Heaviest Snowfall in a Century Hits Moscow – WWF has logic fail

Snow_100YR_RUSSIA

UPDATE: See a new related story here.

From the Moscow Times

By Roland Oliphant

The heaviest snowfall in a century brought Moscow and the surrounding region to a near standstill and left hundreds of people without power, officials said Tuesday.

And with snowfall set to continue at least until the end of the week, the authorities are bracing for more chaos on the roads.

“There hasn’t been such a winter in 100 years,” Pyotr Biryukov, deputy mayor for residential issues, said Tuesday in comments carried by Interfax. “The snow this year has already reached one and a half times the climatic norm,” he said.

The capital has seen 216 centimeters of snow fall since the beginning of winter, Biryukov said. 

Average snowfall in Moscow is 152 centimeters a year. Biryukov said the city saw 26 centimeters in the 24 hours preceding his Tuesday afternoon news conference and has seen 36 centimeters since the beginning of February.

The heavy snowfall that struck the city Monday quickly led to chaos on the roads. The Yandex Probki traffic monitoring service reached a full 10 points, and on Monday evening it issued the seldom-seen warning that “it’s quicker to walk.”

Read more: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/heaviest-snowfall-in-a-century-hits-moscow/475102.html#ixzz2K4m8i13z

In a similar story here

The WWF in Russia blames the exceptional winter weather on global warming: 

Whether or not Blinkin is right about the tires, City Hall would be well-advised to give the massive snowfall some serious thought. Scientists say such extreme weather is only likely to increase.

“The weather we’ve seen in the past couple of days completely fits with the tendency that was identified a couple of years ago, that we are going to to see much stronger, intensive bursts of precipitation in the future,” said Alexei Kokorin, director of the climate and energy program at WWF Russia. “In the summer, we will probably see stronger bursts of rain.”

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

Gaia is angry, send more money to Pachauri@wwf.ru

Seriously though, the logic fail here by the WWF spokesman is typical for clueless zealots. If global warming caused this snowfall event, what caused the heavy snow 100 years ago when CO2 levels were below Hansen’s “safe” 350ppm?

Inquiring minds want to know.

UPDATE: The popular warmist theory is that reduced summer sea ice causes the enhanced snow effect, and that sea ice reduction is caused by global warming, but it isn’t cut and dried proof. Then there is the months-long lag problem between reduced sea ice and weather.

From a previous WUWT essay by Willis Eschenbach, I repost this graph. Find the correlation between Arctic sea ice and Snow area.

Figure 2. Arctic sea ice area (blue) and Northern Hemisphere snow area (red).  Upper panel shows actual data. Lower panel shows the anomalies of the same data, with the same units (note different scales). The R^2 of the snow and ice anomalies is 0.01, meaninglessly small. The R^2 of the first differences of the anomalies is 0.004, equally insignificant. Neither of these are significantly improved by lags of up to ± 6 months. SNOW DATA ICE DATA

Willis wrote then:

I’m not going to say a whole lot about this graph. It is clear that in general the arctic ice area has been decreasing for twenty years or so. It is equally clear that the northern hemisphere snowfall has not been increasing for the last twenty years. Finally, it is clear that there is no statistical relationship between decreased ice and increased snow.

UPDATE2: Speaking of statistical relationships, here’s a couple.

The graph below plots annual snowfall vs December to April temperature, for all Colorado USHCN stations which have been continuously active since at least 1920.

USHCN_Colorado_snow_vs_temp

The Colorado USHCN Stations plotted are:

BOULDER, CANON CITY, CHEESMAN, CHEYENNE WELLS, DEL NORTE 2E, DILLON 1 E, EADS, FT COLLINS, FT MORGAN, FRUITA, GUNNISON 3SW, HERMIT 7 ESE, LAMAR, LAS ANIMAS, MANASSA, MONTROSE #2, ROCKY FORD 2 SE. STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, TRINIDAD, and WRAY

And for those that would say that is too small a sample size, let’s take it up a notch. Below is all USHCN station temperature for December-April in the CONUS versus snowfall.

USHCN_Snowfall_VS_Dec-Apr

Here is all USHCN stations annual temperature in the CONUS versus snowfall.

USHCN_Temp_vs-Snowfall

Clearly increased snowfall and decreased temperature correlate. The three graphs above were plotted by Steve Goddard.

About these ads
This entry was posted in snowfall and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

130 Responses to Heaviest Snowfall in a Century Hits Moscow – WWF has logic fail

  1. Chris B says:

    “Seriously though, the logic fail here by the WWF spokesman is typical for clueless zealots. If global warming caused this snowfall event, what caused the heavy snow 100 years ago when CO2 levels were below Hansen’s “safe” 350ppm?

    Inquiring minds want to know.”

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

    This was the wrong kind of snow?

  2. kim says:

    What caused it? Why Rasputin’s thingie. Hey, it caused it this time, too.
    ==========

  3. Chris Beal @NJ_Snow_Fan says:

    Got to love it ,Blame Global Warming on Everything today. When are they going to give in and just say Global Cooling is the cause. Dam Broke Governments and everyone thinks the can get rich like Al Gore did. Party is over and the last ones in the house will go to jail that are not wearing white collars.LOL

  4. albertalad says:

    Go figure! Global Warming snow. Only possibly down the rabbit hole. The Brits are having a fun winter. Here in northern Alberta we’re experiencing more minus thirties than God Himself intended. How do you fight insanity? Where is truth? Who even care about truth anymore outside to the great folks on this site and a few others. WWF? Maybe someone should tell them all that ice on both poles was indeed snow at one time. Or was it Global Warming snow? Heck, now I’m confused.

  5. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Oh so lame, oh so lame. You probably think this is about you, AGW. WWF into a cloud of snow…

    Carley Simons anyone?

  6. This is unconventional snow, you know – the kind Global Warming causes – lol.

  7. Robert of Ottawa says:

    I am going to, in public situations, robustly proclaim Global Warming as the cause of whatever the problem is. Do it. Ridicule is the best weapon.

  8. David J. Ameling says:

    I think we are experiencing lake effect snow. That is the less ice coverage in the Arctic ocean the more moisture there is available to produce snow. There is a theory that glaciation did not occur until the South Americam continent ran into the North American continrnt. This forced the Gulf stream north, warming the polar oceans causing more ice free water to produce more lake effect snow. The more snow the greater the albedo and more cooling. More glaciers.

  9. Ben Darren Hillicoss says:

    I was in Moscow 16 years ago, in September, It snow twice in the 5 days we were there in 1996….wasn’t there even more globle warming then??….HHMMM

    how can anyone be so short sighted to not see natural variation in the climate…my favorite media weather cast “worst WHATEVER in 100 years” then blame it on CAGW…lord help us

  10. Greg House says:

    If I was a warmist, I would say: “please, guys, we warmists do not say that global warming means always and everywhere, what we mean is an overall trend. There can be snow or record snow or cold waves, all this can happen, we have no problem with that, because we look at the overall trend and still see warming since the 19th century. Therefore your examples do not refute our concept.”

