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.
>> R. Gates says:
May 13, 2010 at 11:02 am
Bottom line: Big snowfalls in odd places, etc. do not in any way invalidate AGW theory, and could, depending on the other factors mentioned above, tend to validate it. <<
Since the AGW religion states that anything is possible, nothing said here or elsewhere could possibly invalidate it, anymore than Catholicism can be invalidated.
What Steve does point out is how pathetic one of the predictions of the AGW priests turned out to be.
“R. Gates says:
[…]
got lots of heat in the system evaporating all that snow, and record snow would mean record heat (which is exactly what we’ve seen for the first few months of 2010).[…]”
Sounds a little counter-intuitive, but let’s follow Mr. Gates here for a moment…
“From The Independent on 20 March 2000 we got the headline: “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”. 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”.”
So Mr. Gates, your opinion about the connection between high temperature and snowfall seems to collide with the opinion of Dr. David Viner, expert senior climatologic scientist researcher of the CRU. Who should we poor skeptics believe now? Is it maybe that the lack of snow as well as plentiful snowfall both confirm AGW?
It is very sad that these scientists are churning out the same old tired cliches. Those who challenge AGW on sites like this have built up a very comprehensive range of reasons for doubting the AGW claims. These are never addressed by the “elite” in the field. It may be true that that they are simply defending the funding bandwagon that is fuelled by outragious catastrophic predictions, but surely there are some honest ones left?
Are they blindly supporting the alleged scientific consensus in some misguided sense of duty?
Perhaps they do believe in AGW and all the alarmist catastrophic predictions. In that case, they must have closed minds and should not claim to be scientists.
It appears to me the sun been trending to a quieter (few to none spots and declining flux) state. That and with the El Nino finally petering out, I am curious what kind of winter we will have…
“Dr. Schweinsgruber says:
[…]
And, doesn’t increased precipitation coincide with warming? ”
Yeah, exactly like drought, only more humid…
latitude says:
May 13, 2010 at 10:53 am
“But, common sense tells you that it has to be cold to snow, and more snow makes it even colder………….”
Its a bit more like a slightly warmer front coming in on a very cold region to make it snow. Winter precipitation works on temperature uplifts, the opposite of summer.
http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/947-g20-climate-change-no-longer-a-priority.html
Too bad Steve continues to use such tactics as in this post. It’s not ok for a believer in GHG warming to say Katrina is evidence of GHG-induced warming, nor is it ok for Steve to say a snowy winter this year is evidence of non-GHG-induced warming. Guess Steve wants to have it both ways. Interesting how he completely ignores the fact that the Arctic was very warm this winter and interesting too how he doesn’t want to address the recent rapid pace of decline in Arctic sea ice extent. Wonder how he plans to gloss over the recent decline…should be a entertaining read…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/13/lots-of-new-cold-and-snow-records-in-the-usa-this-week/
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/blogs/Edmonton+breaks+weather+record/2336460/story.html
Russ Steele says:
December 13, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Edmonton breaks record by 10 degrees – 13 Dec 09 – “To break a temperature by 10 degrees is very exceptional,” said Environment Canada meteorologist Pierre Lessard. It was colder in Edmonton Sunday than anywhere else in North America.
Sunday also marked the coldest Dec. 13 in Edmonton’s history, said Lessard.
Environment Canada recorded a frigid -46.1 C, or -58.4 C with wind chill, at the Edmonton International Airport at 5 a.m., Lessard said. The old record of -36.1 C was set last year.
h/t Not by Fire but by Ice
……………………Enough from the snarky warmistas.
I know when they cherry pick information. They leave out inconvenient records.
As the calendar flips over to December, it’s now official that November 2009 will go down in history as the snowiest month on record at Whistler Blackcomb, dating back to when the collection of weather data began 30 years ago.
November 2009 has seen a total accumulation of 560cm (18 feet) of snowfall, nearly four times that of November’s average snowfall of 148cm (58 inches). This is an increase of more than 19 per cent over the previous record of 469cm (185 inches) set in January 2006, and a 22 per cent increase over January 1992’s record of 459cm (181 inches).
The 181 inches of snow and the 46 degrees below zero are facts. They tell us inconvenient truth.
This blog has done a great job of expressing how they take single readings and use them to average a large area. They also leave out extreems because they don’t support the dogma.
R. Gates says:
May 13, 2010 at 11:02 am
(…)
Bottom line: Big snowfalls in odd places, etc. do not in any way invalidate AGW theory, and could, depending on the other factors mentioned above, tend to validate it.
—————
Reply: So what you’re saying is that the Northern Hemisphere is an “odd place”? That designation completely obviates your hypothesis.
R. Gates says:
May 13, 2010 at 11:02 am
But Mr. Viner from CRU said 10 years ago that snowfalls would become a thing of the past. All steve is doing is poking their faces in it as they always point to a lack of snow as a sign of global warming. AGWers can’t have their cake and eat it.
No matter how the UHI and AHI or even the -M sign can affect how models and even empirical results are tabulated and correlated, the simple fact that 0C (32F) determines rain or snow is an ultimate arbiter of cold. When it snows, it is colder than when it rains….period.
