    The “blocking” High that is the foundation of the current weather pattern is part of a northern hemisphere system wherein the air is descending from a high elevation. Lack of ice on the Barents and Kara seas might play a role in location – not the cause of – this High Pressure. Perhaps I’m imputing too much to the adiabatic warming caused by this descending air but I think the warmer then average temps west of Iceland result from this High. Northern Europe’s colder than average temp is a by-product of this. Meteorologists think the pattern is about to break down. Europe will get warmer. Oregon, WA, & B.C. will get a storm and then colder – in about a week.

  38. ScientistsForTheTruth:

    “So models indicate that due to anthropogenic CO2, winters will be warmer and snow a rare event. Models also show that due to anthropogenic CO2, winters will be colder and snow more profuse.”

    Yes that’s it, and while it contradicts that’s to be expected of uncertainty in this area. It’s not obvious that either result is wrong. The latter study has focused on the response to sea ice decline. It was submitted before winter 2009, so didn’t take into account the cold winters of 2009 and 2010:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD013568.shtml

    The reason this theory gets focus now is because the subject of cold winters is currently topical. The paper isn’t directly stating that man-made global warming causes cold winters in the northern hemisphere, but that they find sea ice decline results in cold winters in the northern hemisphere. But logically of course man-made global warming is expected to result in arctic sea ice decline so…

    The mainstream theory is still that a warming world will see warmer winters in the UK though. These side theories (like the solar minimum – jetstream one and the gulf stream fresh water shutdown one) are fringe ideas and not widely accepted. They do all represent possibilities though, and therein lies the risk of climate change.

  39. “These theories of what will happen to UK winters are only coupled to manmade global warming in one direction. They are different researchers predicting what will happen to UK winters under manmade global warming. If any particular one is wrong that doesn’t falsify manmade global warming. The fact that a number of contradictory theories for UK winters exist based on manmade global warming shows that manmade global warming doesn’t hinge on any particular response by UK winters.”

    What it shows is that the theory of man-made global warming isn’t ready for prime time. If the theory can “predict” mutually contradictory outcomes, without anyone knowing which one is “true”, then it’s nowhere near as “robust” as it claimed to be so widely and so often. And it’s certainly not well-founded enough to justify expending trillions of dollars to fix a problem that can’t even be conclusively defined. And if any number of mutually contradictory outcomes are possible, then it will also be impossible to judge if any potential fix has worked. Until it is ready for prime time, it should stay out of the political arena and remain in the labs and ivory towers of academia, where researchers can do little damage while arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. When they’ve decided that, then it will be time to involve the politicians and the public. But not before.

  40. TheTempestSpark says:
    December 24, 2010 at 9:55 am

    What is going on? am I losing my freaking mind?
    ————-
    Well, no you’re not. This is just a necesary phase you have to go though after you realise all that you are told by the mainstream media is BS. And that applies whichever subject it is they are talking about.

    After this phase you begin to expect this outcome, learn to look at things (media presentation) differently and – most importantly of all – learn to do your own internet-based research on all matters that impinge on any aspect of the well-being of your self/family/community. In short: you learn not to trust the lying media scumbags.

    Journalists? My arse.

  41. Onion says

    “These theories of what will happen to UK winters are only coupled to manmade global warming in one direction. They are different researchers predicting what will happen to UK winters under manmade global warming. If any particular one is wrong that doesn’t falsify manmade global warming. The fact that a number of contradictory theories for UK winters exist based on manmade global warming shows that manmade global warming doesn’t hinge on any particular response by UK winters.”

    An onion has many layers or skins – your name has been well chosen ………………….. I am sure you will find a story that fits one of them and the story will be able to change as the mood suits – merry Christmas.

  42. You cannot stand there for 10+ years and tell me the CO2 is causing winters to be milder and then all of a sudden tell me that winters are getting colder because of CO2.

    I have a name for that, and I step in it when I’m at the farm….

  43. Independent – 16 September 2005
    Global warming ‘past the point of no return’
    A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/global-warming-past-the-point-of-no-return-507030.html

  44. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 11:10 am

    “a very rare and exciting event”

    So far it is. Since 2000 it has snowed very rarely, while the last 3 winters are exceptions
    =========================================================

    I don’t suppose that could be the other way around?
    That the lack of snow was rare, and things are just returning to normal?

    anywho

    Since we now know that CO2 causes colder weather, shouldn’t we be increasing CO2?

  45. It’s already Christmas morning in Aotearoa New Zealand and its going to be a sunny barbecue day. Maybe 22 degrees in Purakanui.
    Merry Christmas everyone and a happy New Year.

  46. Real Climate is in a panic over the negative NAO

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/cold-winter-in-a-world-of-warming/#more-5596

    They know this will likely stick around for thirty years and falsify the AGW theory that positive NAO is here to stay. They desperately are clinging to the newly floated reduced arctic ice extent creating this weather theory but are dreading that likely sea ice volume buildup will likely result this year as it has in the past during negative NAO.
    Looking at GISP2 ice core temperature reconstruction, the little ice age was the coldest period of the Holocene.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GISP2_ice_core_eng.svg

    Looking at the current CET:

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/

    We may speculate that The current UK winter could become the coldest in 10,000 years. It is hard to stop the trend of unstoppable Holocene cooling.

  47. Peter H says:
    December 24, 2010 at 9:25 am
    It’s been gloriously cold, sunny here today, in Devon, SW England, crisped snow lies on the ground glittering in the Sun and tonight is likely to be *extremely* cold. And, I don’t deny that reality (or the recent years of warm weather) for a second.

    I also know what the global temperature trend is…

    Well based on 1998 still having the record that would flatlined then !!!!!!

  48. @ Doug in Seattle
    “I don’t think it is time yet to put down our guard, but the momentum appears to have genuinely shifted. It is time to start becoming more optimistic”

    It’s just a change of direction, with effort going into world domination by another route !
    Since the blogosphere has played a major part in turning global warming into ridicule we can now expect to see some sort of attempt to control what people put onto the internet. After all, we can’t have innocent persons being corrupted by uncontrolled and unscientific dialogue, can we ?
    We have the “free” press demonstrating (very well) that it isn’t free at all, just another arm of Big_Biz.
    We also have scientists demonstrating (very well) that having your bread buttered on both sides is preferable to having clean hands.
    Roll-on 2011, when we will have Global Climate Insinuation coming out of our orifices, and at high cost.

  49. AGW is just a political excuse to redistribute wealth. 30 years ago global cooling due pilution was responsible for heavy snowfalls. If the shoe fits wear it.

  50. GUESS WHAT?!?!?! The planet’s got a fever. And the only prescription in more cowbell!

    Warm globally, cool locally.

  51. >>Phillip
    >>It’s very unusual for Ireland to be mostly covered in the white stuff.

    Indeed. It is known as the Emerald Isle, not the Pearl Province.

    .

  52. I went through the hassle of signing up to comment on this article, providing the link to their 10 year old article. I wonder if it will get published.

    Silly question (hey, it’s Festive Time) Looking at the image of the snow-bound British Isles, why does the snow not fall on the sea?

  53. onion says: “…The fact that a number of contradictory theories for UK winters exist based on manmade global warming shows that manmade global warming [theory] doesn’t hinge on any particular response by UK winters [reality].”

    My bold. Quite so, onion. Looks like manmade global warming is coming unhinged from reality even as we speak!

  54. So global warming causes more extreme winters? How about 400/401 AD?

    Winter of 400A.D. / 401 A.D.
    – In the winter of 401, the Pontus Sea was frozen over, also the Sea between Constantinople (Istanbul) and Scutari (Üsküdar) [inlet to the Sea of Marmara from the Black Sea] in Turkey.
    – The Black Sea was frozen for 20 days, and when the thaw came, such mountains of ice passed by Constantinople [Istanbul, Turkey] that they frightened the citizens.
    – In the year 400, the cold was so severe that on January 28, the Rhône River in France was frozen over its entire width and the passengers on foot and horseback went on the ice, without running any risk, between Dauphine (in the Alps) and Vivarais.
    – In the year 401, the River Thames in England was frozen over for two months.

    Source – James A. Marusek’s “A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events”.

    Nothing “unprecedented” to see here, move along…

    A merry Christmas to Anthony, moderators and all the readers of WUWT. Enjoy the season and have a safe and sceptical new year.

  55. I think its interesting that many environmentalists don’t think people are smart enough to understand climate change in the profound way that they do. In reality, a lot of people are struggling just to get by on a daily basis, both here in the US and in Europe so most ordinary folks just aren’t that interested. But a funny thing happens with folks and their ability to crunch numbers when a currency sign is put in front of the number. All of a sudden someone who is challenged by math can miraculously do it. It’s been very cold in Europe and much of the US for the entire month of December. Politicians are working to make energy more expensive to encourage conservation and tilt the economics to renewables. When the bills start coming due climate science and the corrective measures for climage change are suddenly going to be much more important and everyone will be paying close attention. I suspect many of the ordinary folks won’t have the intellectual capacity to rationalize how the cold they feel in their bones is somehow related to a world warming out of control.

  56. Seasons Greetings to all. Please take the time to enjoy the company of your friends and families. Ever wounder why our ancient ancestors held the winter solstices in such high regard? Why they, who did not travel very far from home this time of the year, opted to host a big party a family celebration instead? They were smart enough to know the winter weather is unpredictable with one exception. It is more often then not miserable. Alternate explanation: the weather gods heat airplanes and don’t much like trains, cars or buses either.

    Keep a skeptical eye and remember, Mother Nature plays with loaded dice.

  57. “If the theory can “predict” mutually contradictory outcomes, without anyone knowing which one is “true”, then it’s nowhere near as “robust” as it claimed to be so widely and so often.”

    That’s not the case. Logically the theory that human activity is warming the earth can be robust even as the theory of what that means for UK winters is not.

  58. Werner Brozek says:
    December 24, 2010 at 10:00 am

    The BP oilspill however, does not explain last winters dreadful weather or the year before.

  59. That Petoukhov and Semenov Study Independent is discussing and Realclimate is covering does not apply to this winter at all.

    It discusses cold NAO+ winters and links the cold in europe to sea ice cover changes in arctic. Results are based on computer modelling.

    The study does not cover NAO- winters at all. Nor does it link arctic warming to NAO- conditions. Thus it is very misleading to link 2009-2010 or this winter to the conditions covered by this study.

  60. Re MattN:

    “You cannot stand there for 10+ years and tell me the CO2 is causing winters to be milder and then all of a sudden tell me that winters are getting colder because of CO2.”

    You are being told both of these. The theory that winters will get milder in the UK in coming decades hasn’t been withdrawn, in fact that’s the widely accepted impact of the world warming. However how the UK winters change is not certain and there are rival, but less accepted, theories that it will get colder.

  61. How about this? I have a theory that if I flip a coin, it will come up heads or tails. No matter what happens, my theory is right.

    Here’s the AGW theory: (evil) mankind is burning more and more fuel, and making more and more CO2, which will irrevocably alter the climate and reach a tipping point where we cannot stop it, and we all die. If temperatures go up or down, or there is more or less snow cover, and polar ice increases or decreases, then it proves AGW. Now, shut up and hand over the $$$Billions that we promise to give a tiny bit to the 3rd world.

  62. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 11:10 am
    “a very rare and exciting event”

    So far it is. Since 2000 it has snowed very rarely, while the last 3 winters are exceptions (actually I am not so sure about the first of those 3 I recall it only snowing for a week or so), we have seen hardly any snow in the UK since 2000.

    Sorry to disagree, but we arrived in London in Oct 2001 and when we, as antipodeans, enquired about a white Christmas were told, “It never snows in London.”

    Well it is now 2010 and snow has lain on the ground EVERY winter between 2001 and 2010. Maybe not much and maybe not for long some years but we have not missed a snowy winter yet and we are in the middle of the biggest UHI in the country.