  11. pokerguy says:

    We’re going to have to wait a year or two. They can blame warmth on gw, floods and drought and even localized snow and cold evidently. The one thing they can’t blame gw is actual global cooling. Won’t be long now.

  12. TimTheToolMan says:

    It seems there has been a Sudden Stratospheric Warming event which disrupted the polar vortex and send cold air (normally confined further North) down over Northern Europe. On the other side Canada appears to have missed this and has been exceptionally warm.

    It will be interesting to see how things progress from here but one thing’s for sure, extending stronger burts of rain in summer from this event is clueless.

  13. Glen Michel says:

    It only took 12 years of ” elevated”temperatures for this so called record fall to occur. So unremarkable in the context of medium term events. WWF has no sense of perspective; try talking to their foot soldiers sometime and you will quickly gauge their lack of real life experiences.

  14. Pamela Gray says:

    “The Day After Tomorrow” will be revisited. It was funny then. Still funny. Idiots.

  15. Andy Adkins says:

    Why is Atlantic Ocean moisture dominating N. Hemisphere climate feedbacks? (It is hard for me to imagine that the poorly understood *by me* contrast between a Warm AMO/ Cold PDO would enable such a pivoting of whether phenomena given the expanse of their source regions especially when the Pacific, I am told, is presenting, with its recent el nino, la nina inconstance a general La nada effect (whatever that means)

  16. John Bell says:

    They renamed global warming to climate change to protect for the possiblilty that the climate might cool, and now because weather is always changing then that means that climate is always changing which makes them look correct. We MUST keep asking how climate can change without the intermediate step of warming. We must stop their campaign.

  17. Mooloo says:

    Until recently Wikipedia was crediting Moscow will much less snow than normal, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Moscow while hinting strongly it was due to climate change being particularly strong there. The recent heat waves get a good mention. That is in line with
    http://www.climateadaptation.eu/russia/en#climate-change saying mean snow depth is decreasing in the region due to climate change.

    But that’s the joy of AGW, isn’t it? It causes less snow, right up to the moment it causes more snow.

  18. LamontT says:

    So let me get this right. It is freezing with more snow than normal in Russia because the climate has warmed. … …. …. Right…. and I have a bridge you can buy.

  19. Mike says:

    What starts out as a joke among skeptics is plagiarized by the warmists as being real.
    Global warming is everything. As for pokerbuys comment that “The one thing they can’t blame gw is actual global cooling”, give it time and be prepared to be amazed by how alarmists will prove that global warming causes cooling.

  20. Bob says:

    Harsh winter every century and it is global warming? Lot of snow and I’m sure they are suffering, but I lived east of lake Michigan, so it’s not all that much snow.

  21. Rick Bradford says:

    There is no doubt that Man-Made Global Warming is true — last night I ordered a pizza and there was a clear image of a polar bear visible between the anchovies. What more proof do you need? /sarc

  22. MichaelS says:

    @TimTheToolMan – I don’t know what part of Canada has been experiencing exceptionally warm weather because here in Ottawa we’ve been in a deep freeze since January 21st.

  23. rogerknights says:

    If warmists say, as they sometimes do, that AGW theory predicted these sort of extreme events, the response should be:

    Yes, but only later, after more warming had occurred.

  24. geran says:

    Greg House says:

    February 5, 2013 at 5:41 pm

    If I was a warmist, I would say: “please, guys, we warmists do not say that global warming means always and everywhere, what we mean is an overall trend. There can be snow or record snow or cold waves, all this can happen, we have no problem with that, because we look at the overall trend and still see warming since the 19th century. Therefore your examples do not refute our concept.”

    Sadly Greg, the warmists do not “look at the overall trend”. They want to define the “trend”, and then declare it is warming. And, in a global warming “trend”, you would not have recurring “new” record lows.

    But, the battle continues because belief systems are not vacated easily.

  25. Other_Andy says:

    @Greg House

    No ‘if’ or ‘was’, you are a warmist.

    Not many people here say there hasn’t been a warming trend since the 19th century .
    However, there seems to be a disconnect between the trend and the rising levels of CO2.
    In case you ‘forgot’, Man-made-CO2-causes-global-warming is the basic tenet of the post-modern warmist.

    Remember this one Greg?
    The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    As for trends, what trend are you following?
    It has been cooling for the last 12 years
    It has been warming for the last 400 years
    It has been cooling for the last 1100 years
    It has been warming for the last 2000 years
    It has been cooling for the last 8000 years
    It has been warming for the last 100000 years
    It has been cooling for the last 5000000 years

  26. Gary Hladik says:

    When asked for comment, President Obama said, “It’s Bush’s fault.”

  27. Pat Frank says:

    Guess we can say that WWF gets a WTF moment.

  28. Mark and two Cats says:

    WWF should change their name to WTF.

  29. TomRude says:

    “There hasn’t been such a winter in 100 years,” So 100 years ago this happened too… that must have been “Global Warming by Anticipation”… LOL

  30. Greg House says:

    Other_Andy says, February 5, 2013 at 6:31 pm: “@Greg House
    No ‘if’ or ‘was’, you are a warmist.
    Not many people here say there hasn’t been a warming trend since the 19th century .
    However, there seems to be a disconnect between the trend and the rising levels of CO2.”

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

    Am I a warmist now, because I have shown you how easily the main idea of the article above can be countered by warmists? And your mention of CO2 has nothing to do with my “warmist” argumentation. I did not refer to CO2 at all, only to the alleged warming trend.

  31. Other_Andy says:

    http://www.climateadaptation.eu/russia/en#climate-change

    Due to climate warming, a substantial reduction in snow cover is expected in most of the country. The increase in winter precipitation in the EPR will be due mainly to liquid phase, and in Siberia the major portion of additional precipitation will be in solid phase. Thus, in the EPR, the reduction in snow mass and the increase in winter runoff will occur, and in Siberia further accumulation of snow mass in winter and its more rapid melting in spring can be expected. This will result in more frequent and extensive flooding.

    Trends of wintertime snow mass accumulation vary over the country. In European Russia (that is, Russia east of the Urals) and south of Western Siberia snow mass is expected to decrease compared with long-term mean values. By 2015 a 10-15 percent decrease is expected.

    CAGW prediction = FAIL

  32. bikermailman says:

    It’s funny the way the brain fills things in to fit one’s mindset (esp while enjoying a nice Kentucky bourbon). I saw “Pachauri@wwf.ru” as ‘Pachuri w t f r u’, and had to double take. I’m thinking my brain on autopilot even knows Watts Up With That.

  33. Jeff L says:

    ” WWF in Russia” …… ???
    World Wrestling Federation … would explain the logic fail :))
    /sarc

  34. Peter Laux says:

    Oh Anthony please !
    You dare ask, what caused the heavy snow fall 100 years ago ? Mankind of course!
    It was simply Gaia preempting our wicked, selfish attempts to bring prosperity to ordinary people by the use of her evil fossil fuels !

    No “logic fail” here !

  35. William McClenney says:

    OK. I’ll see your….