These failed predictions are classic. It’s time to create the Emily Litella Award. Given to those who just don’t get it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Litella
Looks like the warmists have been hoisted on the petard of never ending snow. It’s clearly obvious to everyone. We have some NH relatives that have had enough of shoveling and wished the warm would return.
R. Gates
Please explain how warm water in the South Pacific causes record snow cover in the an unusually cold Northern Hemisphere.
OT, but here’s a nice interview in The Examiner with Willie Soon, Harvard Astrophysicist:
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m5d11-Harvard-astrophysicist-dismisses-AGW-theory-challenges-peers-to-take-back-climate-science
Jeff L
Tamino insists that winter snow cover probably has been declining, but he just can’t prove it statistically yet. Perhaps he just needs a more powerful computer.
Another possibility is that the front half of his horse ran off, and the other half has been contributing to his research.
DirkH says:
“So Mr. Gates, your opinion about the connection between high temperature and snowfall seems to collide with the opinion of Dr. David Viner, expert senior climatologic scientist researcher of the CRU. Who should we poor skeptics believe now? Is it maybe that the lack of snow as well as plentiful snowfall both confirm AGW?”
—————————
Much like the “Arctic will be ice free by 2013” prediction, made by ONE scientist, specific predictions of lower or higher snowfall because of AGW are irresponsible and unsupportable. If AGW theory is correct, generally we’ll see more and less rainfall/snowfall– depending on where you happen to be talking about. The essential point is that there will be more climate extremes as the climate changes from the fairly stable conditions that homo sapiens have enjoyed.
My general point about snowfall is that it takes a lot of heat to make snow, and in general, colder means dryer. If the winters turn to colder and dryer for a period of a few decades, and the ocean heat content falls during the same period, I would say it would be a big hit on AGWT. But 2009-2010 have not been colder years, the ocean heat content (which dictates the evaporation of much of the moisture to create all that lovely snow) has been at record high levels as well. The last few years have been warm (based on global temps and ocean heat content) and wet (in terms of snowfall), and both are perfectly in line with AGWT.
Overall though, Steve is right how silly it is for any scientist to make specific near-term predictions about snowfall or sea ice extent based on AGW models.
rbateman says:
May 13, 2010 at 10:50 am
Which is more important: Why the pressure cells get stuck when the Sun goes quiet or the effects of the stuck pressure cells?
By the same reason there strong winds on Neptune (cold winds, btw):
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060322sprite.htm
nednead
Did Katrina cover the entire Northern Hemisphere for a decade? I must have missed that.
I wonder if R.Gates is self aware enough to know what an object of risibility he is? At any rate, I’m grateful for the comic relief. Which will no doubbt continue even if most of the northern hemisphere is covered by an ice sheet.
By the way, January-March 2010 was the coldest three month period in Florida since modern record keeping began.
nednead, May 13, 2010 at 12:20 pm,
What is being observed is natural climate variability. Unless the observed fluctuations exceed past temperature parameters, or unless a testable hypothesis can be provided showing a direct connection between human emitted CO2 and global temperatures, the alarmist crowd doesn’t even have a hypothesis, they simply have a conjecture.
R. Gates
“Big snowfalls in odd places, etc. do not in any way invalidate AGW theory…”
Do you mean this winter and the USA, Europe, Russia, China etc? Now that’s odd!
nednead says:
May 13, 2010 at 12:20 pm
” Interesting how he completely ignores the fact that the Arctic was very warm this winter and interesting too how he doesn’t want to address the recent rapid pace of decline in Arctic sea ice extent. Wonder how he plans to gloss over the recent decline…should be a entertaining read…”
You only have to look at the quoted records set posted on this thread to see how severe this winter was in most regions. How often do you see such amounts of Sea Ice aroun N. Korea? If there is any GHC effect, it would have no influence at all on the magnitude of the completely natural phenomena of last winter. Here are the Arctic temperatures; http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
fairly average till March.
stevengoddard says:
May 13, 2010 at 12:36 pm
R. Gates
Please explain how warm water in the South Pacific causes record snow cover in the an unusually cold Northern Hemisphere.
————
First Steve, snow cover and as you put it “unusually cold” Northern Hemisphere are two different issues…resulting from at least two different cyclical climate events. Snowfall isn’t caused by cold, and the cold we saw in SOME part of the N. Hemisphere was the result of the multiple rounds of very negative AO index that we saw, where high pressure over N. Greenland and other parts of the Arctic shunted cold air directly south, so that we had snow in Florida etc., while at the same time we saw very very warm temps in those same places in the arctic where the cold air was being forced out of. But we’ve talked about this over and over again here on WUWT, and you know it well.
In term of moisture, we had a strong El Nino this winter, and much of that moisture that eventually fell as snow came from the tropical and subtropical regions where it was especially warm. So, when you combine a negative AO index (the cold air) with El Nino (the warmth and moisture)…Guess what you get?!
BTW, overall, the N. Hemisphere winter was not all that cold, but it just so happened that much of the cold occurred over populated areas while the Arctic enjoyed mild and even warm conditions.