  63. Re Latitude: “Since we now know that CO2 causes colder weather, shouldn’t we be increasing CO2?”

    The idea of reducing CO2 emissions is to stop tampering with the climate, just let nature do what nature is going to do.

  64. Re jorgekafkazar:

    That’s the opposite of my point. My point is that man-made global warming is not dependent on what UK winters do. What we have here is one theory and two hypotheses:

    Theory: Man-made global warming

    Hypothesis #1: Global warming will result in warmer UK winters
    Hypothesis #2: Global warming will result in colder UK winters

    If UK winters warm then hypothesis #2 is falsified. If UK winters cool then hypothesis #1 is falsified. So something does get falsified, but not the theory. The theory is not dependent on either hypothesis. It would be illogical to claim the theory is falsified because one of those hypotheses have been falsified.

    Additionally of course neither of those hypotheses have yet been falsified.

  65. it’s been a year when the insanity of the MSM advocacy of CAGW has been exposed like never before… and how tacky it is:

    23 Dec: NYT Blog: Justin Gillis: Climate Change and ‘Balanced’ Coverage
    In fact, as Dr. Alley (Richard B. Alley of the Pennsylvania State University) reminds anyone who will listen, and as he recently told a Congressional committee, the estimate of 5 or 6 degrees is actually mildly optimistic. Computer programs used to forecast future climate show it as the most likely outcome from a doubling of carbon dioxide, but those programs also show substantial probabilities that the warming will be much greater.
    The true worst case from doubled carbon dioxide is closer to 18 or 20 degrees of warming, Dr. Alley said — an addition of heat so radical that it would render the planet unrecognizable to its present-day inhabitants.
    Dr. Alley calls the usual news media presentation of the issue a form of “false balance.” In his view, mainstream climate science should be seen as coming down on the conservative side of a range of numbers that runs from 2 degrees to 20 degrees. And in setting public policy, he said, lawmakers need to entertain the possibility that any of these numbers is correct…

    http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/climate-change-and-balanced-coverage/

  66. onion says on December 24, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    “If the theory can “predict” mutually contradictory outcomes, without anyone knowing which one is “true”, then it’s nowhere near as “robust” as it claimed to be so widely and so often.”

    That’s not the case. Logically the theory that human activity is warming the earth can be robust even as the theory of what that means for UK winters is not.

    Let’s be more specific. Which human activity? Sex? Breathing? What?

    Secondly, scientists deal in mechanisms. Tell us about the mechanism. Please be specific.

  67. Onion:

    So what does “within a few years” mean? In most languages it’d be less than 10. Here we are 10 years later, and the winters have become snowier, and colder.

    Viner simply got it completely wrong.

  68. Moonbat’s AGW Progress Report: Not Weather Underground.

    There’s heat in that water, no? That’s where the warmistas hide the heat.

    It’s not fair.

    …-

    “Water temperature in pipes to homes reaches record low today (Friday)”

    “THE TEMPERATURE of water going to people’s homes today (Christmas Eve) from reservoirs in London and the Thames Valley is the coldest on record.

    According to Thames Water, due to sustained freezing weather since November, the water has cooled down to a “staggeringly chilly” 1.8 degrees Celsius – far below the comparatively balmy Christmas Eve average of 7.3 degrees.

    The previous coldest recorded December 24 water temperature was 4.9 degrees, in 2001.

    A spokeswoman for the company, Becky Johnson, said this was “a big problem” for Britain’s biggest water supplier.

    “Whenever water below five degrees Celsius enters the company’s 20,000-mile network of supply mains, there is always a marked increase in bursts and leaks,” said Ms Johnson.

    “This is because cold water makes the pipes, especially the century-old cast-iron ones, contract and this can make them break if there are hairline weaknesses.”

    At this time of year Thames Water would normally expect to receive 75 new leak reports a day but it is currently getting nearly 300.

    Jerry White, Thames Water’s head of operational control, sai it was the coldest start to a winter anyone at the company could remember, including staff with 40 years’ service.”

    http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=15480

  69. “and there are rival, but less accepted, theories that it will get colder.”
    =================================================
    Who decided that they were less accepted?

    There’s too many people with dogs in the fight, I’m sure it was the ones that said it would get warmer…………..

  70. re Latitude:
    “Who decided that they were less accepted?”

    No-one decided it, it just is that way. The hypothesis in the Independent story is put forward by the researchers who did that study. Furthermore they might not be 100% behind it only offering it as a suggestion. There’s not a great deal of people coming out and saying “this looks true”.

  71. “””Peter H says:
    December 24, 2010 at 9:25 am

    It’s been gloriously cold, sunny here today, in Devon, SW England, crisped snow lies on the ground glittering in the Sun and tonight is likely to be *extremely* cold. And, I don’t deny that reality (or the recent years of warm weather) for a second.

    I also know what the global temperature trend is…”””

    And Urban Leprechaun says:

    And I am here in Devon, England, too, and it is taking all my driving skills to get home, a half mile of single track, slightly uphill, and smoothed to icy glass by my neighbour’s tractor. Seriously cold. -6C outside. So cold a fox ate my bird food.

    BUT, I do not see this as the end of climate change. I see it as being the result of the wind coming from the north east for ten days. Look out the window! NE wind.

    “The North wind will blow
    And we shall have snow.”
    (A doggerel taught to wee school kids in England)

  72. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 1:03 pm
    That’s the opposite of my point. My point is that man-made global warming is not dependent on what UK winters do.
    ============================================
    Since that UK winter has now sucked in most of the northern hemisphere, most of the southern hemisphere including all of Australia…….

    Since we now know that CO2 causes it to get colder too, how much is too much, how much is too little. How in this world are we going to jiggle it so the temperature stays exactly on that thin little “normal” line?
    Since the last decade was obviously a fluke and it’s getting colder fast, shouldn’t we start increasing CO2? Then we don’t know how much? Too much and we can have run away global warming, or run away ice age, where’s the tipping point?

    The whole object of the game seems to be controlling the weather/climate, like we had some thermostat. It has even been compared to the dial on a radio, exactly like a thermostat.

  73. onion: That’s the opposite of my point. My point is that man-made global warming is not dependent on what UK winters do. What we have here is one theory and two hypotheses…

    But to be a proper scientific theory, it must make predictions that can be verified or falsified. Here’s what the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I: Chapter 11 had to say about Europe:

    Annual mean temperatures in Europe are likely to increase more than the global mean. Seasonally, the largest warming is likely to be in northern Europe in winter and in the Mediterranean area in summer. Minimum winter temperatures are likely to increase more than the average in northern Europe. Maximum summer temperatures are likely to increase more than the average in southern and central Europe. Annual precipitation is very likely to increase in most of northern Europe and decrease in most of the Mediterranean area. In central Europe, precipitation is likely to increase in winter but decrease in summer. Extremes of daily precipitation are very likely to increase in northern Europe. The annual number of precipitation days is very likely to decrease in the Mediterranean area. Risk of summer drought is likely to increase in central Europe and in the Mediterranean area. The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten, and snow depth is likely to decrease in most of Europe.

    Those sound a lot like a predictions to me, with all the “very likely” stuff. Do you simply demote failed predictions to mere hypotheses? Is it like Ghostbusters where an inconvenient rule becomes more like a guideline?

  74. Oh do stop this “it’s cold in England” stuff, as if this puts the boot into ACC.

    It’s f*cking boiling in Greenland right now. The polar bears are lathering on the sun-cream and sitting at the poolside drinking pina coladas.

    This is Newton. First (?) Law, can’t destroy energy – or no such thing as a free lunch. The energy has to go somewhere. And it’s gone to Greenland.

  75. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 1:03 pm
    What we have here is one theory and two hypotheses:

    Theory: Man-made global warming

    Hypothesis #1: Global warming will result in warmer UK winters
    Hypothesis #2: Global warming will result in colder UK winters

    Ah, I see your problem: You think manmade warming is a theory. Sorry, but it never got beyond the phase of a conjecture, based on extremely weak evidence (models are not evidence, by the way).
    Both of your “hypotheses” are therefor complete nonsense.
    The truth is that the natural, completely unremarkable warming which took place since the end of the LIA, and which has been on hiatus the past decade or so did result in slightly warmer winters. It appears now, however that the natural warming phase may in fact have turned to a cooling phase, which will likely be with us for at least several decades. Indeed, there is evidence for a return to LIA conditions by mid-century.

  76. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 1:37 pm
    No-one decided it, it just is that way.
    ==================================================
    onion, did you believe in global warming 10 years ago?
    If you did, was it because you believed that scientists knew what they were doing 10 years ago?

    Do you think that those scientists believed that they knew what they were doing because it looked like the temperature of the planet was actually increasing a little bit?

    Now that the climate has not cooperated with their theory, do you still believe that they know what they are talking about?

  77. John Hultquist:
    I seem to remember from the dim distant geography lessons of my youth that the west coast of the UK is rising and the east coast is falling – something to do with the tectonic plates – unless someone else knows better!

  78. Re Latitude:

    “Since we now know that CO2 causes it to get colder too, how much is too much, how much is too little. How in this world are we going to jiggle it so the temperature stays exactly on that thin little “normal” line?”

    The idea is to leave nature alone. Artificially elevating CO2 levels to 390ppm and rising is not a wise move. It will have knock on effects and the higher it goes the more risk there is.

    The desire isn’t to control climate, we can’t, we don’t even understand it well enough. The plan is to not interfere with it (especially given that we don’t understand it well enough!)

  79. richard verney says:
    December 24, 2010 at 10:04 am
    ……………..
    The problem is that this spin reaks of desperation and the public is unlikely to buy into it.

    This is what I told Monbiot in the Guardian comments and was rewarded with a prompt ban. I told him to grow up and admit he got it wrong. By the way there are over 1,600 comments from his article. Sceptics poured cold water all over him and his latest pet theory that attempts to explain why warming is in fact cooling. My only question is if we start to get a run of milder winters would it falsify AGW. ;-)

  80. Science requires that a theory on climate can make predictions and is judged on its eventual skill level. Science requires that a theory can be falsified. Ten years ago non of the GCMs predicted cooling in winter. AGW now has TWO conflicting positions regarding winter cold and snow in the northern hemisphere. This is not science but religion.
    ——————-
    June 4, 1999
    “Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990604081638.htm

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399452a0.html

    March 2000
    “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

    —————————
    Nov. 17, 2010
    “Global Warming Could Cool Down Northern Temperatures in Winter”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117114028.htm

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013568

    December 2010
    “Expect more extreme winters thanks to global warming, say scientists”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/expect-more-extreme-winters-thanks-to-global-warming-say-scientists-2168418.html

    —————————
    Failed AGW Predictions And Forecasts

    http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

  81. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    “The idea of reducing CO2 emissions is to stop tampering with the climate, just let nature do what nature is going to do.”

    OK Onion. You stop breathing first.
    Gordon Bennet.

  82. I guess you get a better level of debate at RC?

    We did the “Vinter/Cold Winter” last year, thanks. Put it to bed.

  83. Mike says:
    December 24, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    “Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said. ”

    In my mind 3 years out of 10 is not occasionally but what looks like the start of a trend. I could be wrong though. The fact remains that snowfalls are not a thing of the past but a thing of the present. ;O)

  84. Dizzy Ringo says:
    December 24, 2010 at 2:04 pm
    John Hultquist:
    “I seem to remember from the dim distant geography lessons of my youth that the west coast of the UK is rising and the east coast is falling – something to do with the tectonic plates – unless someone else knows better!”

    More or less. The northwest of the UK is rising, due to isostatic rebound after the last ice age. and the south west is sinking due to to foreland basin formation caused by the continuing Alpine orogeny…

  85. @ Onion.

    Try them with the “wind is coming from the north-east”.

    They might understand that.

    UL :-)

  86. JJohn F. Hultquist says:
    December 24, 2010 at 11:26 am

    There are local winds and pressure systems that seem to form in this manner, for example

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_breeze

    “Lack of ice on the Barents and Kara seas might play a role in location – not the cause of – this High Pressure.”