    “The weather we’ve seen in the past couple of days completely fits with the tendency that was identified a couple of years ago, that we are going to to see much stronger, intensive bursts of precipitation in the future,” said Alexei Kokorin

    And raise you….

    “In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities……marked by at least two warming events….The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages.” http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf

    Dealer calls cards……..

  36. Michael Tremblay says:

    Did You Know – That the according to the latest dogma from the AGW crowd, that the last ice age was officially declared the result of Global Warming and mankind can be blamed because we didn’t try to prevent it?

  37. David Ball says:

    Why did “Fiddler on the Roof” leap to mind when Greg House wrote; “If I were a warmist,…”
    8^D

  38. Reg Nelson says:

    The fact that they had to change the narrative (propoganda) from Global Warming, to Climate Change, to Extreme Climate is just more proof how inept, incompentent and corrupt these charlatans are, and how complicit MSM has become.

  39. David Ball says:

    No offense whatsoever to Greg.

  40. William McClenney says:

    Let’s see if the link works in this paste:

    http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf

  41. RockyRoad says:

    Greg House says:
    February 5, 2013 at 5:41 pm

    If I was a warmist, I would say: “please, guys, we warmists do not say that global warming means always and everywhere, what we mean is an overall trend. There can be snow or record snow or cold waves, all this can happen, we have no problem with that, because we look at the overall trend and still see warming since the 19th century. Therefore your examples do not refute our concept.”

    Except, Mr. House, they can’t accuse CO2 for being the villain! The reason? The increase in CO2 for the first two-thirds of this warming period you’ve identified was negligible. In fact, the rate of warming since 1860 ’till the present has been pretty much constant. From that, one can surmise that the warming has been pretty much natural, and refutes the suggestion that man’s use of carbon-based fuels is the culprit.

    Only thing the “powers that be” want to do is control our energy sources, for he that controls energy controls pretty much everything.

  42. EW3 says:

    Place I worked about 20 miles west of Boston, MA was in a converted New England Mill. On the first floor the WWF had an office. They used to use the marble floored overlooking a lake during warmer weather to hold wine and cheese fundraisers with the people who felt guilty that they were successful. They put out all kinds of “scientific” litereature to support their views.
    We need to remove their tax exempt status, so donations to them are taken off the taxes of the donater. In effect it’s the federal government supporting the WWF. Sadly they have so many lawyers on staff, they would certainly block any change.

  43. Steven Mosher says:

    Higher winter snowfall?

    makes sense

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/05/impact-of-declining-arctic-sea-ice-on-winter-snowfall/

    “Abstract. While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and East Asia. Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic Oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in mid-latitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic Oscillation. This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter, and the northeastern and mid-west United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters.”

    of course there is always some room for doubt.. always and forever in science.. there is room for doubt…

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/06/i-used-to-be-snow-white/

    But, when you raise an objection and the snow doesnt fall your way, look out for UCT or MbW.
    ( two patterns of conspiritorial ideation )

    The link between less ice and more winter snow in particular locations is an interesting one. Surely not settled. But, its not exactly wrong as the events in moscow attest. In fact we can probably say that it will never be proven, and can always be doubted, but since it was predicted one can hardly call it evidence disproving AGW. observe the subtle differences in that sentence.
    For me, when the ice fell below the record, my prior was “expect some record snowfall/colder winters in the NH.” Better than a 50/50 bet. Clearly not a sure thing, but clearly not a pure coin toss.

  44. J.H. says:

    If global warming caused this snowfall event, what caused the heavy snow 100 years ago when CO2 levels were below Hansen’s “safe” 350ppm?

    Inquiring minds want to know.
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    Well that’s simple….. This is Unconventional snow…. What fell in 1912 was Conventional snow. ;-)

  45. pottereaton says:

    Mosh: would lower winter snowfall make more or less sense than higher winter snowfall? Jes askin.

  46. William McClenney says:

    The link below must be copied and pasted in another tab, window or browser:

    http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf

    Alternative, you can do a google.scholar.com searth on a portion or all of the title:

    Instability of climate and vegetation dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe during the final stage of the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) and Early Glaciation

    For some reason a live link will not properly post here for this site.

    Moderator: please delete previous attempts to fix this link. Thanks!

  47. RockyRoad says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 5, 2013 at 7:40 pm


    For me, when the ice fell below the record, my prior was “expect some record snowfall/colder winters in the NH.”

    Considering the relatively short duration of our weather records and the high variability of weather events on a localized scale, it is not at all uncommon to have additional “record weather events” as time goes by. Indeed, a lack of further record setting would be highly improbable.

    However, we’re certainly not seeing evidence that snow is a thing of the past as some Warmistas once predicted. I’m sure such claims are never mentioned except in derision around Moscow about now.

  48. Reg Nelson says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 5, 2013 at 7:40 pm
    Higher winter snowfall?

    But, when you raise an objection and the snow doesnt fall your way, look out for UCT or MbW.
    ————–
    So, “deniers” are now sub-divided into denier acronym categories. WTF? LOL! EF (Epic Fail)

    You seem to forget that it is the scientist’s responsibility to prove their hypothesis, not mine or anyone else’s) to disprove them.

    The Earth is billions of years old. Looking at a few dozen decades of incomplete, corrupt and highly manipulated (homogenized) data is meaningless. And basing policy decisions based on unfounded “Chicken Little Sky is Falling” science is ridiculous.

  49. davidmhoffer says:

    But, when you raise an objection and the snow doesnt fall your way, look out for UCT or MbW.
    ( two patterns of conspiritorial ideation )
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Is that the inverse of CbR?
    (Can’t be Right)
    I mean given that NoA, this is obviously a purpose designed event with NI. And what is with the deputy mayor? 100 years? Is he that old? How can he make such a claim? Clear case of PV.

  50. Mooloo says:

    So let me get this right. It is freezing with more snow than normal in Russia because the climate has warmed. … …. …. Right…. and I have a bridge you can buy.

    Snowing in February in Moscow requires warmer weather.

    It doesn’t generally snow when it is very cold (well below freezing). Most of Antarctica, for example, has almost no snowfall.

  51. Ian Holton says:

    100 years ago we were in a similar solar cycle a low one!
    Co-incidence or connection!

  52. Neo says:

    All that extra water vapor from Global Warming has to go somewhere when it doesn’t show up anywhere else.

  53. RichardD says:

    @ Mosher…real world experience refutes your
    junk science.

  54. davidmhoffer says:

    I predict the worst flooding in Moscow in 100 years within the next 90 days.
    I predict it will be blamed on AGW causing the snow to melt extra fast.
    I predict also that at least one reporter will claim that thermal expansion, which is why sea levels are rising, is partly to blame.
    I predict that the reporter will be mocked to no end in the blogosphere.
    I predict that there will be no mention of the stupidity in the MSM and the reporter will get a promotion to the science desk of a major news outlet.

    I know what Mosher is thinking right now. NoA, CbR, SS and PV. Obviously the reporter is as yet unknown, but has a terrible case of NI spurred on by suspicion of NS and PV when explained to by BOFL (Big Oil Funded Lobbyists).

