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.
Mailman says:
May 13, 2010 at 10:48 am
“This past winter has seen snow in north America…
…. my observations I noted that winter in the UK wax pretty bloody cold BUT according to the warmists it wasn’t cold at all?
Who do we trust? What was observed or what NASA et al measured?”
____________________________________________________________________
First remember the satellite data is taken well above ground level. Anyway, I asked that question of Dr Spencer (and Bob Tisdale) back in the beginning of the year. If I remember their answers correctly you have to look at the relationship between the ocean and the troposphere temp. A higher troposphere temp. means the oceans are loosing more heat to space and the net heat in the oceans is decreasing The same with hot sea surface temps. The ocean is dumping heat to the atmosphere. (note the article “The decrease in upper ocean heat content from March to April was 1C – largest since 1979″)
It is not quite that simple, since you are looking at a huge system with multiple inputs and loses. Just looking at the very rough estimate of the “global surface temp.” really tells you very little. You have to look at it as a system and where the energy is coming from and going to.
Bob Tisdale says:
February 4, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Gail Combs: You wrote, “…if I understand this correctly from Bob Tisdale the warmer sea surface actually translates into a DROP in the ocean heat content.”
For the tropical Pacific that’s true. An El Nino event releases heat from the tropical Pacific, and the La Nina event replaces it. Here’s the most current version from a post I should have up tomorrow morning:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2nut183.png
But globally, OHC and SST can and does rise at the same time. Over the last three decades they both have risen.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/04/january-uah-global-temperature-warmest/
Schweinsgruber, all you have to offer are straw man arguments, bluster, and bafflegab.
To wit: when somebody within the large scientific community makes a mistake, cherry pickers take this as proof that the whole large body of science is wrong because of a conspiracy. -straw man
Your 5 “definitions” of Alarmists – straw men
And of course the classic “weather is not climate” straw man.
The purpose of your link is unclear, but judging from the snarky comments including yours I suspect an ad hominem motive. I have never heard of Norm Kalmanovitch, and frankly have no interest in what he has to say.
Your mustard gas comment was priceless. Thanks for the laugh.
Mike
I’m guessing that USDA picks their Montana sites for a reason. But feel free to move things around however you want.
I love the comic relief that R. Gates provides. He reminds me of Monty Python’s Black Knight.
Schrodinger’s Cat says:
May 13, 2010 at 12:10 pm
“It is very sad that these scientists are churning out the same old tired cliches. …. 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.”
_____________________________________________________________________
They are protecting their paycheck, that trumps honesty every time except in rare cases (or retirees.) Others like Al Gore are promoting a world government but know people will be opposed to it so they hide the necessary world wide tax and regulations in “global warming” rhetoric. There may be some true believers out there still but by now they are few and far between at least in the top science ranks.
1DandyTroll says at 4:17 pm: That doesn’t make sense since drier air, weather, climate means less snow to boot, so the drier the “climate” the less it snows, the less it snows, or rains, the whooping longer it would take to make a dent of a difference, i.e. it would frakking show up like orange in the climate blah blah. … all that other crap… all that crap… all that shite… However you did manage to not answer any questions. …
Dandy, Dandy, Dandy. Watch your language please. I did answer your question in a considerate manner. Sry if you don’t like the answer, but try to be nice.
Let me try again. When it is warm there are more clouds. That means a brighter albedo. That causes the globe to cool off. It doesn’t happen overnight, Dandy. It takes years and years. Millennia, even. But eventually, the globe cools. And it continues to cool because the cooling is self-reinforcing, in part due to the continental ice which has a bright albedo. Also the globe cools due to diminishing insolation (not insulation, insolation — look it up) and diminishing water vapor in the atmosphere.
And in fact the globe has been cooling for the last 6,000 to 9,000 years. You can look that up, too.