    I’m not sure why that would be the case as the ice in both seas is not much different to previous years. According to Cryosphere today the Barents sea is just about on the average. The Kara sea can’t get any more ice in as it’s completely covered. In any case a large part of the Barents sea is ice free all year round. So why would this year be any different? In addition the Barents and Kara sea haven’t been showing up as ‘hot’ on COAPS unless I missed it.
    If this was how things worked then I would expect a high to sit over eastern Hudson Bay and western Newfoundland Bay as they are both well below average.
    High pressure systems nearer the equator tend to be associated with hot weather, sometimes extremely hot, and high pressures higher up tend to be associated with cold weather, such as the Siberian high. This would imply that high pressures lower down are hotter because the stable slow outward moving air can’t get rid of the incoming solar radiation fast enough, and the higher latitude high pressures are cold because the slow outward moving air doesn’t bring any warmth in and there isn’t almost any from the sun.

  87. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Give it up onion, you want to make me cry with you grasping at straws. People in the UK are more likely to side with us than you. They are struggling with cold and snow and not with milder winters. Give it a break and admit AGW GOT IT WRONG.

    By the way are you related to THE Charles Onians? He said:
    “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

  88. Face it, we in SWFL have decided to keep all the Gulf Stream heat for ourselves. Our poor fish and crops need all the heat they can get. And then what will we do when they freeze over. Global Warming, just another bad joke in the rear view.

    Merry Christmas, too bad about the cold … Ho Ho Ho.

  89. ScientistForTruth says:
    December 24, 2010 at 10:53 am
    “So models indicate that due to anthropogenic CO2, winters will be warmer and snow a rare event. Models also show that due to anthropogenic CO2, winters will be colder and snow more profuse.”

    “There is no question about it – if we hadn’t had three cold winters there certainly wouldn’t be any models showing colder and snowier winters – that would have been suppressed at peer review as ‘wrong’, and would not have seen the light of day in the press as it would not have chimed in with the propaganda and the groupthink.”

    Wonderful summary argument on the methodology. Everyone should read the entire post twice, at least.

    As for the AGW folk who are putting out this tripe that ScientistForTruth criticizes, I wonder if one or more of them would like to give us the genealogy of this “new theory” that the extent of arctic ice melt explains the present cold in Britain. Why have we not heard of it before now? Of course, there are other problems, such as the fact that arctic ice extent has been this low for a decade or so and that raises the question of why this effect kicked in for just the last two or three years. As for this “new theory’s” companion, the “old theory” that arctic ice melt causes milder British winters, what is its status at this time? Is it falsified? Are the two theories sort of a tag team, as in American wrestling, where each substitutes for the other as needed? Are they similar to the two conscious minds that inhabited the body of Dr. Jekyll? What does it take to embarrass the British media?

  90. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 12:46 pm
    ………..
    That’s not the case. Logically the theory that human activity is warming the earth can be robust even as the theory of what that means for UK winters is not.

    Don’t pull a fast one sunshine (as they say in the UK). You foreget Scandinavia, Germany, Russia, northern USA etc. A thousand eyes watch every word you say. Give it up, it looks silly now. If we are heading towards a mini ice age then imagine how foolish your comment will sound in 10 years time – just like “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” When you are in a hole – stop digging.

  91. Onions,
    Further to my last comment in which you tried, unsuccesfully to limit snow to the UK here is a visual for you.

  92. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    The idea is to leave nature alone. Artificially elevating CO2 levels to 390ppm and rising is not a wise move. It will have knock on effects and the higher it goes the more risk there is.

    The desire isn’t to control climate, we can’t, we don’t even understand it well enough. The plan is to not interfere with it (especially given that we don’t understand it well enough!)
    =========================================================
    onion, do you know you’re talking in circles?

    The whole premise/guess/theory says that elevated CO2 will cause global warming. If we lower CO2, it will not cause global warming.
    That is controlling the climate.

    You just said so yourself.
    “”Artificially elevating CO2 levels – will have knock on effects and the higher it goes the more risk there is.””

    Controlling the climate is exactly what this whole thing is about.

    and by your own admission, if we don’t understand the climate enough to control it, we don’t know enough to know if we are interfering with it either………….

  93. onion says: Re jorgekafkazar: “That’s the opposite of my point. My point is that man-made global warming is not dependent on what UK winters do.”

    So if we have three more UK winters like the last three, you’ll still say it doesn’t indicate any problems with GCM’s? Sorry, onion, but have you looked at the Northern Hemisphere today? There’s a lot more record cold weather happening besides that in the UK. Your logic is faulty when it’s not just plain irrelevant. Warm-causes-cold is blatant tripe and neither your hand-waving nor a dozen random results from a hundred climate models will turn it into Lobster Newburg.

  94. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    Re Latitude:

    “The idea is to leave nature alone. Artificially elevating CO2 levels to 390ppm and rising is not a wise move. It will have knock on effects and the higher it goes the more risk there is.”

    “The desire isn’t to control climate, we can’t, we don’t even understand it well enough. The plan is to not interfere with it (especially given that we don’t understand it well enough!)”

    Sir, your statements above clearly reveal that your topic is religion and not science. And that is a good thing for you because your other statements on this forum clearly reveal that your thought is entirely unencumbered by an understanding of scientific method. Scientits cannot juggle mutually contradictory hypotheses and choose one or the other to fit the moment. And no appeal to higher level theory can save these hypotheses from contradiction. If there is a higher level theory that incorporates both hypotheses then it must explain why and how they are not really mutually contradictory. Since neither you nor anyone else has offered such an explanation, even though you and others are desperately struggling to preserve both hypotheses, scientists can only conclude that your higher level theory is a dream and not a fact.

  95. Mike says:
    December 24, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    And your point is?

    He was indicating that it would cause chaos because of its rarity; not because the lunatics in government have swallowed the AGW conjecture whole and failed to invest resources in anything related to weather at the cold end of the spectrum, including a failure to invest in reliable, cheap energy production.

  96. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    “The idea is to leave nature alone. Artificially elevating CO2 levels to 390ppm and rising is not a wise move. It will have knock on effects and the higher it goes the more risk there is.”

    You first.

  97. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 1:03 pm
    Re jorgekafkazar:

    That’s the opposite of my point. My point is that man-made global warming is not dependent on what UK winters do. What we have here is one theory and two hypotheses:

    Theory: Man-made global warming

    Hypothesis #1: Global warming will result in warmer UK winters
    Hypothesis #2: Global warming will result in colder UK winters

    If UK winters warm then hypothesis #2 is falsified. If UK winters cool then hypothesis #1 is falsified. So something does get falsified, but not the theory. The theory is not dependent on either hypothesis. It would be illogical to claim the theory is falsified because one of those hypotheses have been falsified.

    Additionally of course neither of those hypotheses have yet been falsified.

    ———————

    So please tell me, how can the Theory be falsified? As specifically as possible, please, e.g. “the average global temperature will have to hold stable or decline for a period of ten years while the concentration of CO2 continues to rise.”

    I ask because there has been NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING since 1998 while the concentration of CO2 has continued to rise.

    KD

  98. Re Latitude:

    “Since we now know that CO2 causes it to get colder too, how much is too much, how much is too little. How in this world are we going to jiggle it so the temperature stays exactly on that thin little “normal” line?”

    The idea is to leave nature alone. Artificially elevating CO2 levels to 390ppm and rising is not a wise move. It will have knock on effects and the higher it goes the more risk there is.

    The desire isn’t to control climate, we can’t, we don’t even understand it well enough. The plan is to not interfere with it (especially given that we don’t understand it well enough!)

    —————-

    So we know the climate well enough to know that we shouldn’t increase CO2, but not well enough to control it. But if we know that, decreasing CO2 will cool the climate, doesn’t that mean we know enough to know how to control the climate?

    Can you not see the circular logic you are applying? Or are you just regurgitating the talking points?

  99. Dizzy Ringo says: “distant geography lessons of my youth
    at 2:04 pm

    My youthful lessons did not include tectonic plates. Continental drift was the idea then. Nevertheless, the UK is not near a plate boundary so I think we have to consider isostatic rebound (glacier related). But I’d still like to know how/why Tobermory seems to stay where it is. Is it rising at just the same amount as sea level? That would be a lucky circumstance. Not having to replace docks and the like.
    ———————————————————

    Urban Leprechaun says:
    December 24, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    The energy has to go somewhere. And it’s gone to Greenland.

    Note that it is temperature that is high over Greenland and adjacent areas. It took no heat from any place else to cause this elevation of temperature. The concept of an adiabatic process causing a temperature increase in descending air is useful in explaining these temperature anomalies.

    http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/adiabatic_processes.htm

  100. Scientists for Truth : I was so impressed with your comment above that I copied and pasted it with credits to you into comments at EUreferendum.com – it is brilliant piece of insightful writing – thank you for putting it so well!

  101. But snow falls are a rare phenomenon in most part of the world, even in the northern hemisphere in the parts where it only snows for no more ‘an 40 days per year, so essentially it’s more rare ‘an sun shine even . . . . well maybe not in the british isles where you have to compare to slow micro droplet rain (come to think of it it’s more like supped up fog and mist really, like droplets on pre-steroids.)

  102. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    “The idea is to leave nature alone. Artificially elevating CO2 levels to 390ppm and rising is not a wise move. It will have knock on effects and the higher it goes the more risk there is.”

    What risk? Colder winters in the northern hemisphere? Warmer winters in the northern hemisphere? Average winters in the northern hemisphere? Drowning atolls? Glaciers melting?……… CAUTION: on these and many other alarmist calls you will find plenty of evidence to the contrary which shows reality against fantasy. Here are just a few.

    http://www.scidev.net/en/news/river-sediment-may-counter-bangladesh-sea-level-rise.html

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627633.700-shapeshifting-islands-defy-sealevel-rise.html

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2010

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5734/600.abstract

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6835/abs/411287a0.html

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6838/abs/411675a0.html

    You are tying yourself in knots. Stop digging! Where is your evidence over the past 10 years of the higher risk? Be honest and give up the spin. It is totally unbecoming.

  103. Murray;
    The last part of the Potsdam study reads the best:

    “If you look ahead 40 or 50 years, these cold winters will be getting warmer because, even though you are getting an inflow of cold polar air, that air mass is getting warmer because of the greenhouse effect,”
    he said. “So it’s a transient phenomenon. In the long run, global warming wins out.”

  104. It didn’t “go” to Greenland, it was pushed there by a negative AO. This vortex is wider (and yes weaker) when negative, thus piling up warm water south of the wider Arctic Circle. This pile of warm water warms Greenland.

  105. Met office short term weather forcast,

    [video src="http://s446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/?action=view&current=Spike2.mp4" /]

  106. @Jimbo says: December 24, 2010 at 2:27 pm,

    No one predicted the warming would be uniform spatially or temporally. Cooling for a month or two over a small part of the global where you happen to live does not refute the general warming trend.

  107. “Artificially elevating CO2 levels to 390ppm and rising is not a wise move.”

    Why?

    If the Climate Disruptionists are right, then it could be the only thing preventing a new ice age. If they’re wrong, then it will mean faster plant growth with no negative consequences.

    What’s the problem?

  108. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 1:03 pm
    Re jorgekafkazar:

    That’s the opposite of my point. My point is that man-made global warming is not dependent on what UK winters do. What we have here is one theory and two hypotheses:

    Theory: Man-made global warming
    —————————————————————————————Onion. Since when was the notion that man has made ‘global warming’ established as a Theory?
    It is understood that co2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and man has contributed to the amount of co2 released into the atmosphere but this is a long way from a theory asserting that man has made global warming.

    Douglas

  109. Not being a scientist, but understanding enough to appreciate WUWT and disbelieve those cranks and con-men who tell me everything is settled I wonder whether any studies have been concluded showing whether the eruption of the volcano beneath Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull glacier is having any effect on the current weather.