  55. Mike Borgelt says:

    Nice bit of hindcasting to link to Mosher. Pity they didn’t do a FOREcast.
    I’ve always had my doubts about Curry.

  56. Other_Andy says:

    @Greg House

    I had a recollection of you pushing the warmist man-made CO2-cuses global warming agenda.
    I checked some of the past threads and can’t find it.

    I must have been wrong
    This shows one should check first.
    My unreserved apologies.

  57. Greg House says:

    RockyRoad says, February 5, 2013 at 7:34 pm: “Except, Mr. House, they can’t accuse CO2 for being the villain! The reason? The increase in CO2 for the first two-thirds of this warming period you’ve identified was negligible. In fact, the rate of warming since 1860 ’till the present has been pretty much constant.”
    =========================================================

    I did not identify any warming period, but you did, like warmists did, too. May I ask why? Did you ever checked their calculations and their “methods”? I guess no, you did not. Does not look particularly skeptical to me.

    The second thing is, they do accuse CO2 for being the villain but also for physical reasons. So, even if you show them “cooling”, it will not affect their story about physics. Therefore, just connecting temperature and CO2 you are missing the point again.

    It is not only you personally, it is a wide spread wrong approach. You lose on both fronts, if you pardon this comparison. It is time people who call themselves “skeptics” realise that.

  58. Gail Combs says:

    Mike says:
    February 5, 2013 at 6:10 pm

    What starts out as a joke among skeptics is plagiarized by the warmists as being real.
    Global warming is everything. As for pokerbuys comment that “The one thing they can’t blame gw is actual global cooling”, give it time and be prepared to be amazed by how alarmists will prove that global warming causes cooling.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I already had some nice old lady at a church event explain to me how CAGW was causing global cooling. I had a hard time keeping a straight face.

  59. Theo Goodwin says:

    Mosher writes:

    “For me, when the ice fell below the record, my prior was “expect some record snowfall/colder winters in the NH.” Better than a 50/50 bet. Clearly not a sure thing, but clearly not a pure coin toss.”

    Not a prediction and not science. Take it a step farther. You cannot produce one physical hypothesis that has been well confirmed and that can explain the connection you postulate.

    Bayesian statistics is the last refuge of frustrated decision theorists. You can use Bayesian methods to eliminate unhelpful patterns in your betting behavior, but doing so tells you nothing about the world.

  60. Gail Combs says:

    William McClenney says:
    February 5, 2013 at 7:15 pm

    OK. I’ll see your….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    ROTFLMAO, you have an interesting sense of humor. I was just thinking that earlier today after rereading The End Holocene, or How to Make Out Like a ‘Madoff’ Climate Change Insurer

  61. Birdieshooter says:

    In Moscow AGW causes heavy snow fall. Here is Michigan the lack of snow is being blamed on AGW. I know there is a logical reason for this……Hmmmmm what could it be.

  62. Ack says:

    drought bad
    Moisture bad

    wish they would make up their minds

  63. Gail Combs says:

    William McClenney says:
    February 5, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    Let’s see if the link works in this paste:

    Instability of climate and vegetation dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe during the final stage of the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) and Early Glaciation
    FIXED (I hope)

  64. TimTheToolMan says:

    MichaelS, I cant seem to find the original image in amongst the many pages of posts on this event. I’ll take another look tonight.

    http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/74587-stratosphere-temperature-watch-20122013/

    I’m sure another one will pop up before too long though. There was a big warm blob over Canada. Of course warm is relative, I suppose it could still be cold but anomously warm.

  65. Jantar says:

    Mooloo says:

    It doesn’t generally snow when it is very cold (well below freezing). Most of Antarctica, for example, has almost no snowfall.

    While there are parts of Antartica that do not get much snow (eg the Dry Valley), where do you think those great ice sheets covering Antartica come from?
    If Anarctica doen’t get much snow then why are white out conditions so frequent over much of the continent?

    I do believre that there may be a bit of generalising over the whole continent based on what happens in part of it. There are huge dry regions of little snow fall to the west of many of the Antarctic mountain ranges, but regions of heavy snowfall to the east of them.

  66. Doug Proctor says:

    What caused the snow 100 years ago?

    Not a legitimate argument against CO2 today: two different causes, some result. Car goes off a cliff, one is bad brakes, the other murder-suicide.

    Not that I believe in CAGW/The IPCC Meme, but a non-argument is a non-argument.

  67. Greg House says:

    Gail Combs says, February 5, 2013 at 8:38 pm: “I already had some nice old lady at a church event explain to me how CAGW was causing global cooling. I had a hard time keeping a straight face.”
    ===============================================================

    Actually, Gail, some warmists do say sometimes that global warming might be the reason for some regional cooling, but this is a different point.

    By the way, I would like ask you something, because you use this “CAGW” acronym instead of “AGW” which indicates that you agree on “A”, “G” and “”W”. Why do you think that global warming can not cause global cooling? I am just curious, because some things causing certain effect long term can cause an opposite effect for a while.

  68. KevinK says:

    Mooloo says;

    “It doesn’t generally snow when it is very cold (well below freezing). Most of Antarctica, for example, has almost no snowfall.”

    Most of Antarctica is technically a desert, although it has cold temperatures………….

    Dryness/Moisture levels define a desert, not the temperature.

    It’s plenty cold up here in Upstate New York (well below freezing for several weeks now) and it’s still snowing lots. Lots of moisture offshore in the Great Lakes, no desert conditions here.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  69. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @Mosher

    The abstract says it will snow more in early winter (based no doubt on the logic that the moisture is hanging around in the air waiting to come south and drop but obviously it couldn’t wait there all winter so better say it will be in early winter so that if it happens to snow a lot it can be said to be a predicted consequence of global warming). It is not early winter. It did not snow any more in early winter than usual because of the record rate of sea ice formation shutting off the warm supply of moisture evaporating into the baking heat of the Arctic Autumn air. Otherwise it would have.

    It is snowing a lot because sometimes it does just like sometimes it snows a lot in Ottawa (sometimes a lot more than 2 metres – remember 1972?) My prediction is that sometimes it won’t. This constant variability is no doubt caused by the agonising lack of global warming. I have successfully modelled it using a variety of variable constants.

    RE where to send the money. I combine the suggestions from Roland and the guy with two cats:

    “Gaia is angry, send more money to Pachauri@wtf.ru

  70. TimTheToolMan says:
  71. JPeden says:

    @Mosher:

    “For me, when the ice fell below the record, my prior was ‘expect some record snowfall/colder winters in the NH.’ Better than a 50/50 bet. Clearly not a sure thing, but clearly not a pure coin toss.”

    But your prediction is definitely not good enough to qualify you as a PMCFT [Professional Miss Cleo Fortune Teller]. Although the 100% rate at which the Warmists’ “scientific” predictions fail to materialize, or even impress at all, is….ommmmmm….most likely “unprecedented”!

