By Steve Goddard
The experts at East Anglia and CRU told us in 2000 that :
(March, 2000) 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.
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.
The 255 experts at the AAAS denouncing “climate deniers” in an open letter described this past winter in these cleverly sarcastic terms :
The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
I appreciate that government bureaucrats believe that there is no world outside Washington, yet nature has given us the opportunity to grade both the predictive and observational skills of the experts. And it looks like they deserve a rather poor grade. According to data collected by Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, this past October through March period was the snowiest on record in the Northern Hemisphere – with an average monthly snow cover of 39,720,106 km2. Second place occurred in 1970 at 39,574,224 km2.
‘
We also know that the past decade had the snowiest winters on record.
A month ago I discussed an AGW sacred cow – Glacier National Park. At that time, a WUWT reader (Craig Moore) expressed his concern about the lack of snowcover in Montana this year. The good news for Craig is that as of yesterday, snowpack in Montana is 98% of normal. California is 117% of normal. Arizona is 175% of normal. Wyoming is 101% of normal, etc.
Every good and conscientious citizen knows that snow cover is disappearing due to global warming. Google turns up over 100,000 hits on that topic. This is what the disappearing snowcover looked like in my neighborhood yesterday morning.
With lots more cold and snow on the way.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp1.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Richard says:
May 15, 2010 at 8:09 am
He did this with some character on WUWT regarding the freezing of CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 cannot freeze (sublime) on Earth because, though temperatures reach less than the freezing point of CO2 at 1 atmospheric pressure which is only -57C, because CO2 is just a trace gas on Earth, the partial pressure of CO2 on Earth dictates that the temperatures have to be far lower, much lower than those found on Earth. This discussion came up later and I chanced upon it and I was referred to Phil.’s discussion on it earlier with some other guy. I read that post and sized up Phil. from that. Instead of pointing this out to the fellow and referring him to a phase diagram of CO2, which I am sure Phil. has and that fellow hadn’t, Phil. drew him out and then thoroughly humiliated him in quite a nasty manner.
Actually your memory is a little flawed on this. When a post was made referring to CO2 freezing at the antarctic I posted that it was wrong and provided a phase diagram. I was told quite rudely that I didn’t understand phase diagrams and was spouting nonsense! Consequently the matter escalated, for example another posted the following:
“please apologise and remove this nonsense from this website about CO2 freezing out of the atmosphere at the Earth’s South Pole. Then please go and read, as a matter of some urgency, about the subject of vapour pressure.”
The thread continued for sometime and spawned a successor and the issue was settled against the original poster (who was banned from posting here for about six months because of his attitude concerning this matter).
When the same subject was brought up previously by George Smith it was discussed in a civilized manner and George subsequently thanked me for explaining it to him.
“And I believe it was Phil back then who disabused me of my silliness.
Even at -90 C the vapor pressure of CO2 is way above 385 ppm of earth’s atmospheric abundance.
And I have the phase diagram of CO2 right under my nose, thanks to Phil’s tuition.
Man; the thrill one gets when you finally understand some of this stuff and can yell Eureka ! I got it, how could it ever have been so hard to understand.
So Nyet ! on the Gopher getter ice at Vostok; we are cleansed of that science pestilence once and for all.
Thanks Phil; dunno how to thank you for the insight; whatta dummy I am at times.”
Phil,
I’m concerned you did not address my concerns regarding your challenge to my assertions.
By the way regarding censorship, I can tell you a thing or two about Gavin’s mob over at RC where he called one of my posted links “crap.” I challenged him to simply post it and let his supporters attack it and I was there to defend it. No reply!!!! Now that’s censorship.