Why has the globe been cooling? In part due to insolation decline, but also due to increased albedo. There are more areas of snow and ice today than there were 6,000 to 9,000 years ago. We know this because glacial melt waters contain organic matter from the vegetation that grew in those watersheds 6,000 to 9,000 years ago (when the glaciers weren’t there).
And yes, there is less precipitation today in many areas, and consequently more deserts than there were 6,000 to 9,000 years ago.
Furthermore, the globe is going to continue to cool, despite increased CO2, because CO2 doesn’t make much of a difference. The principal greenhouse gas is water vapor, and as water vapor declines, so do temperatures. And as temperatures decline, so does water vapor. That’s called positive feedback.
It’s a vicious circle leading to cooling and more cooling. There will be fits and starts, because insolation is not going to decline smoothly. There are going to be some slight upswings as the various orbital mechanics interact. But generally speaking, the pathway is downhill.
It will be another 80,000 to 90,000 years until the global temperature decline bottoms out and suddenly reverses itself, and the globe warms quickly into the next interglacial period. That sudden shift will be due to greatly increased insolation acting on the continental albedo which will have grown sooty and darkened. Evaporation and water vapor will increase and the globe will warm dramatically. Then almost immediately the cooling cycle will begin again.
That’s how it’s been for the last 1.8 million years. I don’t think anything human beings can or will do is going to change that. Maybe we will, but we have to be a lot smarter and understand that warmer is better, not worser, for the greater good of the planet.
REPLY: Phil, I’ll explain it for you. As a publicly funded professor at a major university who is too timid to put his name to his words, who uses a university email address and IP infrasturcture, and often posts inflammatory comments, all your posts automatically go to the penalty box along with SPAM for examination. When they are examined they get released.
Want more respect? Want to get out of the penalty box reserved for weasels on the public dole that are always critical but too cowardly to criticize on the same open level? Then have the courage to put you name to your words like I do every day and I’ll elevate you. Otherwise stop your whining. – Anthony Watts
For your information my post is not publicly funded and am not therefore on the ‘public dole’ as you put it, my university is a private institution. My reason for not using my name has been explained to you, I do not intend to have my communication with my students and colleagues disrupted as has happened before. I note that ‘geo’, ‘jinki’, ‘Slabadang’, ‘Scott’, ‘mailman’, Fred’ et al. are not subject to the same restrictions. I do not post ‘inflammatory’ comments I just produce scientific material that you and your posters sometimes don’t like, but this is supposed to be a science blog isn’t it? I now understand that my posts are being censored, contrary to what the moderator said.
REPLY: Well, you’ll have to prove your university is totally privately funded, and that no government money whatsoever goes there. The word of an anonymous griper carries little weight.
“I do not intend to have my communication with my students and colleagues disrupted as has happened before.” Well that didn’t happen from anything here. The saying is that “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”.
Oh and you have 1392 posts here, hardly supportive of your claim of censorship. Yes, a couple of your inflammatory comments have been deleted. Your hated “Smokey” has had posts that were out of line deleted too. Stop your whining. -A
R. Gates says:
May 13, 2010 at 11:02 am
I love it when you talk about snow cover and snow in general. We know that it takes energy to produce snowfall, and specifically it takes the energy of evaporation to get all that moisture into the atmosphere, hence, Denver Colorado, where I live has the warmer months of winter as the snowiest, i.e. March, November, and April in that order.
*
*
So, let’s see now: The glaciers are caused by what again?
Yes, that’s correct: Snow, and LOTS of it. Cold summers and warm winters makes for lots of ice in the glacier places. Just ask Switzerland.
You might smug the rest of us with your smugness, but in the end it will be used to bury you.
stevegoddard @3:53pm
Climate Alarmists exhale mustard gas.
Dr. Schweinsgruber says:
May 13, 2010 at 11:23 am
I conclude: two half wits yield a dim wit!
*
*
And one dim wit —yourself— amounts to one nit wit.
Phil. May 13, 2010 at 6:13 pm:
“I now understand that my posts are being censored, contrary to what the moderator said.”