  72. Gail Combs says:

    Birdieshooter says:
    February 5, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    In Moscow AGW causes heavy snow fall. Here is Michigan the lack of snow is being blamed on AGW. I know there is a logical reason for this……Hmmmmm what could it be.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Simple, the jet stream is now in a more meridional pattern. This means the weather gets ‘weirder” and the CAGW pushers know it. You are going to get blocking highs, droughts, floods, extremes of hot and cold temperature as the loopy jets alternately pull polar or tropical air into a region.

    Ozone, UV and EUV seem to cause the shift in the jet stream Ozone depletion trumps greenhouse gas increase in jet-stream shift see my comment

    CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GENERAL CIRCULATION OF THE ATMOSPHERE
    AND THE GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL OZONE AS DETERMINED BY THE
    NIMBUS III SATELLITE INFRARED INTERFEROMETER SPECTROMETER

    Ozone is an important atmospheric trace constituent. The depletion of solar radiation between approximately 2000 and 3000 A is the result of strong absorption by ozone in the ultraviolet wave-lengths. The energy absorbed in this process is the prime source of thermal energy in the stratosphere. Because of this, ozone plays an important role in the large-scale motions of the atmosphere….

    ….A strong correlation was found between the meridional gradient of total ozone and the wind velocity in jet stream systems…..

    ….A study of the total ozone distribution over two tropical storms indicated that each disturbance was associated with a distinct ozone minimum….

    A comparison of time-longitude stratospheric radiance values at 60 S with values of the total ozone indicated that low (high) radiance values corresponded very closely with the low (high) ozone variations. The speed at which these ozone ‘waves’ progress eastward is greater
    in the winter hemisphere. The speed of eastward progression decreases as one approaches the lower latitudes in the winter hemisphere. In the equatorial region and in the Northern Hemisphere summer there is not a strong eastward progression of the ozone ‘waves’ but a westward progression….

    e_media/

  73. Steven Mosher says:

    Sorry Theo. if you have a problem with Bayes, then take it up with your local stats department, maybe they will offer you a chair. hell, go argue with Nic lewis who uses it to get a low estimate of sensitivity. hell, go argue with matt briggs.
    next

    Not a prediction and not science. Take it a step farther. You cannot produce one physical hypothesis that has been well confirmed and that can explain the connection you postulate.”

    Sure I can, the loss of ice is predicted to lead to an increased amplitude in the circulation patterns.. confirmed. The increase in amplitude means a lower frequency and higher probablity of blocking patterns. Confirmed. there are a couple papers published on this. reading is fundamental.

  74. James Allison says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 5, 2013 at 7:40 pm
    That declining Arctic ice sure is being naughty eh? Making the jet stream go all loopy and blocking the highs and making more moisture in the air and causing all that cold and snowy weather down below.

  75. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Oh dear

    And there I was thinking the Russians carried antibodies to this tripe.

    Maybe now people wonder why Putin doesn’t want NGOs in Russia??

  76. Steven Mosher says:

    Oh, theo… do you know what MbW stands for…. or UCT

    Must Be Wrong. and Unreflective counterfactual Thinking.

  77. Jordan J. Phillips says:

    Global Warming is a catch-all.

    Less slow = more global warming
    More snow = more global warming
    More extreme weather = more global warming
    More drought = more global warming
    More flooding = more global warming

    Essentially there is no conceivable weather phenomenon that cannot be subjectively attributed to Global Warming, nor is there any way to prove/disprove whether Global Warming caused some weather phenomenon because at the end of the day it’s all statistics and chaos theory and crazy unpredictable weather anyways.

  78. Björn says:

    TimTheToolman says
    February 5, 2013 at 5:43 pm:
    “…On the other side Canada appears to have missed this and has been exceptionally warm. …”

    One way or another, the perception I carried in my head of the Canadian weather history for the last few weeks was somewhat different from what this says, so I put the following query:

    “Last 4 weeks weather history for Canada”

    into the input field at the Wolfram Alpha site and below is the gist of what it came up with ( there are couple of references to yesterday in parathenses the are mine otherwise the output is just text copy of the Alpha output):
    ——————————
    time range | Wednesday, January 9, 2013 to Tuesday, February 5, 2013

    temperature | (-40 to -18) °C (average low: -34 °C | average high: -28 °C
    low -40°C recorded jan 16. 2013 | high -18 °C recorded jan 29. 2013
    relative humidity | (59 to 84)% (average low: 63% | average high: 74%)
    wind speed | (0 to 17) m/s (average: 7 m/s)
    snow: 23.7% (7.1 days)
    ———————————————————————-
    percpitation rate in the range from 0 to 55 mm/h.
    with the 55 mm/h maximum recorded on feb 5. 2013 ( i.e. yesterday)

    daily percpitation amount in the range of 0 to 33 cm.
    with the 33 cm recorded recorded on feb. 5. 2013.
    (N.B. 7 cm above the Moscow 100 high also recorded there yesterday)
    ———————————————————————-
    tomorrow’s forecast:

    between -33 °C and -29 °C
    snow (all day) | cloudy (mid-morning to mid-afternoon) | partly cloudy (late afternoon onward)

    (using weather station CYEK: 132 km NNE of center of Canada)
    ——————————————————————–
    ——————————————————————–

    I know Canada is a large country , and I noticed that the Alpha site did choose to reference a a single station claiming it was the the most central it could find for Canada, rather than coming up with some kind of an average for the whole country, so I realize this is not really representative of anything but a single location and its close environs (‘but of course that close environ is roughly 1.75 million square miles if I use GISS infilling with 1200 Km radii /sarc’).

    But caveats aside, I have a hard time visualizing temperatures between 20 to 40 °C below zero and up to 33 cm of snowfall in a single day as the ideal sunbathing weather you seem to be trying to impress on the readers here, but is rather an indication that my orginal perception ( =” cold and wet/snowy” ) of recent Canadian weather hisory was not so far off.

  79. Mario Lento says:

    You all have it wrong. It’s George Bush’s fault…

  80. Espen says:

    Steven Mosher: I agree with you that the arctic ice vs snow theory is interesting – but did they really predict that these blocking patterns would last as long as to February? After all, there’s lots of ice up there now…

    Anyway, this would be a negative feedback so not good for Cagw theory…

  81. TimTheToolMan says:

    Mosher writes “The increase in amplitude means a lower frequency and higher probablity of blocking patterns. Confirmed.”

    Not in this case though. This SSW was a specific (and from what I can tell quite rare) event. To link the snow to CO2 in this case means linking the SSW to CO2 and that would be like trying to link a specific storm to CO2…not likely to happen.

  82. markx says:

    Steven Mosher says: February 5, 2013 at 7:40 pm
    Higher winter snowfall?… makes sense [….]

    The link between less ice and more winter snow in particular locations is an interesting one. Surely not settled. But, its not exactly wrong as the events in moscow attest. In fact we can probably say that it will never be proven, and can always be doubted, but since it was predicted one can hardly call it evidence disproving AGW. observe the subtle differences in that sentence.

    Mosh, my dear friend. We are talking here about zealots who have been crying “We must act NOW, there is no time to waste!!” and wanting to make major untested changes to the global economy…

    And their old predictions all failed, eg:
    Other_Andy says: February 5, 2013 at 6:55 pm
    http://www.climateadaptation.eu/russia/en#climate-change
    Due to climate warming, a substantial reduction in snow cover is expected in most of the country.