  110. jorgekafkazar:
    “Sorry, onion, but have you looked at the Northern Hemisphere today? There’s a lot more record cold weather happening besides that in the UK.”

    Sure there’s also a lot of warm areas too. For the global picture I look at the overall trend. 2010 is of course looking to be a particularly warm year.

  111. KD says:

    “So please tell me, how can the Theory be falsified? As specifically as possible, please, e.g. “the average global temperature will have to hold stable or decline for a period of ten years while the concentration of CO2 continues to rise.””

    The theory is “man-made global warming”. It would be falsified if it could be proven that CO2 levels aren’t rising. That humans aren’t elevating CO2 levels (or any other greenhouse gases). Or that CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared (that it’s not a greenhouse gas). Any of those things would falsify it, but of course they are settled science now. That wasn’t always the case.

    Your suggestion wouldn’t falsify it of course, because temperature over ten years could be flat even as CO2 causes warming over a 100 year period.

    “I ask because there has been NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING since 1998 while the concentration of CO2 has continued to rise.”

    No statistically significant warming doesn’t necessarily mean no warming, it can mean the variation in the data is too large and the time period too short to be able to tell.

  112. Re MarkG:

    Onion: “Artificially elevating CO2 levels to 390ppm and rising is not a wise move.”

    Why?

    “If the Climate Disruptionists are right, then it could be the only thing preventing a new ice age. If they’re wrong, then it will mean faster plant growth with no negative consequences.”

    ———-

    You don’t know there will be no negative consequences. Unless you have a perfect climate model. That’s why.

  113. Re Jimbo:

    onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    “The idea is to leave nature alone. Artificially elevating CO2 levels to 390ppm and rising is not a wise move. It will have knock on effects and the higher it goes the more risk there is.”

    What risk? Colder winters in the northern hemisphere? Warmer winters in the northern hemisphere? Average winters in the northern hemisphere? Drowning atolls? Glaciers melting?……… CAUTION: on these and many other alarmist calls you will find plenty of evidence to the contrary which shows reality against fantasy. Here are just a few.

    ——————-

    Climate is a complex interconnected system. There are the things you mention above plus many many more. Thousands of properties, perhaps millions, and lots of links between them. Various weather systems, ocean currents, different habitat ranges. Changes to one can impact others in a cascade. CO2 is a property of the climate with a couple links to other properties (temperature, ocean pH) and in turn those have links to other properties. It’s not a wise move to whack CO2 up because we don’t know for sure how the whole system will cascade in response. There are so many properties out there that the risk is that a large shift will cause a fair few of them to go bad.

    When was the last time CO2 rose from 280ppm to 390ppm in the space of 200 years? Probably never. These are untested changes we are making, we can’t point to the past and say “yep it’s happened before” because we don’t know when that has happened. The risk is in this kind of uncertainty.

  114. Re KD:

    “So we know the climate well enough to know that we shouldn’t increase CO2, but not well enough to control it.”

    We need far less knowledge to know we shouldn’t increase CO2 than the knowledge we’d need to control climate. We have the former but not the latter.

  115. onion says: variously/oft multi-consecutively

    Chill, onion, man. This is the Xmas stuff: ‘Green Onions’ by Booker T and the MG’s:

    Hope this gets your bag….

  116. “onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 5:58 pm


    You don’t know there will be no negative consequences. Unless you have a perfect climate model. That’s why. ”

    Actually, we have tons of literature on injecting CO2 into an atmosphere. Even at levels as high as 1000ppm. No warming, no deleterious effects to speak of – commerical greenhouse growers have been doing it for ages… There’s even some literature online…

  117. “You don’t know there will be no negative consequences. Unless you have a perfect climate model. That’s why.”

    If you knew anything about science and logic, you’d know that you can’t prove a negative.

    We certainly know that CO2 is beneficial to plant growth, and therefore we could potentially feed many millions more people by increasing CO2 levels. We also know that CO2 has been much higher in the past with no obviously bad consequences. We also know that there’s no solid evidence that CO2 levels have any significant harmful effects on anything. We also know that eliminating fossil fuel use would have absolutely enormous harmful effects which would dwarf any possible harmful impact of increasing CO2 levels.

    Humans did not get to be the most important creatures on the planet by being scared of small increases in trace gases. Why should we start now?

  118. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 6:12 pm
    When was the last time CO2 rose from 280ppm to 390ppm in the space of 200 years? Probably never. These are untested changes we are making, we can’t point to the past and say “yep it’s happened before” because we don’t know when that has happened. The risk is in this kind of uncertainty.
    =====================================================
    onion, do you really believe that those are big numbers?
    An increase of 100ppm?

    I’ve seem past recreations of CO2 levels that were around 3000ppm.
    And guess what?
    The planet crashed into another ice age…………..

    Don’t worry over how fast it has increased, the planet doesn’t care, and 200 years is plenty of time to see if it had any effect.
    It obviously didn’t………….

  119. onion says: December 24, 2010 at 6:16 pm
    “We need far less knowledge to know we shouldn’t increase CO2 than the knowledge we’d need to control climate. We have the former but not the latter.”

    I disagree with your “former” view. I do agree with your “latter” view, and then recommend you to LET IT BE.

  120. “The theory is “man-made global warming”. It would be falsified if it could be proven that CO2 levels aren’t rising. That humans aren’t elevating CO2 levels (or any other greenhouse gases). Or that CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared (that it’s not a greenhouse gas). Any of those things would falsify it, but of course they are settled science now. ”

    Actually, you’re out of date. The current term is “man-made climate disruption”, because the damn disrespectful planet has refused to warm for more than a decade.

    But at least you seem to accept that there’s no way for “man-made global warming” theory to be falsified because it makes no actual predictions that can be compared to the real world. You see, most people, when they hear “man-made global warming” would think, you know, that it required some actual proof that humans were actually, you know, warming the globe by harmful amounts.

    And, frankly, when I’m outside shoveling snow and the temperature is more than fifty degrees below zero, I would really welcome some of that “man-made global warming”.

  121. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Re jorgekafkazar:

    That’s the opposite of my point. My point is that man-made global warming is not dependent on what UK winters do. What we have here is one theory and two hypotheses:

    Theory: Man-made global warming

    Hypothesis #1: Global warming will result in warmer UK winters
    Hypothesis #2: Global warming will result in colder UK winters

    If UK winters warm then hypothesis #2 is falsified. If UK winters cool then hypothesis #1 is falsified. So something does get falsified, but not the theory.

    Wonderful reasoning! Indeed, magical! May I use it to expound my Anthropogenic Gods of Climate Theory?

    Theory: Anthropogenic Gods of Climate

    Hypothesis #1: Gods of Climate will cause warmer UK winters
    Hypothesis #2: Gods of Climate will cause colder UK winters

    Cold or warm, or hot or cool… My Gods of Climate theory will never be falsified.

  122. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    We need far less knowledge to know we shouldn’t increase CO2 than the knowledge we’d need to control climate. We have the former but not the latter.

    ===========================

    Huh?

    And at 150 ppm YOU would cease to grow. (You….meaning….an onion.)

    Plants cease photosynthesis….that is they shut down at 150 PPM of CO2.

    In the last glaciation, the Earth got down to 180 PPM, dangerously close.

    Your comments…and your arguments…are spurious.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  123. within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
    —————–
    Well considering that no one has seen snow in the UK for a while and that now we have had snow it’s seems we have proof that:
    A. Snow falls are rare.
    B. Everyone is excited by it,

    I say Viner’s prediction is spot on.

  124. AT LAST! – The BBC starts telling the truth about the weather.

    25 December 2010

    Winter weather: December “set to be coldest since 1890″

    December is on course to be the coldest since records began in 1890, the BBC weather centre has said.

    Christmas Day is likely to be extremely cold around the country, with overnight temperatures dropping to minus 17ºC at Worcester and minus 18ºC at Altnaharra in northern Scotland. A severe weather warning for western Scotland is in place due to ice, BBC forecaster Liam Dutton advised.

    Some of the coldest overnight temperatures included minus 17ºC in Pershore, Worcs, minus 15ºC in Castlederg, County Tyrone and minus 11ºC in Leeming, North Yorkshire. On Christmas Day, parts of Scotland and possibly north-east England were the only places likely to see snowfall, Liam Dutton added. With December likely to be the coldest for over a century, the rest of the country will be dry and bright with patchy freezing fog, he said.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12078425

  125. Merry Christmas to all,

    Up and down temperatures.

    I seem to remember watching a program about climate change a few years ago now, in which they stated that during the transition from warm periods to ice ages the global temperature would have some very nasty oscillations (a few decades of warm followed by a few decades of cold).

    I do start to wonder if we have confused AGW with the warm part of this cycle towards a new ice age!

    Thoughts anyone?

  126. It seems that there is a concerted effort in several countries (lead by the IPCC?) to try to convince the general public that the current cold winter is caused by global warming, sorry, climate disruption. The same theme in the UK, Germany and now in Belgium too by Peter Tom Jones (IPCC connected) and several others. Interesting to see that no direct comments are allowed on this theme in the different media, probably out of fear that there would be too many sarcastic reactions…
    See http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=GS7341PSQ (in Dutch). Title: It’s all the fault of climate change

  127. LazyTeenager says:
    December 24, 2010 at 11:52 pm
    within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
    —————–
    Well considering that no one has seen snow in the UK for a while and that now we have had snow it’s seems we have proof that:
    A. Snow falls are rare.
    B. Everyone is excited by it,

    I say Viner’s prediction is spot on.

    But 3 years in a row is not rare and I can’t see the travellers stuck in airports being too excited.

    And why if it is consistant with AGW was it not forecast by the senior AGW modelers in the MET but was by weather forecasters who do not follow AGW.

  128. Ferdinand Engelbeen:

    Actually call me a cynic but I have a different take, I think the media is trying to discredit climate change with these articles by by pushing a complex idea that they know readers won’t buy.

    Cold causes warm???! omg that’s nonsense!

    The articles all imply that scientists have changed their mind, there’s no mention that the sea ice loss -> colder winters is a hypothesis put forward by only a few scientists.

    Even though of course the cited mechanism is entirely reasonable. It’s not however

  129. Re Latitude
    December 24, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    “onion, do you really believe that those are big numbers? An increase of 100ppm?”

    Yes! But not because 100 is a big number but because 280ppm to 390ppm is a 40% increase and that’s happened so fast! While CO2 has increased by 40% throughout history it isn’t known to have done so in just a few centuries. There really is no good comparison with the past to ensure these changes are safe.

    “I’ve seem past recreations of CO2 levels that were around 3000ppm.”

    Sure, but as per above it’s the change that matters, including the rate. A corresponding situation would be CO2 levels increasing from 2100ppm to 3000ppm within a few centuries. Even then it’s important for the purpose f comparison that the 2100ppm world is similar to the modern one.

    Sadly this isn’t the case. When CO2 was 2100ppm this was long ago before our species even existed, even before chimpanzees and apes existed, before grass existed. Long long ago. Comparison with the modern day changes are stretched to breaking point even overlooking the rate.

    “And guess what?
    The planet crashed into another ice age…………..”

    I thought most of the periods of glaciation are associated with low CO2 levels. Remember also that in the past the Sun was fainter according to the standard solar model, so everything else being equal the Sun should have been cooler, which allows for CO2 to be much higher than present without temperature being particularly higher.

    “Don’t worry over how fast it has increased, the planet doesn’t care, and 200 years is plenty of time to see if it had any effect.
    It obviously didn’t………….”

    It’s very important how fast it has increased, in fact a 40% increase over a million years would be irrelevant. Plenty of time for various sytems to adapt – like species and ocean chemistry. But cram that 40% increase into just 200 years and well…this is the untested experiment we are running.

  130. Re sHx
    December 24, 2010 at 7:40 pm:

    The theory can be falsified, just not by falsifying either of those two hypotheses.

