Guest post by Steven Goddard
The UK Met Office forecast last Autumn “the coming winter suggests it is, once again, likely to be milder than average. ” We have now passed the 2/3 mark of the meteorological winter, and it is time for another report card to send home. Yesterday’s press release was titled “Wintry start to February” which stated “So far, the UK winter has been the coldest for over a decade” and “Met Office forecasters expect the cold theme to the weather to continue well into next week with the chance of further snow.”
The UK is expecting the heaviest snow in about 20 years tomorrow. “Snow and freezing weather threaten to shut down Britain Arctic blizzards are set to cause a national shutdown on Monday as forecasters warn of the most widespread snowfall for almost 20 years.” “Now is the time you’d expect to see the daffodils coming out but we’re not expecting them for two or three weeks at best if it warms up.“
So why is this important? Climate is not weather, after all. The Met Office is one of the most vocal advocates of human induced global warming, and they have gotten into a consistent pattern of warm seasonal forecasts which seemingly fall in line with that belief system. Is it possible that their forecasts are unduly influenced by preconceived notions about the climate? It is worth remembering that London had it’s first October snow in 70 years this past autumn.
Or perhaps they know exactly what they are doing, and are just having a several year run of extremely bad luck with their long term forecasting.
As someone who remembers the 1962/3 winter, living in Essex half a mile from the nearest main road. The water main froze and we had no water for six weeks except that provided by the local bailiff in milk churns. We went to school every day and I don’t remember the country grinding to a halt.
Barry
John Finn writes:
Dickens wasn’t born until 1812 so I’m not sure how much of the Dalton Minimum period he remembered. According to the CET record there were several periods in the 19th century that were just as cold as the DM.
A book by A.Kingston called Fragment of 2 centuries talks about what conditions were like in the Royston area, Hertfordshire, during the Dalton Minimum on page 57. Not only were the winters cold, but their were incessant rains. The CET record, by only showing temperature records, misses out on the rainfall
That the AGW clan still is selling their gloom astonishes. They seem not to want the end game as much as the gloom game. Since the end game is the transition to a non-fossil fuel based economy – why care how it is achieved? There are plenty of reasons to electrify and utilize alternatives. AGW is NOT one of them. So apparently the clan’s intent is not the achievement of an end. They defend their poorly substantiated claims even in the face of overwhelming science disproving them.
Which brings about the conclusion that their mission is not about achieving energy independence – but something else. Pillage of the western world? Cap and trade schemes benefiting the AGW elite? Expanded government and nationalization for the AGW elite commanders? It is certainly not about climate or… science.
Here in tropical north Queensland, north-east Australia, we have had ‘la nina’-like summer conditions through most of January with lots of rain and cooler conditions than normal – definitely no positive temperature feedback from water vapour in this area. We’ve also just had a mini-cyclone, “Ellie” which turned out to be just a rain depression. Lots of rain, 250 mm yesterday to 9AM (i.e. 10 inches for you Americans). While not officially a ‘la nina’, the S.O.I. has been positive for the last 7 months and is still positive (8), so I guess we can expect more rain this summer. We are of course a bit sick of the rain by now but at least we don’t get snow here … yet.
It would appear that we’ll have some respite from AGW for the low level of solar activity (flux/wind/spots) for, perhaps, 30 years. It would further appear that CO2 levels will remain high, climbing higher in spite of same. And, thus, forcing, in the form of higher temp.s, et al, will certainly be in our future~
Here in Sydney, the start of summer was definitely cooler than last year. We’ve had humid days, but not really hot. It was hotter in 2005, but perfectly within “norms”.
I don’t see how the British are inept when it comes to snow. We hardly ever have any to talk of. If it becomes common we will become good at dealing with it. How many of us would feel totally right if we were advising the government to invest in snow equipment even with the evidence this site provides. I feel some people are making unfair comparisons in the media, it is really quite small minded.