    …. But luckily they happen to have done thousands of runs with several different GCMs, so of course they can find in there that yes, somewhere, someone predicted this …

    I can only quote your own feeble lines: “…But, it’s not exactly wrong as the events in Moscow attest. In fact we can probably say that it will never be proven, and can always be doubted…”

    Their vaguely plausible theories are becoming barely defensible, and become even less so with unconvincing warriors such as Mosh tottering to the ramparts, armed with nought.

  83. Maxbert says:

    How can anyone doubt that snow in Russia is all the fault of CAGW? How, when watermelon NGO’s and greed-head corporations spend tens of millions every year on alarmist propaganda, to the praise of scientifically-illiterate media and opportunistic politicians, could I possibly suspect it’s not true?

  84. A.D. Everard says:

    “See, we were right, we can blame any kind of flippin’ weather. Send money quick, before you figure out we’re lyyyyyying.”

  85. wucash says:

    You silly skeptics, don’t you know that correllation doesn’t mean causation? Therefore no correlation = 100% YES causation…. therefore the heavy snow is ONLY due to lost sea ice = global warming.

  86. noaaprogrammer says:

    Whether the weather be hot,
    Whether the weather be cold,
    Whatever the weather,
    We’ll weather the weather,
    Whether we like it or not.

  87. jorgekafkazar says:

    Anyone who really thinks warming can cause snow is delusional.

  88. Larry Huldén says:

    Alexei Kokorin, director of the climate and energy program at WWF Russia, is the same person who claimed that malaria never occurred in Russia before late 20th century warming. He claimed that malaria for the first time entered Russia because of global warming in 1990′s.

  89. Anthony Watts says:

    Marc Morano points out this hilarity: Warmist Tobis says heavy snow is agw: calls anyone who mocks ‘clueless’ Logic Fail Logic Fail

    Heh. http://planet3.org/2013/02/05/logic-fail-logic-fail/

    I’m not able to comment there, but I have to laugh at the juxtaposition of Dana Nuccitelli’s comment with the Tobis comment policy statement right below it.

    So other than an angry rant basically saying “global warming caused it cuz we say it does”, what has Tobis got in the way of a factual argument? Where is his supporting data? And he didn’t answer the question: “If global warming caused this snowfall event, what caused the heavy snow 100 years ago when CO2 levels were below Hansen’s “safe” 350ppm?”

    His two commenters didn’t answer the question either. They also offered no supporting data, such as can be seen in the graphs I posted above.

    For the record I grew up in the midwest, and faced the great blizzard of 1978 with its exceptionally cold temperatures and huge snowfalls, plus the Chicago Blizzard of 1979 (to name a couple I experienced firsthand). Tobis and friends seem to think that living in Northern California now somehow disqualifies me from understanding snow and temperature. That’s probably the lamest argument ever put forth by that guy. Imagine if I made the same argument because Tobis lives in Austin, TX. where “snowfall is rare“.

  90. crosspatch says:

    Also via Steven Goddard: Record 10 feet of snow in Pakistan. Pakistan is a good long way from the pole unless continental drift just took a surge. Don’t think polar ice has much to do with the precipitation in that area. I believe that mostly comes from a more southerly source of moisture: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/ten-feet-of-snow-in-pakistan/

  91. crosspatch says:

    Why anyone still listens to what these alarmists say is beyond me. Lets back up and take a look at the rhetoric over time:

    Global warming will cause increased drought.
    Global warming means snow in Europe will be a thing of the past.
    Global warming will cause increased precipitation.
    Global warming means snow in Europe will increase to record levels not seen in 100 years back when temperatures were cooler.

    Does anyone still take these people seriously? If so, why?

  92. markx says:

    It all sounds more and more like Willis’s “storm feedback theory of global temperature regulation” may extend to cover this as well ….

    So soon the AGW will become NGSR (Natural Global Self Regulation).

    Then we can simply blame ALL weather events on NGSR.

  93. Mario Lento says:

    @crosspatch says:
    February 5, 2013 at 11:30 pm
    Why anyone still listens to what these alarmists say is beyond me. Lets back up and take a look at the rhetoric over time:

    Global warming will cause increased drought.
    Global warming means snow in Europe will be a thing of the past.
    Global warming will cause increased precipitation.
    Global warming means snow in Europe will increase to record levels not seen in 100 years back when temperatures were cooler.

    Does anyone still take these people seriously? If so, why?
    +++++++++++++

    The short answer to your good question is and great post is: Yes, Mosher.

    That Mosher can read your post and still make the statements that he does, boggles the mind. How do you do it Mosher?

    I live in CA and stand against the tide of morons who parrot the same silliness… and I thought I was taking abuse. However, it’s fun having logic, sense and a science and process control background on my side; because I get to see dumbfounded faces as they squirm for rebuttals (which don’t exist.) tick tock… but but, the polar bears, but the glaciers… but, but the big oil… and that’s all folks…nothing.

  94. vukcevic says:

    And exactly 200 years ago (winter of 1812-13) Napoleon Bonaparte wasn’t exactly impressed by the Russian weather either
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Napoleons_retreat_from_moscow.jpg
    It’s going to get worse in the next few years, Dalton type minimum approaching around 2020.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

  95. Les Johnson says:

    Mosher: The “predictions” of more snow with less arctic ice, only came after the fact. Several IPCC reports, and many scientists like Viner, predicted less snow. When this did not happen, then a new theory had to be produced. That is, that a warming arctic causes meridional flow of the jet stream, which produces blocking highs.

    Unfortunately, the prevailing theory until this point, was that warming causes the jet steam to contract, and follow a more zonal path, which reduces the number of blocking highs. Note the chart on this 1975 article. This is diametrically opposed to the new theory.

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/download/id/37739/name/CHILLING_POSSIBILITIES

    At the very least, this shows that science in the past few decades, had no idea on how the climate worked. On this faulkty science we are to base trillions of dollars in spending?

    At the very worst, it means the old theory on zonal/meridional flow were right, and the current ones wrong. The result is that the new ones have been minted to force a round peg in a square hole. It also voids the null hypothesis. If it snows, its AGW. If doesn’t snow, its AGW.

    I like empirical data, myself. Goddard’s charts on temps vs. snow fall show that at the very least, there is a negative feedback to a warmer arctic. Of course the R2 shows a relationship to arctic warmth and NH snow, to be unlikely.

  96. Oflot says:

    From someone living in northern Sweden, I thought it was common knowledge that mild winters = more snow, cold winters = less snow.

  97. vukcevic says:

    Towards the end of the last Ice Age about 10-13 thousands year ago, the Neanderthals of Europe went on a march …. http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/winterblunder.jpg

  98. Mike Haseler says:

    The WWF are a completely despicable organisation …. the last place that still takes these idiot zealots seriously …. mainly as they are nothing more than a much of climate alarmists.

    Personally, every time I see their advert on WattsUpWithThat, I click it this probably costs them about £1 each and every time I click.