  131. Re Paul Coppin:

    “Actually, we have tons of literature on injecting CO2 into an atmosphere. Even at levels as high as 1000ppm. No warming, no deleterious effects to speak of – commerical greenhouse growers have been doing it for ages… There’s even some literature online…”

    Not into *the* atmosphere though. A commercial greenhouse doesn’t contain oceans and millions of species or 6 billion humans.

  132. Onion says:
    December 25, 2010 at 2:42 am
    Ferdinand Engelbeen:

    The articles all imply that scientists have changed their mind, there’s no mention that the sea ice loss -> colder winters is a hypothesis put forward by only a few scientists.

    Even though of course the cited mechanism is entirely reasonable. It’s not however

    Knowing the attitude of the media (near all pro-AGW), I suppose that the article was meant to be serious. But I don’t think that the general public will buy it.

    While the mechanism of more snow from open waters is reasonable, the bitter cold isn’t. Early winters in this century were cool and wet, mostly with prevailing SW winds (with positive NAO), last winters were cold and snowy with more winds from N and NE (negative NAO).
    The current solar minimum may be involved, as at solar minimum the jet stream positions are more equatorward, which makes that the polar highs have more room to reach the mid-latitudes. At the same time, rain patterns increase precipitation in the Mediterranean area and other more southern latitudes.

  133. Realclimate

    Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?

    Alec Rawls says:
    10 August 2005 at 2:04 AM

    Nice post, but the conclusion: “… solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming,” would seem to be a non-sequitur.

    What matters is not the trend in solar activity but the LEVEL. It does not have to KEEP going up to be a possible cause of warming. It just has to be high, and it has been since the forties.

    Presumably you are looking at the modest drop in temperature in the fifties and sixties as inconsistent with a simple solar warming explanation, but it doesn’t have to be simple. Earth has heat sinks that could lead to measured effects being delayed, and other forcings may also be involved. The best evidence for causality would seem to be the long term correlations between solar activity and temperature change. Despite the differences between the different proxies for solar activity, isn’t the overall picture one of long term correlation to temperature?

    [Response: You are correct in that you would expect a lag, however, the response to an increase to a steady level of forcing is a lagged increase in temperature and then a asymptotic relaxation to the eventual equilibirum. This is not what is seen. In fact, the rate of temperature increase is rising, and that is only compatible with a continuing increase in the forcing, i.e. from greenhouse gases. - gavin]

    ===========================================================

    For me, the evidence above is clear, a ramp up of TSI from around 1900 and then a steady high from 1940 to 2000 leading to the slightly higher temperatures we see today, no room for CO2. Now the sun is quite and it`s cold, while CO2 still increases.

    Gavins response is utter rubbish if the two graphs above are correct.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/

  134. @Kate

    The BBC appear to have edited that article – they are now saying ‘coldest since 1910‘ – interesting because other UK news providers (such as Sky) appear to have stuck with 1850.

  135. Let us assume that the AGW proponents are right. Warmer northpole gives colder winters in Europe and Amerika. That means that warmer north pole will result in a far higher albedo in areas that actually are on lower latitude, which refects far more sunlight then areas on higher latitude. Also, snow cools the atmosphere drmatically, as anyone can notice once you have a clear frost night over fresh fallen snow. That means that snowy winters will function as a very strong negative feedback.

    Now it seems to me you AGW proponents have managed themselves in an odd corner. Either they are spinning this winter, which means they practice politics rather then science, or they have just proven that the climate has a strong negative feedback, which would be a refute of doom predictions.

  136. Keeling cherry picked this 280 ppm figure for CO2, he was against coal in the fledgling environmentalist movement. He then put his measuring stick on top of the worlds most active volcano surrounded by active volcanoes, pumping out CO2 with great abandon. He then claimed that from that massive production of CO2 he could accurately and to fine degree extract ‘background’ CO2 wafting over this hotbed of CO2 production from ‘pristine air’ travelling to Hawaii across the Pacific, mixed up though it is with all the weather system of Hawaii.

    How good’s your BS metre? I don’t think it needs to be fine tuned at all to pick out the absurdity of such a claim. His steady rise of ‘global CO2′ continued inexorably through all the highs and lows of the following decades of temperature changes. ‘Nough said.

    Oh, bit more. The levels the Keeling Curve are now reaching are about ‘average’ in all the studies in the centuries done to the date of his cherry picking, and current studies are no different. Cherry picking the hall mark of bad science, AGWScience has become expert in this. His son has control of these data, from Mauna Loa and from the other sites used to continue faking to Keeling’s agenda.

    So no need to worry about such a steep percentage rise, so quickly, it isn’t there. The more that’s produced the more it comes down to earth where plants eat it.

  137. Anthony I hope you are enjoying your break.

    To be picky it’s the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (plus Ireland, an independent country, of course) mostly covered by snow. Scotland and Wales are part of Great Britain geographically (and politically too for the last few hundred years). (Wales since 1282, Scotland since 1707 after that unfortunate business in Darien)

  138. Onion – some background on the Keeling cherry picking: http://newsbuster.org/node/12737

    ..the only anthropogenic global warming I see is in the rise of hot air from the exponential increase in AGWScience from cooking the books.

    A fraction of the CO2 production in the atmosphere above the Hawaiian islands, nice pics: http://www.travellady.com/Articles/article-volcano.html

    Mauna Loa, the largest active volcano in the world: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/maunaloa.html

    Thousands of earthquakes a year Hawaiian islands: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/earthquakes/ and http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitorying/anss/regions/hi/

  139. Onions says:
    While CO2 has increased by 40% throughout history it isn’t known to have done so in just a few centuries. There really is no good comparison with the past to ensure these changes are safe.
    This is the classic, childish “better-safe-than-sorry” CAGW stance. Spending trillions on a fear that “something” might happen is idiotic. The antidote to fear is knowledge, but obviously, True Believers like Onions aren’t interested, preferring to wallow in what is little more than a superstition.

  140. The “Independent” rebuttal is hilarious! It’s falling apart and they are starting to
    dance like cats on hot bricks.

    This summer on the sea ice threads I pointed out once or twice that a larger area of open sea in the Arctic – combined with well below average summer Arctic air temperatures – results in a big increase in heat loss from Arctic ocean to air / space. I used the analogy of a dog hanging its tongue out and panting to lose excess heat. In this way excess ocean heat from el Nino events ends up in the Arctic and is lost over the open Arctic seas.

    However the warmists argued againt this – that instead open water had a darker colour and thus absorbed more solar photon energy. Combined with reduced albedo from decreased ice cover, low ice extent was argued to add heat to the oceans.

    Now someone is doing a 180 turn and accepting that low ice extent combined with low air temperature causes ocean heat loss – just to provide a narrative to “explain” the
    freezing NH winters while preserving AGW.

    Increaingly the public will recognise this for what it is – as Scientist for Truth eloquently put it – the religion of charlatans.

  141. peeke says on December 25, 2010 at 5:40 am

    Let us assume that the AGW proponents are right. Warmer northpole gives colder winters in Europe and Amerika. That means that warmer north pole will result in a far higher albedo in areas that actually are on lower latitude, which refects far more sunlight then areas on higher latitude. Also, snow cools the atmosphere drmatically, as anyone can notice once you have a clear frost night over fresh fallen snow. That means that snowy winters will function as a very strong negative feedback.

    You are correct …

    I can see the next set of statements that will be issued:

    The latest fine tuning to our models proves that human activity (the rampant increase in CO2 from 280ppm to 380ppm) produces global cooling.

    Previously our models were not accurate but now they are fully accurate.

  142. Mike says:
    December 24, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    @Jimbo says: December 24, 2010 at 2:27 pm,

    No one predicted the warming would be uniform spatially or temporally. Cooling for a month or two over a small part of the global where you happen to live does not refute the general warming trend.

    No trend visible over the past decade. Just aks Dr. Jones.

  143. onion says:
    December 24, 2010 at 6:12 pm
    ……………..
    When was the last time CO2 rose from 280ppm to 390ppm in the space of 200 years? Probably never. These are untested changes we are making, we can’t point to the past and say “yep it’s happened before” because we don’t know when that has happened. The risk is in this kind of uncertainty.

    Yet ppm of over 4,000 did not lead to runaway. I’m prepared to stare at the headlights and not run. Are you? ;>)

  144. The caption from the Independent article reads as follows:

    “Some experts believe the Arctic ice cap will disappear completely in summer months within 20 to 30 years”

    In an effort to be “fair & balanced” maybe it should read:

    Some experts believe the Arctic ice cap will disappear completely in summer months within 20 to 30 years. Other experts believe that’s hogwash!

  145. During the last colder winter period for CENTRAL ENGLAND , UK ,namely 1962-1987 , 13 of the 26 years had average winter temperature of 4C or less. The past warm winter period of 1988-2008 had only 2 such winters , 1991 and 1996. So over the next 20-30 years snow like Uk just had the last 2 years could become a more common event . Possibly at least 50 % of the time?.

  146. LazyTeenager says:
    December 24, 2010 at 11:52 pm
    within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
    —————–
    Well considering that no one has seen snow in the UK for a while and that now we have had snow it’s seems we have proof that:
    A. Snow falls are rare.
    B. Everyone is excited by it,

    I say Viner’s prediction is spot on.
    ==================

    Lazy, you’ve departed from the stock answer of “you just wait and see” and now you’re saying Viner’s prediction has already been borne out.
    Noting that he said “very rare” and you settled for merely “rare”, I’m left wondering what it would take for you to disavow Viner’s putative prescience.
    The great strength of CAGW as a manipulative social tool is its spectre of IMPENDING doom. Like a soufflé chef on crack so many of the faithful find themselves unable to resist yanking open the oven door to flaunt their creation.
    All you can show us is some half-baked batter.

  147. Jimbo says:

    “Yet ppm of over 4,000 did not lead to runaway.”

    It doesn’t have to be runaway to be a problem.

  148. Re Bruce Cobb says:
    December 25, 2010 at 7:20 am:

    Onions says:
    While CO2 has increased by 40% throughout history it isn’t known to have done so in just a few centuries. There really is no good comparison with the past to ensure these changes are safe.
    ——-

    This is the classic, childish “better-safe-than-sorry” CAGW stance. Spending trillions on a fear that “something” might happen is idiotic. The antidote to fear is knowledge, but obviously, True Believers like Onions aren’t interested, preferring to wallow in what is little more than a superstition.
    ————–

    That’s a fair argument. I am not saying that reducing CO2 emissions is safe. I am saying that increasing CO2 emissions at the rate we are is dangerous (both can be dangerous, they are not mutually exclusive). There are no reassurances from the past that what we are doing is safe. Maybe we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

  149. Claude Harvey says:
    December 24, 2010 at 9:42 am
    Being wrong about most everything carries no penalty in a world where mainstream media assists in reinventing reality. In a world where folks will substitute a media account for what they can see outside their own windows, “truth-telling” is a lonely and impoverished profession.”

    Wow, isn’t that the truth! People believe global warming because publicly funded “scientists” tell them a chunk of ice thousands of miles away is melting, in spite of the fact that they feel the cold right outside their own doorsteps.

  150. Onion,

    The planet is not showing increasing CO2 levels are dangerous and ocean cycles dominate natural climate. You can’t keep saying this nonsense when there is no scientific evidence. Just saying x ppm of CO2 increase is not evidence it is actually having significant influence on climate. The rate of warming is no different recently to what has been measured in the instrumental record in the past. Most the the warming has been in short bursts with very little underlying trend. Despite this lack of significant warming with an increase of 4o percent in CO2. Hence, the 40 percent increase in CO2 has added nothing extra that can be determined different from any other natural climate change.

  151. R. de Haan says:
    December 24, 2010 at 10:46 am
    Potsdam Climate Institute now says to expect warmer colder winters
    http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/23/potsdam-climate-instutute-now-says-to-expect-warmer-colder-winters/

    Where therefor a comment by:

    ‘DirkH
    23. Dezember 2010 at 12:58 | Permalink | Reply
    “Es bleiben im Raum: Keitel, Jodl, Krebs und Burgdorf.”’