Here was the link which Gavin called “crap”:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Phil 6:53 am; you may or may not be right but I would be much more confident if this was demonstrated by reliable experiment rather than just a bald assertion. Then again if you are right please explain why Nimbus records the black body emission temperature in the atmospheric window over the antarctic as 180K when there is nowhere on the surface (or in the atmsphere for that matter) which is as cold as 180K. Also please explain why igloos are as warm as they are. For the record, I am not stating catagorically that the albedo of snow is high at 10 microns, I am saying that the methodology of the experiments I have read which show it to be near 1 have flaws which render their conclusions questionable. The studies should have indicated that they considered the possibility of deep penetration and reflection from below the surface and took steps to allow for it or prove it a non issue.
kwik says:
May 15, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Scientists warned the public here in Norway (on the TV-news this evening) that we are heading for a new Ice Age.
—–
How intriguing. Do you have a link that we can follow? I’d like to see what they are referring as indicators.
Thanks
Ulric Lyons says at May 15, 2010 at 3:50 am: As the LIA was the coldest event since the Younger Dryas, I do not see any sound reason to consider that anthropogenic burning has prolonged the Holocene.
Consider that widespread anthropogenic burning declined significantly during the LIA. Old World diseases led to the die off of 90 to 95% of the New World indigenous population. Indian burning in the Western Hemisphere all but stopped. Ditto in India and other regions “colonized” by Europeans. Euro conquest led to massive landuse changes, which had the effect of turning albedos from millennia of charcoal black to green and reducing wind-borne soot. Ruddiman and others make that argument — that human influences have prolonged the Holocene, and that conquest and subsequent aboriginal die-off altered albedos and thus caused the LIA.
The Holocene seems to be a lengthy interglacial. What other explanations are there for that? (Hint: one of them is anthropogenic CO2. I put more stock in anthropogenic albedo control myself).
Regarding solar changes, the actual mechanism according to Svensmark involves clouds and changes in the albedo of the lower atmosphere. I don’t deny solar theories; I am merely pointing out that the most plausible involve albedo.
As to the reflectivity of snow (Hammer, May 15, 2010 at 2:32 am) I do not claim snow is a perfect reflector. But compared to charred earth… Albedo is a relative phenomenon.
Regarding positive feedbacks, is there any other explanation for the radical climate shifts at glaciation/interglacial transitions? Whether longterm (100kyr) changes are due to orbital mechanics or an as-yet-undetected solar output cycle, the sudden shifts point to some sort of positive feeback on/off switch.
PS – maybe a post about albedo someday is in order Anthony? It is hard to carry on this discussion in this thread, now past ripe and moldy with trollations.
Mike D. says:
May 16, 2010 at 10:44 am
Year by year through the LIA, there was cold weather, but there was hot weather too, as there was very cold episodes during the otherwise generally warm 1100`s.
Only the sun can be forcing these fast seasonal or monthly changes.
I would not trust ice cores enough to evaluate exactly how long previous inter-glacials were. CO2 did nothing to mitigate last winter or any winter to any measurable degree.
Svensmark has the wrong end of the stick, cosmic rays are the inverse proxy for the solar wind, being the forcing factor for cloud formation (eg. the heat).
On the glaciation/interglacial transitions, I am still working on that, but I can map through the last 8000yrs astronomically well, and pick out individual cold N.H. winters.
Something that chaps my hide that a lot of “scientists” do:
Generalize way too much based on relatively localized data.
“October Through March Was the Snowiest On Record In The Northern Hemisphere”
If this is the claim, then did they take the measurements of snowfall from the whole Nothern HEMISPHERE ang average it for all those years?
I know the United States and a lot of Europe got record High snowfalls last winter.
However in parts of Canada we got record LOWS…. I used my snow shovel 4 times all winter!
The year before it seemed I was shoveling non stop for 3 months.
It seems the main “snow belt” just “shifted” this last winter.
Then we have this gem:
“(March, 2000) 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.”
this could be true… for southern England…
I just love Sensationalism…
I do believe Human activity is affecting/going to affect the global climate.
I also believe we need much stricter environmental laws worldwide.
A thought to leave you with:
(This number varies greatly depending on the source)
It takes 20 trees to produce enough oxygen for ONE person.