  99. izen says:

    More extreme weather from a ‘Lance Armstrong’ climate.
    Keep rolling those dice…

  100. J says:

    Moscow temperatures have been well below average from early December onwards (as in many orther parts of Russia and eastern Europe)

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/temperature/tn27612_1yr.gif

  101. richard verney says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 5, 2013 at 9:40 pm
    ………..
    Sure I can, the loss of ice is predicted to lead to an increased amplitude in the circulation patterns.. confirmed. The increase in amplitude means a lower frequency and higher probablity of blocking patterns. Confirmed. there are a couple papers published on this. reading is fundamental.”
    ////////////////////////////////

    Steven

    OK, the loss of ice was predicted in the late 70s/early 80s by those who pushed the AGW meme. However, at what date did they predict that the ice loss would in turn lead to an increase in circulation patterns etc. etc

    Please identify the date of this particular prediction, and please reference the paper in which the relevant prediction was made. I would like to see what was said and the reasoning.

  102. richard verney says:

    Espen says:
    February 5, 2013 at 10:33 pm

    Anyway, this would be a negative feedback so not good for Cagw theory…
    ////////////////////////////
    Good point, although one would have to properly evaluate solar insolation received as a consequence of albedo changes due to less area of arctic summer ice, verses greater area of winter snowfall (it is area xtent, not volume/quantity that is important)

  103. richard verney says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 5, 2013 at 7:40 pm

    For me, when the ice fell below the record, my prior was “expect some record snowfall/colder winters in the NH.” Better than a 50/50 bet. Clearly not a sure thing, but clearly not a pure coin toss.
    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Steven

    I have seen you make this type of comment before.

    Please identify the date of your “prior” and please provide me with the link to your paper/article in which this “prior” was made/first expressed.

  104. rogerknights says:

    In European Russia (that is, Russia east west of the Urals)
    ………………..

    Jantar says:
    February 5, 2013 at 9:03 pm

    If Anarctica doen’t get much snow then why are white out conditions so frequent over much of the continent?

    The wind whips up the snow on the surface.

  105. Steve from Rockwood says:

    This seems like a rather ridiculous post with un-related graphs cobbed together to attack what is obviously failed science. One of the above graphs shows a negative correlation between temperature and snowfall but the temperatures are all above freezing. Another shows snowfall versus temperature in Colorado when the post is talking about Moscow, which would be affected by open Arctic waters – and certainly not from Dec-April as the ice recovers quickly in the winter as we all know.

    The reason Moscow is experiencing more snow is the warmer winter. Normally Moscow gets more Arctic air and it’s too cold to snow. I’ve been there several times. It gets really cold there in February. In Northern Ontario cold winter temperatures have dropped to -20 C. This is well above normal where temps should be falling to -30 to -40 deg C. The NH may be warmer than normal because Arctic air is “stuck” at the pole (I’m guessing here). But it has nothing to do with Colorado.

  106. markx says:

    Doug Proctor says: February 5, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    “…What caused the snow 100 years ago?…. Not a legitimate argument against CO2 today: two different causes, some result. Car goes off a cliff, one is bad brakes, the other murder-suicide…..
    Not that I believe in CAGW/The IPCC Meme, but a non-argument is a non-argument….”

    Doug, I do disagree with you on this.

    Here (and repeatedly in the immediate past) we have CAGW proponents commenting on a single extreme but not unprecedented event and explaining that it is a likely result of “global warming” (and in other cases that it is in fact evidence of CAGW) and putting forward possible explanations of a mechanism. This ‘proves’ nothing, and is not evidence of anything.

    And the fact that a similar event occurred 100 years ago certainly adds at least some weight to the theory that there may be nothing new happening.

    So, to restate your example, what we really have here is:

    1. Some time ago we know of a car going off a cliff; cause of accident presumed, but unknown.

    2. Then very recently we hear of a second car going off the same cliff; cause of accident not yet fully investigated, but someone holding a particular theory on the matter and who assumes it differs from the previous occasion, has put forward a possible cause/mechanism based upon their theory.

  107. Gail Combs says:

    richard verney says:
    February 6, 2013 at 4:10 am

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 5, 2013 at 9:40 pm
    ………..
    Sure I can, the loss of ice is predicted to lead to an increased amplitude in the circulation patterns.. confirmed. The increase in amplitude means a lower frequency and higher probablity of blocking patterns. Confirmed. there are a couple papers published on this. reading is fundamental.”
    ////////////////////////////////

    Steven

    OK, the loss of ice was predicted in the late 70s/early 80s by those who pushed the AGW meme. However, at what date did they predict that the ice loss would in turn lead to an increase in circulation patterns etc. etc

    Please identify the date of this particular prediction, and please reference the paper in which the relevant prediction was made. I would like to see what was said and the reasoning.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And while you are at it tell us why 2007, the year of the Great Arctic Ice Loss, had less than normal snowfall and this year we have a greater than normal snowfall at the beginning of the winter snowfall season when the open water would have the greatest effect. NH October snowcover and NH winter snowcover

    Those charts say CYCLES not CAGW. These chart do not show a greater and greater loss of snow cover. Those charts show 2007 had LESS snow cover not more.

  108. markx says:

    Gail Combs says: February 6, 2013 at 6:49 am
    “…And while you are at it tell us why 2007, the year of the Great Arctic Ice Loss, had less than normal snowfall and this year we have a greater than normal snowfall at the beginning of the winter snowfall season when the open water would have the greatest effect….”

    Good point indeed. This is the most threadbare of constructs yet.

    It is worth noting that at this stage of the season in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2011 and 2012 there was a lower arctic sea ice extent than there is now …. but suddenly this year something triggers these happenings? And they leap forward and say “Yep, … lower sea ice area! See? Toldya!…”

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

  109. Caleb says:

    Even if the arctic ocean was wide open, rather than nearly completely frozen over, (as it tends to be this late in the winter,) I don’t see how you can blame the arctic ocean for the moisture turning to snow over Russia. The moisture is coming up from the south, and the arctic ocean is to the north.

  110. Jeff Alberts says:

    The heaviest snowfall in a century brought Moscow and the surrounding region to a near standstill and left hundreds of people without power, officials said Tuesday.

    Hundreds? Yawn. Call me when it’s hundreds of thousands.

  111. Sparks says:

    They made a prediction and because their prediction failed they are now curve fitting every natural weather event and calling it dangerous anthropogenic climate change, Where have I seen this happen before?

  112. Anthony Watts says:

    I’ve made a posting bringing all the data from comments and updates into one:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/michael-tobis-has-bupkis/

  113. Radical Rodent says:

    This is very similar to a response I received on another site, when I said: “Global warming is happening; I can accept that. The planet has warmed and cooled in the past, without any help or hindrance from humans; why is this particular period any different?”

    The response: “Because this time humans are doing it. Duh.”

    Duh, indeed. That sort of logic just cannot be countered, but you do have to hope that the person who uses it is does not drive and is never in charge of heavy machinery.

  114. Silver Ralph says:

    .
    And the heaviest snow ever has also hit Afghanistan, with up to 3m in places.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7184030.stm

    I wonder what this dump of snow will do to the glaciers??