    Oh could someone please make an AGW spoof of that famous scene in “Downfall”‘ that has been spoofed so many times already!!!!!!

  152. Myrrh says:
    December 25, 2010 at 5:40 am

    Keeling cherry picked this 280 ppm figure for CO2, he was against coal in the fledgling environmentalist movement. He then put his measuring stick on top of the worlds most active volcano surrounded by active volcanoes, pumping out CO2 with great abandon.

    Myrrh, while Mauna Loa is at the flanks of an active volcano, the CO2 measurements that are influenced by the outgassing (+4 ppmv) are not used to calculate the averages. In fact these are used to calculate the amount of degassing of the volcano. Neither are the CO2 levels with upwind conditions (-4 ppmv) used, because these are somewhat depleted by the vegetation at the valleys. But even including or excluding these outliers, that doesn’t change the average or trend with more than 0.1 ppmv over a year. The measurements are rigorously controlled by different persons, different organisations and different labs with different methods. See:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

    Further, as Onion already said, there are lots of places (some 70) nowadays which monitor CO2 from near the North Pole (Alert, NWT, Canada) to the South Pole, all as far as possible away from local sources/sinks. See the carbon tracker at:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/

    The measurements at the South Pole even started before these of Mauna Loa. Yearly averages of all stations are within 2 ppmv within each hemisphere and within 5 ppmv between the hemispheres (due to a NH-SH lag, as most of the emissions are in the NH). For an in-depth study, see my web page at:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html

    Thus whatever the personal opinion of C.D. Keeling (I have no knowledge that he was involved in some anti-coal movement), the CO2 measurements since 1958 were and are reliable.

    The pre-industrial 280 ppmv was based on a selection of older measurements, based on a-priory selection criteria, over which one can have a firm discussion. First by Calendar, later by Keeling. But even if the criteria may be discutable, their selection was confirmed 40 years later by Antactic ice cores…

  153. Onion says:
    December 25, 2010 at 11:38 am

    That’s a fair argument. I am not saying that reducing CO2 emissions is safe. I am saying that increasing CO2 emissions at the rate we are is dangerous (both can be dangerous, they are not mutually exclusive). There are no reassurances from the past that what we are doing is safe. Maybe we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    I don’t think that it will make any difference for climate if the atmosphere increases 100 ppmv at once or 100 ppmv over 5,000 years (as happened in the glacial-interglacial transition). The net effect on the energy balance is the same and follows the CO2 levels immediately, and the response of the oceans needs about 30 years, which is quite rapid too. Most climate models use the sudden increase method to calculate what happens with increased CO2.

    The main point if there will be problematic events is what the real impact of CO2 is on temperature. Most models assume some 3°C increase for 2xCO2. That is not based in CO2 alone: a doubling of CO2 gives not more than 0.9°C increase, based on its absorption bands. Including (already contestable) water vapor feedback that might increase to 1.3°C. All the rest of the feedbacks is very questionable, including clouds (positive in models, negative in reality). And some other forcings like aerosols probably are overestimated (even the sign may be wrong) and solar changes underestimated.

    There are few periods where we may know the effect of changes in CO2. During the ice ages, there is often a huge overlap between temperature and CO2 changes (but CO2 was lagging temperature), thus the models may include a huge feedback for CO2. But there is an interesting period at the end of the previous interglacial (the Eemian): temperature (and CH4 levels) were already at a minimum before CO2 levels started to drop. The subsequent drop of 40 ppmv CO2 had no discernable influence on temperature:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html

    That means that the influence of CO2 on temperature/climate is quite low.

    The faint sun paradox has many other explanations than CO2 only: less clouds more open oceans, other constituents of the atmosphere, less GCR’s,… See:

    http://news.discovery.com/earth/early-earth-sun-liquid-oceans.html

    http://www.bioinf.uni-leipzig.de/~ilozada/SOMA_astrobiology/taller_astrobiologia/material_cds/pdfs_bibliografia/Sun_Paradox_Science_1997.pdf

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0306/0306477v2.pdf

  154. Re Matt G says
    December 25, 2010 at 12:51 pm:
    “The planet is not showing increasing CO2 levels are dangerous”

    It’s not what’s happened so far that’s the issue, but what will unfold over the next century (and beyond)

  155. Re Ferdinand Engelbeen
    December 25, 2010 at 1:44 pm:

    I was more thinking about the implications of effects happening in just 200 years than over 5000.

    “The main point if there will be problematic events is what the real impact of CO2 is on temperature.”

    Im not so sure. if climate sensitivity is low because clouds increase, what impact will increased clouds have on climate? Low climate sensitivity is really just shifting some of the response from temperature to something else. Ultimately something is going to change quite abit. Changes in cloud cover might not impact sea level but they could modify weather patterns just as changes in temperature could. Maybe the change in humidity will be enough to impact things. It’s a bit like a how a world with both a CO2 forcing of 4wm-2 and an aerosol forcing of -4wm-2 wouldn’t equal a world where both were roughly zero.

    “. But there is an interesting period at the end of the previous interglacial (the Eemian): temperature (and CH4 levels) were already at a minimum before CO2 levels started to drop. The subsequent drop of 40 ppmv CO2 had no discernable influence on temperature:”

    I guess the problem is knowing where temperature would be if the CO2 hadn’t dropped in order to tell there is no discernible difference. Perhaps without the CO2 drop that section would have ended up higher.

    “The faint sun paradox has many other explanations than CO2 only: less clouds more open oceans, other constituents of the atmosphere, less GCR’s,… See:”

    Yes I was only pointing out CO2 being 3000ppm long ago doesn’t necessarily mean temperature should have been way higher than today. The faint sun paradox could indeed be due to less clouds, that seems to make sense.

  156. “I wonder how the Russian convoys of WWII got on with all the sea ice in the Barents sea? If we have lost the ice now then I would expect there to have been at least some ice back in the 1940s. A bit odd then that convoys ran from June 1941 to May 1944 in almost every month.”

    Not odd at all. The Barents Sea never freezes completely, due to the influence of the Gulf Stream. Murmansk was built exactly because this is the only part of the north coast of Russia that is always ice-free. During the very coldest years of the 1860’s and 1870’s the ice nearly reached Murmansk a few times, but never since.
    On the other hand the Kara Sea always freezes over in winter.
    So to say that the Kara Sea and Barents Sea were frozen in the past and ice-free now is quite wrong. At the most one can claim that the Kara Sea freezes slightly later in the season now and that there is a bit more open water in the Barents Sea in winter, particularly in the area west of northern Novaya Zemlya.

  157. I’d like an AGWer, even a witless one like Onion, to have a go at finding Warm Eras in the past that have harmed either life in general or human society and civilization in particular. There are a trunkload of examples of cooling catastrophes, but I can’t find any “excess warming” instances. In fact, Warm Eras appear to be boom times for all.

    Bring on the heat!

  158. Snow…

    “…a very rare and exciting event”

    Yeah so rare we have had it fall in the hills in Australia, during summer. WHat’s the betting we’ll get an early start to the skii season, maybe 4-6 weeks.

  159. Onion says:
    December 25, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Changes in cloud cover might not impact sea level but they could modify weather patterns just as changes in temperature could. Maybe the change in humidity will be enough to impact things. It’s a bit like a how a world with both a CO2 forcing of 4wm-2 and an aerosol forcing of -4wm-2 wouldn’t equal a world where both were roughly zero.

    There is an about 6% increase in inflow from the Siberian rivers into the Arctic Ocean over the past 60 years, due to some warming of the oceans. Not really problematic, and difficult to attribute to CO2 or natural causes (PDO, NAO) or both. Compared to earlier warm periods (the Holocene Optimum) not even enough to get the tree line back to the same latitudes.

    And the balance of cooling aerosols and the impact of GHGs is an interesting one: if the influence of aerosols is (probably) overblown, the impact of GHGs is overblown too, which is more and more visible in the deviation of the temperature forecast (sorry, “projection”) from reality. This was discussed at RC some years ago:

    http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=245

    with my comment at #6
    And here a comparison for different estimates of the aerosol impact:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/oxford.html

    One can halve the impact of GHGs, with a similar retrofit of temperature simply by estimating a lower impact of aerosols. Thus halving the effect of 2xCO2 in the future…

  160. Re Matt G says
    December 25, 2010 at 12:51 pm:
    “The planet is not showing increasing CO2 levels are dangerous”

    It’s not what’s happened so far that’s the issue, but what will unfold over the next century (and beyond)

    Onion,

    The planet is also not showing dangerous climate change when taking into account what should unfold later and beyond. Every conjecture claimed to support this problem has been falsified not long after. The planet is showing that natural changes are much bigger then any underlying CO2 effect. The rate is much less then the 0.2c per decade when natural changes are taken into account. This has consequences further down the line indicating a worrying rise in global temperatures is just not happening. The planet does not show a temperature rise in 100 years time more than 1c and that is not a issue to unfold to worry about. This can only be maintained by the rate of CO2 continuing to increase with it being non-linear. Current scientific knowledge suggests that there will not be enough fossil fuels to burn to even achieve this rise. The sensitivty of CO2 on climate is now shown to be low.

  161. To get more extreme weather in terms of hot, dry and more severe storms (especially convective or tropical) then more zonal/poleward jets is fine. That could hold true and that is just what was suggested.

    AGW claimed that human induced warming was making the jets more zonal.

    The trouble is that the jets have now gone more equatorward/meridional despite CO2 still increasing.

    With more meridional jets one can include more cold episodes too but you cannot do so for more zonal jets.

    So what we have here is a complete volte face.

    30 years of telling us we would have more zonal jets with more heat drought and more convective storms then just as the CO2 link with jet positioning collapses they start telling us to expect more meridional jets with cold extremes in the mix.

    We have a choice of two possible scenarios:

    i) AGW theorists have now got it right despite the obvious fact that jetstream behaviour is unaffected by CO2 quantities and despite reversing their previous position.

    ii) The world is doing its own thing and is in the process of changing to a cooling trend.

    I know which I think is more than 95% likely to be correct.

  162. Spinning onions are a rare and exciting event. Sorta like my green tomatoes last summer that never turned even a hint of red in color. Maybe this year my tomatoes will do better depending on the spin of the onion.

  163. Spinning onions are a rare and exciting event only if you’re impressed with PITAs. Do you enjoy the PITA-patter of overblown tweets?

  164. On the Vikings-in-Scotland meme popping up in this thread, I’ve always wondered about my own ancestry given that my family harkens from the Northern Coast. As to the relative merits of moving in versus dragging the fierce but beautiful scot maidens to the longboat, I expect there were some unfortunate moments for the lovelorn viking youths full of passion and hormones. For aside from facial hair it might not have been easy to discern the gender of young scots in the heat of a raid, especially at night, given that the men wore skirts (of a sort). What was it the Germans called the scots and their blood-curdling pipers coming across the battlefield in WWII — “the Ladies from Hell”?

    Given the cold trend in UK winters, I wonder if some bright person is marketing a line of men’s thermal pantyhose designed to be worn under a kilt? :-)

    A bit OT but it reminds me of a favourite highland yarn:

    Jock was in love with Mary and wanted badly to impress her. So one day he took her out for a stroll in the Highlands wearing his finest kilt, which he had made himself.

    “Ooh, Jock”, says Mary, “I’ve always wanted to know what it is that a Scotsman wears under his kilt!”

    Well, Jock was mortified. Truth was, he didn’t know what was generally worn, but as for himself, he wore NOTHING under his kilt.

    Embarrassed, he said, “Mary, it’s not something a proper scotsman should discuss with a young lassie on their first stroll. It is a very serious matter of pride. But if you will agree to accompany me in the hills again next Saturday then I promise you won’t be disappointed.”

    Mary agreed.

    That week, Jock went to the weavers and obtained four yards of the finest, soft, silk tartan material he could find and spend the next two days inventing a beautiful pair of (very modest) highland underwear for himself.