Too bad your posts are being censored, Phil…
…oh, wait…
R. Gates: “It is very easy to trace the combination of events that went into the big snows that hit the east coast this past winter. El Nino provided the heat and moisture and the negative AO really brought down the cold in a big way. Combine the two at the same time over the east coast, and you get snow and lots of it. True, this is not always the case, as other factors can also play a role. Also, none of this necessarily does or doesn’t have anything to do with AGW. El Nino and the AO have been around far longer than humans have been spewing out CO2.”
Once again you spew the extact same wrong headed information as if it wasn’t just refuted in 2 earlier posts of mine. If it is SO easy to trace what caused the snows this winter please explain how the exact same conditions produce a different effect or how the exact opposite conditions produce the same effect. Until you do that your hypothesis does not stand up.
@ur momisugly Mike D. says:
May 13, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Let me try again. When it is warm there are more clouds. That means a brighter albedo. That causes the globe to cool off. It doesn’t happen overnight, Dandy. It takes years and years. Millennia, even. But eventually, the globe cools.
————————————————————
So as the Older Dryas was the coldest part of the last Ice age sequence, we must have been building up more and more cloud over 98,000yrs yes?
Blimey, caused some pretty rapid warming that soot.
899 says:
May 13, 2010 at 6:27 pm
“Yes, that’s correct: Snow, and LOTS of it. Cold summers and warm winters makes for lots of ice in the glacier places. Just ask Switzerland.”
Correct. A temperature jump in winter causes a jump in precipitation, and a temperature drop in summer causes a jump in precipitation.
Tommy says:
May 13, 2010 at 1:29 pm
“I don’t know have to know how something happens to believe in it. I just have to witness it. I can feel and hear the difference on Texas mornings if the night was humid or dry. The humid nights somehow stay hot…”
___________________________________________________________________
You are talking about WATER, H2O, rain, fog, sleet, snow, humidity and oceans. Most of us here like Dr. Roy Spencer or Bob Tisdale or little old me, will tell you we think WATER is a real big player in our climate. Water in all its forms, not some insignificant gas called CO2.
Look at the graphs below and you can see water is the big player. The only way AGW climate types make CO2 work as a climate driver is to some how couple it with water. Sort of like tying your chihuahua dog to a aircraft carrier and saying the dog is in control of where the ship is going.
Graphs
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
http://www.freerepublic.com/~jim/
Smokey says:
May 13, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Phil. May 13, 2010 at 6:13 pm:
“I now understand that my posts are being censored, contrary to what the moderator said.”
Too bad your posts are being censored, Phil…
…oh, wait…
Those would be the ones that don’t make it here.
As you are one of those who is ‘too timid to put his name to his words’ you are presumably subject to the same restrictions.
REPLY: People like yourself who are working at publicly funded universities and who have public .edu email addresses, using publicly funded infrastructure are held to a higher standard than regular citizens here. If they are doing work on the public’s dime, and commenting here doing work hours (as you do) I have no compunction about holding them to a higher standard of transparency than regular commenters. AGW Fan boy “Eli Rabbett” who also works at a university gets the same treatment here as you do, so don’t feel like you are being singled out in the public sector.
BTW, as of this writing, you have 1392 comments on WUWT, so kindly withdraw your whining about censorship, you are in the top 10 commenters here. Clearly your post get through, but they get extra scrutiny.
I don’t have much respect for your position in this Phil, and I think your anonymous commenting here on the public dime is insulting to those of us that support universities through our taxes and donations. But you’ve got an opportunity to take the high road here, and put your name to your words. I’m betting you don’t have the character to do so.
But if you do, I’ll eat my words and apologize. Your move, public employee. -Anthony Watts
>> nednead says:
May 13, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Typical response from Steve. Now a decade of slightly more snow fall equates to non-GHG-induced warming, whereas 3 decades of sea ice reduction doesn’t mean anything to Steve. <<
To paraphrase: "Typical odd=prime denier. Now the numbers 9 and 15 equates to non-prime-numbers, where the numbers 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, and 19 don't mean anything."