    .

  115. Bruce Cobb says:

    izen says:
    February 6, 2013 at 2:59 am

    More extreme weather from a ‘Lance Armstrong’ climate.
    Keep rolling those dice…

    ROTFL! The only thing that’s been on steroids is Climate Alarmism. But, reality is bringing it crashing down.
    But, keep on guzzling the Klimate Koolaid….

  116. Silver Ralph says:

    TimTheToolMan says: February 5, 2013 at 5:43 pm
    It seems there has been a Sudden Stratospheric Warming event which disrupted the polar vortex and send cold air (normally confined further North) down over Northern Europe.
    __________________________________

    We had a BBC weatherman explaining this Sudden Stratospheric Warming event – and it is probably true, as it was also cited as the cause of the UK’s terrible 1963 winter.

    However, the pathetic little BBC weatherman was so desperate to stress the ‘warming’ bit, just to keep the ‘warming’ meme in the public eye (while were were all stuck in snow-drifts), that he looked like a puppy begging for a bone.

    Ahhh, thinking about it, he probably was begging for a bone:

    That new Met Office supercomputer was not purchased on the back of surface temperatures that have not warmed in 15 years, that’s for sure….
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17100224

    And that new Halley Antarctic research station was not purchased on the back of polar bear populations that are spiraling out of control, that’s for sure….
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21341044

    There is big money to be made in massaging temperature readings and bear population statistics.

    .

  117. Radical Rodent says:

    Gail Combs says:
    February 5, 2013 at 8:38 pm
    Mike says:
    February 5, 2013 at 6:10 pm
    What starts out as a joke among skeptics is plagiarized by the warmists as being real.
    Global warming is everything. As for pokerbuys comment that “The one thing they can’t blame gw is actual global cooling”, give it time and be prepared to be amazed by how alarmists will prove that global warming causes cooling.

    This possibility has already been covered: in October 2003, U.S. Pentagon released a controversial report, “An abrupt climate change scenario and its implications for United States national security,” that explored how global warming could lead to rapid and catastrophic global cooling. ( U.S. National Research Council, Critical issues in weather modification research (Washington, DC, 2003); Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall. “An abrupt climate change scenario and its implications for United States national security,”)

    I suppose that, if you are going to bet big, you had better cover all the angles.

  118. herkimer says:

    I think people forget the cold winters of the past even in Moscow unless they recall the winters of their youth. Here is a table showing the number of very cold winters [ with annual mean winter temperature of -10 C or lower ] in Moscow per decade.They are now starting to have winters like they had 70-100 years ago as the climate factors that were present then are present now , namely lowest solar activity since 1906 and cooling oceans .Inland areas are typically the first to feel the cold and snow . Canadian Prairies and the north are also this winter seeing colder winter weather and more snow.

    1880 [5]
    1890 [4]
    1900 [4]
    1910 [2]
    1920 [6]
    1930 [2]
    1940 [4]
    1950 [4]
    1960 [4]
    1970 [1]
    1980 [2]
    1990 [0]
    2000 [0]

    As one can see Moscow has not had several severe winters in a row like they used to get for many decades . Things are about to change. This has little to do with global warming as severe snow and cold winters were the norm when global warming was not even heard of but climate change was recognized as normal climate variablilty

  119. herkimer says:

    I should mention that the most frequent ENSO signal during the very cold past Moscow winters was NEUTRAL phase being present about 50% of the cold winters . El Nino was present abou 30 % of the cold winters . AO was negative 10 out 11 of the last cold winters since 1950 which is the earliest AO record start. These are the same factors that are often present in cold European winters also ,but they get the moderating effect of the Atlantic Ocean to keep their winters not as cold more often.

  120. talldave2 says:

    OTOH, I have detected a very strong correlation between extreme weather events and claims they have something to do with global warming. These are positively correlated with CO2 so they must be a result of human emissions.

    Clearly the only way to control these outbreaks of “extreme claims” is to reduce CO2 emissions. I challenge anyone to find a flaw in this logic.

  121. Radical Rodent says:

    Well, Talldave2, apparently there a strong correlation between the number of homosexuals in Birmingham and the number of lamp-posts there. Obviously, should you want to increase (or decrease) the numbers of homosexuals in Birmingham, all you need to do is put in more (or remove) lamp-posts. Simples.

    Where is the flaw in this logic?

  122. Caleb says:
    February 6, 2013 at 7:40 am
    Even if the arctic ocean was wide open, rather than nearly completely frozen over, (as it tends to be this late in the winter,) I don’t see how you can blame the arctic ocean for the moisture turning to snow over Russia. The moisture is coming up from the south, and the arctic ocean is to the north.
    ——————————————–
    Agreed!
    I asked this over at Judith Curry’s blog in response to her paper investigating ice loss and snow cover. My understanding is that the moisture origin of the snow is Atlantic Maritime air not cold, dry Polar Air. Even after reading Judith’s paper which I think is the source for this idea in the MSM, I don’t understand how this mechanism is supposed to work. Hopefully I’ll get a response to our question.

  123. revsg says:

    I do believe that “al qaeda” is to blame. … Oh no it is the Teletubbies, sorry I mixed that one up. One of them has got a lightning rod on his head and this attracts snow, due to more children watching Teletubbies in Moscow this logically attracted more snow to Russia’s capital city! … Of course the teletubbies are also to blame for GW, …. oh no I got that wrong again, it is … farting moose in Canada! They have been eating too much grass, which has grown stronger due to global warming, so now the more they eat the more the grass grows, the more they eat, the more the grass grows, wait … now the question is, what started first moose eating more grass or grass growing more because of gw? This is going to be horrific the world is going to end, in 2012 … oh wait that train has left, … 2014 … I bet the world is going to end in a big fat FART!

  124. herkimer says:

    There is a major snow storm coming to the US/Canada east coast this week end . What makes for the heavier snow fall? Cold air currently over the east coast due to a negative AO, an Alberta clipper with some snow and a rain entrenched storm coming up from the Gulf of Mexico. Moscow also had a negative AO bringing cold air from the Arctic. Nothing to do with global warming.

  125. TimTheToolMan says:

    Bjorn writes “I have a hard time visualizing temperatures between 20 to 40 °C below zero and up to 33 cm of snowfall in a single day as the ideal sunbathing weather you seem to be trying to impress on the readers here”

    I agree. I’m only reporting what Nick Stokes (from my thirds post’s link’s image) has reported. Very strange indeed. Even if you dont agree with Nick’s views on AGW its rare to fault his capability to represent data!

  126. ntesdorf says:

    These are definitely not the sort of weather outcomes that we were were led to believe that we would get when the Warmistas told up that there was 97% scientific consensus that increased emissions of CO2 by mankind were going to warm the planet.

  127. johnmarshall says:

    If the Russian snow falls average only 150ish CM and this latest is 200+cm then perhaps their time span used to calculate the average is too short. An average of 150cm includes depths over 150 to give this as an average.
    Just shows how poor an average is to demonstrate climate change which is ongoing and natural.

Comments are closed.