    He was so proud he could hardly sleep thinking of how Mary would be so impressed by his skill at sewing, his resourcefulness, and the beautiful silk tartan material he had obtained. He liked the underwear so much he was happy that he had enough left over to make himself three more pairs just like it.

    By the time Saturday came around Jock was so excited about the upcoming walk through the hills that he dressed in a daze — and forgot altogether about his newly made underwear. He put on his kilt as he had always done, with nothing underneath, and didn’t give it a thought.

    When Jock and Mary came to a nice resting place along their walk, Mary sat down and Jock said, “Mary, are you ready to learn what it is that a Scotsman wears under his kilt?”

    “Yes Jock, I’ve been waiting eagerly all week!”

    So Jock stands in front of her and raises his kilt for her to see.

    “Ooh, Jock!”, she says, her chest heaving with emotion. “It’s so lovely! It is more beautiful than I had even imagined!”

    Jock beamed with pride.

    “Well, Mary, I’m glad you like it. And you’ll be happy to learn that I have three more yards of it back in my house!”

  165. Onion
    Dec 25, 2010 at 11:41

    Mauna Loa is far from the only CO2 monitoring station in the world. …

    From what I have read, all stations are adjusted to fit Mauna Loa – The Poster Child Station for AGW – which is always presented as a “pristine” site for measuring “background CO2 levels”, with “pristine” defined as being without contamination from local sources. Quite regardless that it is situated below the summit of the worlds largest active volcano, surrounded by active volcanoes with all the associated volcanic activity, thousands of earthquakes every year, vents etc., above land and below in the sea, and, over one of the earth’s greatest hot spots creating volcanoes from the earth’s crust, and, in a warm sea which releases CO2 to the atmosphere which is aided and abetted by the strong wind systems in play around these volcanic mountains and islands. “Pristine” it certainly isn’t. It is utterly ludicrous to call it a “pristine site” for measuring, this so called, “background” CO2 levels.

    Your link gives a graph of CO2 levels over time, from 800,000 years ago. Again I’ll ask, if the levels of CO2 remained practically unchanged over that huge length of time and didn’t begin to rise until the Industrial Revolution, then CO2 played no part whatsoever in the great and dramatic changes every 100,000 years during this period; when temperatures began to rise quickly putting an end to the glacials and bringing in the hot interglacials, such as we are coming to an end of now, which melted the vast and deep ice in the northern hemisphere which caused the sea level to rise around 350 feet. For example, the North Sea did not exist until this happened in our present interglacial, we could have walked to France and Ireland from England. That’s Global Warming.

    Hippos used to live in the Thames estuary 100,000 years ago, the climate was like East Africa now. http://onlinegeography.wikispaces.com/Changes+in+the+amount+of+ice

    Joanne Nova has a page on the Vostok graph in greater detail chunks making it easier to see these changes: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/

    But, again, another weird graph from AGW, where’s the 800,000 year span exactly?

    There’s also another piece on a Nova page worth reading to help appreciate the reason for the paucity of actual information conveyed by AGW graphs, as the one you linked to which says nothing. Sometimes they’re fudged with so much detail that only with concentrated effort can one see that the information on the graphs does not match the spiel. There’s one showing a spaghetti of different colour lines from various surveys which are hard to distinguish between, and mixing up temperature using K and C on the same graph – but, with the famous tick at the end of ‘instrumental data’ prominent, the overall impression at quick glance is that temperatures have never been higher, even though that’s not actually what the graph is saying.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-9-the-heart-of-the-matter-and-the-coloring-in-trick/

    Jump to “The Theory of Man-Made Global Warming Failed an Empirical Test” for the problem AGW had because it had falsified its own claim, and its solution by use of colour to fudge the fact.

    If this was one example from one scientist in any genuine scientific endeavour, he would lose all credibility in the scientific community. This kind of sleight of hand is only used by con artists. AGW is rife with it.

    But here remember, that the AGW claim is that CO2 has only just begun to rise after hundreds of thousands of years of being practically flat. That this shows categorically therefore that levels of CO2 played no part in the great changes every 100,000 years in the dramatic rises and falls in temperature, going into interglacials and back to ice age conditions, it actually means that CO2 is irrelevant to global warming.

    Why then after 800,000 years of it being irrelevant should we care what’s it’s doing now?

    You might just as well be saying that it’s the rise of electric power and it’s increased usage which is causing global warming.

    This, I’m sorry to say, is at the level of superstition. So likewise the elite wielded authority over the populations in South America by claiming they kept the sun in the sky and rain in due season by ripping out hearts of sacrificial victims.. It works until the climate changes and they are shown to be incapable of controlling it, and so losing credibility the societies implode. Let’s not encourage this..

    .. forcibly decreasing CO2 emissions and the payment of green taxes in recompense for the elite’s dedication to saving us from ourselves will not make any difference.

    And also note the sleight of hand as presented in this “unprecedented rise in CO2″, it does not mean unprecedented rise in temperatures any further back than the LIA. A lot of effort went into brainwashing people to believe that the MWP and LIA didn’t exist which is actually a distraction from the fact that CO2 has been shown by observation to have been irrelevant in even greater changes from hot to cold.

    I’ll come back later today to reply to the other posts addressed to me.

  166. Onion, spin this.

    Its not just Britian thats having the cold snowy winter, it’s Canada, Germany, USA etc. etc.

  167. A warmer planet has always been better for humanity. Historically a colder planet has been catastrophic and brought nothing but misery for humanity. For the past 15 years science, politics and the MSM have been lamenting our good fortune of living in a warming period. Those pursuing the filthy lucre of CAGW and its weird science may get some nasty personal surprises.

    I suspect the good times are over and we are going to have to actually start using our intelligence to adapt to the coming cooling period. I never thought I would be witness to such an example of global delusion as CAGW, incredible.

  168. I wonder if part of this prediction that snow will be a rare event has to do with some AGWers thinking the AO would stay primarily positive (as it was this past decade). However, there appears to be a natural oscillation during winter months and we may very well have flipped to the negative phase. So much for the prediction of positive AO’s in our future due to global warming.

    Some background from NOAA:

    “The AO is a natural pattern of climate variability. It consists of opposing patterns of atmospheric pressure between the polar regions and middle latitudes. The positive phase of the AO exists when pressures are lower than normal over the Arctic, and higher than normal in middle latitude. In the negative phase, the opposite is true; pressures are higher than normal over the Arctic and lower than normal in middle latitudes. The negative and positive phases of the AO set up opposing temperature patterns. With the AO in its negative phase this season, the Arctic is warmer than average, while parts of the middle latitudes are colder than normal. The phase of the AO also affects patterns of precipitation, especially over Europe.”

    So in the negative phase the strength and height of the vortex pressure flip flops depending on latitude. In the negative phase the outermost latitude of the vortex is weak. This allows warmer Arctic waters to be sent to lower latitudes as it is currently doing out Fram Strait. It also allows for the much greater snow precipitation occurring in the Northeastern US and across Europe.

    http://jisao.washington.edu/ao/

  169. Yes, Pamela AGW theory proposed more poleward jets and a more positive AO. They thought that the positive AO of the late 20th century was a result of AGW. See here:

    http://www.agu.org/journ…/2007/2006JD008087.shtml

    “The IPCC models predict a strengthening and a poleward shift of the tropospheric zonal jets in response to global warming. The change in zonal jets is also accompanied by a strengthening and a poleward and upward shift of transient kinetic energy and momentum flux. Similar changes in circulation are simulated by a simple dry general circulation model (GCM) when the height of the tropopause is raised.”

    The exact opposite has now happened.

  170. Before the AO flipped to cold, many AGW web sites heralded the fact that while the AO had undergone normal fluctuations in the past, “since the 1970’s the AO has been primarily positive” as the author speaks of the growing heat around us. And several researchers proclaimed that models showed increased radiant heating due to increased greenhouse gases led to a positive AO/NAO:

    http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/jfyfe/PDF/FyfeBoerFlato1999a.pdf

    But this set of papers says that the negative phase of the AO will become more extreme due to global warming.

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/arctic-oscillation-ao

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/earthandsun/arctic_changes_prt.htm

    So, either we will continue to freeze because AGW has pushed the Arctic pressure system to the cool phase, meaning the Arctic itself will be warmer leaving us wet, colder and buried in snow, or AGW has pushed the Arctic pressure to stay in the warm phase for longer periods of time, leaving it colder but us toastier and dry.

  171. Thanks for those other links, Pamela. My link seems to be broken but I set out the most relevant bit.

    I first noticed the cessation of the poleward drift of the jets around 2000 but did not enter the debate until about 3 years ago when I pointed out that very fact to a barrage of disbelief.

    AGW theory having invested so much in the assertion that a warming world produced more zonal/poleward jets the reversal of trend has led to increasing panic and thrashing about in confusion as the reversal became more pronounced over the past ten years and especially since 2005.

    Then the extended very low solar minimum has ‘coincided’ with a very negative AO.

    We can also see from the records that the more positive era of AO was roughly in tune with the high solar cycles 21, 22 and 23 and that AO was generally more negative during slightly weaker cycle 20.

    The exceptions to the solar fit would be occasions when opposing oceanic cycles such as ENSO affected the width of the tropical air masses from below sometimes opposing and sometimes supplementing the top down solar influence.

    The jets just get bounced around between the polar and tropical air masses as the polar(solar) and oceanic influences interact.

    The trend in ocean heat content will be found to be closely linked to the degree of cloudiness and global albedo and they will be found to be dictated by the behaviour of the jets at any given time.

    Thus around 2003 the jets became sufficiently meridional for ocean heat content to begin to fall.

    I think we now have enough persuasive evidence to diagnose what has been going on and suitable investment should be directed to that area of research.

    Anyone who has been following my work over the last 3 years will know exactly which parameters need to be investigated most urgently.

    Needless to say AGW had nothing to do with those poleward shifts and had nothing significant to contribute to the present situation either.

    Similarly the evidence is becoming overwhelming that there is some sort of top down effect on the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere which appears to correspond to changes in the mix of wavelengths and particles as the level of solar activity varies.

    In a sense it is primarily a matter of internal system variability BUT such internal variability is provoked by small external changes. An internal amplifier no less.

    The amplification arises from albedo changes as the jets switch between polar/zonal and equatorward/meridional behaviour. The former produces significantly less global cloud cover than the latter as evidenced by the Earthshine project which reveals a change in trend for both albedo and cloudiness in the late 90s which is around the same time that the poleward shift of the jets went into reverse.

    I don’t think that this is good news for Svensmark either. On that basis the cosmic ray variations would just be a proxy for solar variability with no necessary climate effect although there may be some.

  172. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    Dec 25, 1:12pm

    while Mauna Loa is at the flanks of an active volcano, the CO2 measurements that are influenced by the outgassing (+4ppmv) are not used to calculate the averages. …

    While I don’t for one moment doubt that the measurements taken at these stations are done with integrity, I recall a piece on WUWT some time ago that discussed this when there was a computer malfunction of some kind on Mauna Loa, I have no reason to think that a) the initial premise is sound methodology and b) that the results from all stations are not as creatively adjusted later as has been shown time and again with AGW organised temperature data.

    A) begins with choice of site. “Pristine” as touted by AGWScience is described as being away from ‘local sources of production of CO2, as from industry’, to eliminate contamination of the data which is attempting to measure this so-call “background” CO2 level.

    How is Mauna Loa set among amid its massive CO2 producing surroundings, as I’ve described above in my last post to Onion, not indicative of a non-“pristine” environment, therefore, not fit for purpose?

    That they keep calling it a “pristine” site for “background CO2″ measurements is simply promoting a lie by their own standards of what is “pristine”. Most people hearing this simply believe it, why shouldn’t they? Most people don’t even make the association with Mauna Loa being an active volcano. Why not? Well, I think mainly because there is so much information from the AGWScience agenda in so many and various fields of science, that it simply gets lost in the noise. This applies as much to antis as pros, just as antis simply assume that CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere, and so on. So even the antis take as fact that Mauna Loa is a suitable place for measurements even when they know that it is an active volcanic spot, because they’re told it is. Because it is promoted as being “pristine”, its height etc., and told a whole slew of measurement parameters are in place ‘to exclude local production of CO2 and only capture what is coming, supposedly again, “untainted” in the wind across the Pacific.’