Jimbo says:
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.
Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.
Seems like he was fairly accurate, of course you don’t get the same picture when only the first part is quoted.
Vuk etc. says:
May 13, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Enneagram says: May 13, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“Here comes the Girl! (La Niña) http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_enso.jsp?c=soi”
North Atlantic looks interesting too:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
__________________________________________________________________
Does anyone know if this means more or less rain for the eastern USA. I really really want some rain. 35F and 3 weeks of NO rain is not what I expect in North Carolina for spring!
Phil …
Perhaps you should cite which entries you claim never made it to this site – then this can be confirmed by Anthony et all. Because until then, I/we have no evidence one way or the other as to what you are claiming is true.
This is my real name, which I always put to my posts.
Dr. Schweinsgruber: “Weather is chaotic, making prediction difficult. However, climate takes a long term view, averaging weather out over time.”
I’d bet that climate is self-similar at all scales. This is a basic of systems exhibiting self-organized criticality. Climate is likely a chaotic system orbiting some sort of strange attractor, with that attractor being the energetic minimum in a very complex phase-space. Climate is one of Ilya Prigogines far-from-equilibrium dissipative systems, driven by continuous energy flux to a quasi-stable state.
Weather will shade into climate over longer times, but climate will exhibit as much variability as weather over characteristic time intervals. There will be many characteristic intervals. That being true, weather will never self-cancel over time to some uniform and predictable climate average. Climate itself will oscillate among micro-states (like weather) and will occasionally make larger jumps to another noticeably different quasi-stable state (i.e., ice ages & interglacials). Climate oscillations and jumps will never be predictable.
Climate models can’t even re-predict their own auto-generated pseudo-climates. Why should anyone think they can predict the climate of Earth?
Well, climate is not unlike averaging die rolls.
The only trouble is that the number of sides on the dice keeps changing. And we don’t even know from which to what.
Heck, I am a strict causalist. I don’t believe in chaos, as such (or even randomness). But climate (and the universe in general) is so incredibly complex that it appears chaotic to our very limited senses and powers of observation. And knowing it is not random is no help whatever in determining what is coming next.
If you could perceive, coordinate, and calculate every force and subatomic/molecular interaction you could predict every die roll. But you can’t, and knowing that if you had these abilities you could predict it, doesn’t help you for squat in the local craps game.
In short, this post was was predetermined billions of years ago, but I couldn’t have predicted it even ten minutes past . . .
“One thing leads to another.”
Phil…
The trouble, Phil, is that the AGW theory has been overhyped in the media, and politicians have latched onto AGW as a means of grabbing more power and tax. Also, local councils have been convinced by statements like “snow a thing of the past” and subsequently reduce their winter requirements for the aquisition and storage of snow clearing materials and equipment.
So please understand that in the real world, Phil, scientists like you and like David Viner, have the utmost reponsibility to ensure that any statements you make to the media will not be overhyped and/or misunderstood. There are agendas involved wherever humans are involved.
You are not isolated from the real world in your world of science, Phil. The real world is out there and it is happening, despite what your models are telling you. When your models tell you the world is warming and the ice is melting and the snow is decreasing, the real world spins on and outside your office/lab window, the weather – which doesn”t give a hoot what your models are saying – does what it damn well pleases. The polar ice does what it damn well pleases despite what your models are saying. Something, Phil, is wrong with your models.
Can you understand, Phil? Can you understand the exasperation of people like me, who see what scientists like you and others are saying? Can you understand that when we observe one of the snowiest Northern Hemisphere winters on record, the absurdity of the statements coming from the AGW scientists mouths?
So La Nina brings cooling? Maybe next winter will bring even more snow.
This statistic is amazing considering that El Nino brought warmth to Canada and less snow. So what will happen next year with El Nino gone now?