As you noted, “weather” is not “climate.” Changes in weather patterns, air currents, high and low pressure flows, a melting north polar ice cap, melting glaciers, higher sea levels, etc. are all measureable phenomena, along with measuring evidence of past weather patterns through examining ice samples from decades-old, even centuries-old ice packs. The acceleration of glacial and polar melting in recent years indicates that global warming is not only occurring, but that the process is speeding up. While it may be arguable as to how much humans have contributed to the process, the consensus among a massive preponderance of meteorologists, geologists and other climate-related scientists is that humans have contributed much ever since the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century.
The effects of course, will create mild to extreme consequences in weather and coastal habitats, agriculture and world food supplies. The consequences will not all be negative. Some consequences might be agricultural meccas where there were once none, as well as fertile and well-rained plains possibly becoming deserts and dust bowls. Who can really know?
It may be that if we do nothing but buffer the coastal communities with technology and engineering schemes to protect homes and businesses from rising sea levels, that nothing catastrophic may occur, other than our continued dependencies on finite fossil fuels, more wars in the Middle East and perhaps even World War III…all over control of quickly diminishing reservoirs of oil and natural gas. It is certain that we can gain from reducing toxic emissions into the air and reducing the amount of carbon monoxide. Reducing our dependency on finite non-renewable fossil fuels and developing sustainable and renewable energy sources seems like a no-brainer. We help the whole world to use the wind and the sun and other renewable energy technologies and we stop fighting each other for what we all have acces to. We do it. Enough said. Is there some sort of grading scale for the Met Office Report Card? I
Sorry I meant English.
MH Pathfinder, recognise that all that is written on these pages is you also.
Your own self is questioning the ephemeral phenomena and transient wisdom of scientific “certainty”. What are you truly certain of, anyhow? Your real Self is empty of all phenomena, and is just the absolute witness of the phenomenal world, which is transient, radiant, shimmering, and grounded in nothing. Science theories come and go, they are never the territory. Even the territory comes and goes, as clouds float by, nature changes and evolves, the planet shifts, the galaxies twirl in empty space of your awareness. Let go of everything, even your ego attachment to pet science theories, and vain attempts by the intellect to grasp and confine nature, to analyze it by simplistic measures of CO2 or “warming”. Science never united the world in a unity of conscious bliss before, it won’t do it now either. ONLY the recognition of your original face can do that.
esin (15:55:41) :
It would appear that we’ll have some respite from AGW for the low level of solar activity (flux/wind/spots) for, perhaps, 30 years. It would further appear that CO2 levels will remain high, climbing higher in spite of same. And, thus, forcing, in the form of higher temp.s, et al, will certainly be in our future~
The problem with this argument is that if temperatures go down for 30 years while co2 rises, then we have to ask which driver is it which so easily overpowers co2? And how do we know the rise in the late C20th was due to co2 and not the positive phase of that stronger driver?
You see the problem?
Hi MH Pathfinder,
I must mention that most of the evidence you cite is no longer valid after 10 years of global stability (and significant temperature decrease over the last 2-3 years. The north polar melt was mostly due to weather. The Antarctic sea ice has been above average for most of the last few years. This summer will be interesting regardless.
I really place no merit on appeals to authority. The authorities have bought their own con, and are driven by political expediency. Their models (and dry-lab data) are in the process of being discredited.
And even if we are gradually increasing in temperature — well, warm periods have been very good for humans in the past.
It would be nice to have alternative energies, but if they cost 100 times the price of oil (for equal energy, accounting for inefficiencies, and inconvenience), I think we could easily starve a whole lot of people worldwide if we pursue it. Nuclear works well. The rest are useful in some marginal areas, but in general are a waste of treasure.
Anthony,
Am planning trip to GB first week of April with son. Should we bring snowshoes? Please advise what to pack! I don’t trust the Met after reading this post. 🙂
Anne
PS: Cracks me up that a bit of snow gets Britain out of whack. We just had over a foot–reminded me of being a kid. We haven’t had many good snows lately.
“The effects of course, will create mild to extreme consequences in weather and coastal habitats, agriculture and world food supplies. The consequences will not all be negative.”
How am I to distinguish this forecast from weather and natural climate variability?
nothing catastrophic may occur, other than our continued dependencies on finite fossil fuels, more wars in the Middle East and perhaps even World War III…all over control of quickly diminishing reservoirs of oil and natural gas.