    As an example of uncritical belief in the promotion of “pristine” – http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2010/01/21/the-real-uncertainties-about-climate-change-and-why-antarctica-may-have-the-answers/

    Someone actually visiting and being told that there are only two places on earth with pristine air for measurement of CO2 – Mauna Loa and Antarctica. He believes it, unquestioningly. The phial of Antarctic air he is given to hold he is told is “the cleanest air on Earth”, has 385 ppm CO2 in it, he says that 200 years ago this would have been 280. Has he made any effort to check? If he had he would soon have noticed how disputed this is. Has he asked what it was in the 50’s when Keeling first began measuring it there?

    Let’s take a look at some well established science of measuring CO2 in the history of this prior Keeling: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/

    ‘Physiography: An Introduction to the Study of Nature’ by TH Huxley published in 1885, where typical values converted to ppm are generally from 327 to 380. The measurements were carried out by Angus Smith and are originally given in his book ‘Air and Rain’ published in 1872. (The 327 ppm recording was taken on top of Ben Nevis, Britain’s highest mountain at some 4000 feet).

    I’d say Ben Nevis would qualify as a “pristine” site, high among clean air in a country still mainly sheep from the Highland Clearances, and a reading of 327. What measurement did Keeling actually find at the Antarctic? I haven’t been able to find any contemporary published material. But look at the ranges in these studies, with already higher than Keeling’s cherry picked base line, with levels in the 1800’s which are already at Mauna Loa’s present pristine site supposedly showing extraordinary levels from the rise in industrial production.

    So, how exactly are these local levels excluded? By deciding what the figure for “background” should be without them and then excluding everything that doesn’t fit their choice. Their choice of what it should be. (This is the key point here which leads us to B, later down the page.)

    The measurements at the South Pole even started before these of Mauna Loa.

    Keeling again. As above, why should I believe Keeling’s measurements if he thought going to a heavily CO2 producing area on a volcano would be a great idea to measure “pristine” air?

    Back to Mauna Loa. There is no way that they can prove that the figure they end up with is not solely from the local production.

    Sometimes the local production is greater than at other times. Excluding high amounts of it and simply calling the lower figures “background”, does not make it this “background from across the Pacific”. It is still local, what’s left from having travelled higher into the atmosphere with the winds and heat, taking longer to descend, perhaps. The “background” from across the Pacific might well be adding to it, but from their measuring sticks in the position they are this is impossible to differentiate.

    From one of your site links: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/ Observatory Measurements. To obtain detailed understanding of both the short term and long term variations of greenhouse gases, on-site measurements are made at four of the NOAA.ESRL baseline observatories, which are far from any pollution sources affecting the gases of interest.

    Following that link gives us the four stations, one of which is Mauna Loa. If Mauna Loa was really “far from any pollution sources affecting the gases of interest”, why would all the complicated parameters to exclude local production of CO2 be necessary?

    Looking at the graph, Mauna Loa even by the late 80’s hadn’t reached the level found on Ben Nevis a hundred years earlier.

    B) Yearly averages of all the stations are within 2 ppmv within each hemisphere and within 5 ppmv between the hemispheres ..

    I have a bit more to say on this, but, apologies, will have to leave it until later today to continue replying to these posts .

    There has been a total re-education process in effect from AGWScience for several decades now, to the extent that it has infiltrated the school system and children are brainwashed to believe the AGWScience agenda that the majority of teachers think it is science-fact.

  173. Yes, the Mona Loa “pristine” meme almost rises to the level of a Big Lie. Outrageously false, but repeated so often and authoritatively that it has become The Trooth.

  174. A p.s. to the A) above re Observatory Measurements far from polluting gases to be measured – one of these 4 is Samoa. I’ve just found this:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/insitu.html

    Hmm, just how sure can we be that any of the numerous sites are actually “pristine”? I have to say that such statements as ‘oh, we take measurements upwind” is now a flag to suspect measurements, a pristine site wouldn’t need such excuses. As if the wind can be divorced from the rest of the atmosphere when in such close proximity to unpristine conditions.

  175. (Before I continue, hopefully, with B) – A fascinating and, very much, must read re CO2 estimates and volcanic sources and monitoring stations, (with a mention also of Keeling’s methodology, “Keeling (1979) concurs with a bizarre emphasis on “formulating models rather than surveying and interpreting data”), in which the author says that volcanic CO2 is indistinguishable from industrial: Volcanic Carbon Dioxide Timothy Casey http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

    As you can see, volcanic systems are diverse and unpredictable. They cannot be statistically second-guessed for the same reason that lottery numbers cannot be statistically second-guessed. This in itself raises serious doubt concerning the reliability of volcanic carbon dioxide emission estimates. This is especially problematic when significant elelments of the estimates, such as passive submarine volcanic emission, all active volcanic emission, and at least 96% of passive subaerial emissions, are based on statistical assumptions rather than on any actual measurement.

  176. Brian H – ain’t dat The Trooth! Someone once said that the bigger and more outrageous the lie the easier it was get more people to believe it simply by continual repetition. Somehow we accept such as intrinsic common knowledge in the background of our lives, especially all the more naturally when all around us we hear it being repeated by so many. I once took it as read, because I, like so many others, had it going on in my background, but otherwise engaged and with no interest in it didn’t explore it. It wasn’t until I found a discussion started by someone promoting it and declaring he would take on all challengers, that I took an interest. I didn’t realise that it had ever been challenged! I wanted to know what the arguments were.

  177. Ferdinand – re B)

    I haven’t been able to find the analysis of Keeling’s choice for the base CO2 ppm re the available data at the time, but you might have come across it anyway. Keeling’s choice was arbitrary, a particularly low number and from papers where the method of collection was, already well before his time, considered flawed. This doesn’t matter to someone who has an agenda, which in the beginning movement of ‘environmentalism’ in the 20th century Keeling was very much a player, to prove that the burning of fossil fuels was bad and that man’s production of it was getting into the atmosphere, etc.

    In 1958 Keeling was included in this fledgling agenda and he began measurements at Mauna Loa. He promoted the idea that this site was “pristine” for measuring such “background atmospheric” CO2 and devised a complex set of parameters as a distraction from the real value of Hawaii to him, that he had there abundant levels of CO2 to play with. And in less than two years, less than two years, he claimed that he had proved there was a definite rising trend of man-made CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere.

    That every part to this claim is actually nonsense in real scientific terms wasn’t a problem, they were selling it to people who didn’t look too closely when touched for funding.

    The beginning history is an alliance of people in the early green movement in the 30’s, which from memory is when the first scare stories were concocted that CO2 from fossil fuel use would cause global warming and a runaway greenhouse effect, melting all icecaps, etc., and whatever they could use which would give a veneer of scientific credibility to their claims was used, whether actually credible or not. This pattern continued in the following decades as the early players were joined by others, bringing Keeling on board. Later of course others came on board and cleverly manipulated this movement and its obviously faked science, when it’s examined, to further their own aims.

    Even as it was growing it became imperative to maintain the fiction established at Hawaii, Keeling’s son at Scripps co-ordinated the various stations to fit with Mauna Loa.

    There’s a potted history by Coleman on http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/global-warning-junk-science-is-hazardous-to-your-health/question-1396663/?feed=2085567&new=1&page=3

    The problem is that we still have now what Keeling et al created then, but the noise of support has just got louder and, of late, nastier, and now with taxes in place to enrich the elite and make life miserable for the poor by hiking up fuel prices.

    Keeling’s measurements and associated claims about CO2 do not have any scientific credibility because as above, they do not come from a pristine site as claimed; because he in less than two years of measurements could not possibly have shown any trend, let alone any trend relating to man-made burning of fossil fuel, no methodology was even bothered to be concocted for this; that there was anyway no actual proof that CO2 was even capable of such effects and no further work was ever done to check this.

    It began as a con, by deliberate manipulation of ‘science’ to further an agenda, but not at all scientific. Nothing has changed, the claims are still made as if it was fact, constantly repeating the same basic mantra.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1933780/posts

    Bearing in mind what I’ve written and with the contrast as you can read in the above, how confident are you that the figures you gave of CO2 ppmv as being very precise measurements of averages between stations and hemispheres, actually means anything?

    ………………………….

    sHx says:
    December 25, 2010 at 3:06pm

    Thanks, but I had read it a while back (several times!), during another discussion. I found it very helpful in visualising the setting and understanding the process used there as he is very good at giving detail. From which I then began exploring such things as the wind patterns and comparing their equipment with those used in other surveys and so on. One interesting thing found was that there are several recent surveys which dispute the idea that the flora can be discounted, but I’ve no idea now where all the pages are that I found. But suffice to say, I became sure by the end of my exploration that all the statements made were smoke and mirrors. There’s no way, etc., as I’ve explained above.

    I didn’t get to see Big Island when I was there many years ago, but my ‘instruction’ after a holiday with my partner was that when it became time for me to be cremated, I wanted my ashes thrown into Kiluaea -we both loved the place and any excuse to go back. I think I should change that to Mauna Loa..

  178. Myrrh;
    re the flora there: I seem to recall that Freeman Dyson had some (direct knowledge-based) things to say about that somewhere; you might follow that track. He has observed, amongst other things, that if you had to manipulate CO2 levels, rather inexpensive and straightforward alterations of agriculture and silviculture practices would achieve the desired result (in either direction) quickly and powerfully, far beyond what even the most ambitious down-ramping of industrial activity etc. could achieve.

  179. Thank you Dave, I’ll have a trawl, sounds interesting.

    Ferdinand – I found the analysis of re Keeling/Callendar method of choosing the CO2 base line v available data, posted on:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts

    The Real History of Carbon Dioxide Levels Dr. John Ray

    Shows the same paradigm as the choice for Mauna Loa. They stopped being scientists at this point for certain, and the continuation in Hawaii of unsubstantiated claims about CO2 and trends and composition and downright lie re pristine merely building on that cherry-picked figure to suit their agenda.

    I wonder what the Piltdown Man hoax would have led to if there had been the same level of interest in promoting it as that achieved by the greens’ forays into desire to change the world according to their creation via AGW? They would have been marginalised fairly quickly I think, genetics would have seen to that. Odd though the rapid success of AGWScience in achieving the reverse, against well understood basic physics it’s succeeded in marginalising real science.

    I can understand how it happens, and how difficult I found it in the beginning to try and make sense of it all through the arguments about it. I remember when I first started exploring the subject my first objection was that AGW always presented temperature rise from the end of the LIA and discovering that the MWP had been flattened out to fit this point as a supposed ‘normal’ temperature which led to learning about the hockey stick and so on, but I would often be swayed to consider it real from discussions in areas I didn’t know anything about. That became a sort of anchor for me, if the AGW hypothesis was true, there would have been no need to expend so much effort on destroying the past, really well known, history of great variations in our climate, from all kinds of sources – historical, travellers accounts as well as the growing knowledge through such sciences as biology and geology.

    It’s such an amazing thing, this earth, I wonder, maybe those leaders who try to impose their own idea by control of everyone else are actually rather frightened of it? We have such a long history of conquering and exploiting others, dressing it up to make the process sound honourable and glorious, giving out medals.. Perhaps in the end AGW is just another variation on the theme, the desire to flatten out diversity and creativity of our dynamic system of life and making others conform to it no different from the ‘emperors’ in our societies through the ages, subjugating others through power and religion by restricting their world view to what they thought acceptable, what they could handle.

    Anyway, that’s really going off topic.

  180. Just to clarify Dr Viner’s comments, this is what he had to say 11 months ago, in January 2010, after snow had blanketed the UK:

    “Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.
    ‘This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.'”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz19VGd0CJh

Comments are closed.