I really doubt that we are running out of or even short of fossil fuels. With all the increase of use of fossil fuels since 1975 we have almost double the potential reserves that we did then. We have been discovering it faster than we have been using it up since around 1859. That does not fit any reasonable definition of “quickly diminishing”.
Long before we run out of fossil fuels, we’ll have moved on to something else, not because of shortages, but for reasons of economic advantage. In the meantime, the world needs as much growth as possible as fast as possible because it is only growth-generated wealth that will allow us to move on from fossil fuels.
To posit wars or even world wars over dwindling resources is contrary to all postmodern (and even modern) experience.
Queen1,
Last year there was a big snowstorm at Easter, so your snowshoes might come in handy.
Southeast England has one of the highest densities of automobiles in the world, so it is not surprising how disruptive snow can be. Also the government keeps getting told that global warming has made snow a thing of the past. Why should they plan for it?
And, thus, forcing, in the form of higher temp.s, et al, will certainly be in our future~
I wouldn’t be so certain.
Punxsutawney Phil is correct somewhere between 75 percent and 90 percent of the time, according to his followers, just like Al Gore. This year Phil sees 6 more weeks of winter in our future.
On the other hand, if winter continues for 75% to 90% of the time and Phil predicts continuation 75 to 90% of the time, the odds are that he will be right around 75% to 90% of the time even if the distribution is random.
There is upto 40% of oil still in capped off oil wells. Oil’s not going t o run out for a long time yet.
I miss the chilliy winters days in the UK. Used to enjoy starting school in September to bright, crisp, cold days.
Queenl, tyhe media always do over react however, it is true that the slightest bit of cold does bring transport chaos to the UK. Seriously! BR used to claim “wrong leaves” and snow on rail lines for delays. In fact snao can short out rail lines, especially the 3rd rail systems used in the south and south east.
Coal lay in ledges under the ground since the Flood, until a laborer with pick and windlass brings it to the surface. We may will call it black diamonds. Every basket is power and civilization. For coal is a portable climate. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
Never knew that Ralph was so politically incorrect…
Forgive my spelling. There is an interface problem between the keyaboard and chair.
Someone up above mentioned the Day After Tomorrow (aka “The Global Superstorm”).
While the initial premise is flawed, not all the mechanisms are.
I was, a week ago Friday, up on a ridge, in Central Europe. A derecho struck. Whereas, some 15 minutes prior, there was a green lawn outside, at that time, there was rather suddenly two inches of snow. Thankfully the condition abated before feet and feet of snow were dumped.
We are getting warning signs, and they are not warming signs. The immensity of the coming likely crisis could be too much for most people to handle.
Interesting, I read elsewhere this film has been “put on hold” for some reason.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1235448/
M White (13:34:00) :
“Maybe not snow ploughs and gritters, but I think Cold Weather Payments may have been raised from £8 to £25 on this basis.”
This year you will get £25 when the average temperature where you live is recorded as, or forecast to be, zero degrees Celsius or below over seven consecutive days during the period from 1 November to 31 March.
Pensioners can forget about being paid on the strength of the Met Office forecast because, according them, tomorrow is always going to be warmer.
The day after tomorrow they will then issue a forecast update saying cold snap has arrived as predicted and it will be followed by record high temperatures, tomorrow.
That leaves temperatures having to be zero Celsius for seven days.
By then and the probable delay in payment, the pensioner would have frozen to death there by negating the necessity for the said payment.
Socialist government at it’s optimum efficiency.
Pat, and evanjones,
re peak oil,
click here for my take on this:
http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2008/09/peak-oil-not-big-deal.html
I do not believe we can afford new nuclear plants for power in this century, as shown here (this study, with which I agree after careful analysis, concludes that power from a new nuclear plant will cost ratepayers $0.25 to $0.30 per kwh, in 2008 US dollars):
click here
Our power generation primarily will be by natural gas, and coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) for a few years, IMHO. Then the CCS requirement will likely disappear when the cooling occurs.