From the Independent, March 20th, 2000:
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. 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.
According to reports I’ve read, that is the Independent’s most viewed story of the past 10 years. It has become the modern equivalent of the famous “Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus“.
Now, for the second year in a row, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales is covered with snow. Meanwhile, AGW proponents like George Monbiot are furiously spinning to make it look like AGW causes more snow, rather than less, as the CRU scientist said 10 years ago.
(Update) WUWT commenter Murray Grainger writes:
The very same Independent has already published the rebuttal:
Expect more extreme winters thanks to global warming, say scientists
It isn’t working. Give it up kids.
I was alerted in Tips and Notes to this image from sat24.com by WUWT reader Joel Heinrich, but found an even better one from the Aqua satellite. See below.
Here is the image from the AQUA satellite, as you can see, except for a small part in the Southwest, snow is everywhere.
Click image to enlarge.
The image above has been cropped and annotated. Original source here
See last year’s image here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How about this? I have a theory that if I flip a coin, it will come up heads or tails. No matter what happens, my theory is right.
Here’s the AGW theory: (evil) mankind is burning more and more fuel, and making more and more CO2, which will irrevocably alter the climate and reach a tipping point where we cannot stop it, and we all die. If temperatures go up or down, or there is more or less snow cover, and polar ice increases or decreases, then it proves AGW. Now, shut up and hand over the $$$Billions that we promise to give a tiny bit to the 3rd world.
onion says:
December 24, 2010 at 11:10 am
“a very rare and exciting event”
So far it is. Since 2000 it has snowed very rarely, while the last 3 winters are exceptions (actually I am not so sure about the first of those 3 I recall it only snowing for a week or so), we have seen hardly any snow in the UK since 2000.
Sorry to disagree, but we arrived in London in Oct 2001 and when we, as antipodeans, enquired about a white Christmas were told, “It never snows in London.”
Well it is now 2010 and snow has lain on the ground EVERY winter between 2001 and 2010. Maybe not much and maybe not for long some years but we have not missed a snowy winter yet and we are in the middle of the biggest UHI in the country.
Re Latitude: “Since we now know that CO2 causes colder weather, shouldn’t we be increasing CO2?”
The idea of reducing CO2 emissions is to stop tampering with the climate, just let nature do what nature is going to do.
The only problem with the missing sea ice –> cold European winters theory is, that Kara/Barents sea extent is about normal.
Re jorgekafkazar:
That’s the opposite of my point. My point is that man-made global warming is not dependent on what UK winters do. What we have here is one theory and two hypotheses:
Theory: Man-made global warming
Hypothesis #1: Global warming will result in warmer UK winters
Hypothesis #2: Global warming will result in colder UK winters
If UK winters warm then hypothesis #2 is falsified. If UK winters cool then hypothesis #1 is falsified. So something does get falsified, but not the theory. The theory is not dependent on either hypothesis. It would be illogical to claim the theory is falsified because one of those hypotheses have been falsified.
Additionally of course neither of those hypotheses have yet been falsified.
it’s been a year when the insanity of the MSM advocacy of CAGW has been exposed like never before… and how tacky it is:
23 Dec: NYT Blog: Justin Gillis: Climate Change and ‘Balanced’ Coverage
In fact, as Dr. Alley (Richard B. Alley of the Pennsylvania State University) reminds anyone who will listen, and as he recently told a Congressional committee, the estimate of 5 or 6 degrees is actually mildly optimistic. Computer programs used to forecast future climate show it as the most likely outcome from a doubling of carbon dioxide, but those programs also show substantial probabilities that the warming will be much greater.
The true worst case from doubled carbon dioxide is closer to 18 or 20 degrees of warming, Dr. Alley said — an addition of heat so radical that it would render the planet unrecognizable to its present-day inhabitants.
Dr. Alley calls the usual news media presentation of the issue a form of “false balance.” In his view, mainstream climate science should be seen as coming down on the conservative side of a range of numbers that runs from 2 degrees to 20 degrees. And in setting public policy, he said, lawmakers need to entertain the possibility that any of these numbers is correct…
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/climate-change-and-balanced-coverage/
onion says on December 24, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Let’s be more specific. Which human activity? Sex? Breathing? What?
Secondly, scientists deal in mechanisms. Tell us about the mechanism. Please be specific.
Onion:
So what does “within a few years” mean? In most languages it’d be less than 10. Here we are 10 years later, and the winters have become snowier, and colder.
Viner simply got it completely wrong.
Moonbat’s AGW Progress Report: Not Weather Underground.
There’s heat in that water, no? That’s where the warmistas hide the heat.
It’s not fair.
…-
“Water temperature in pipes to homes reaches record low today (Friday)”
“THE TEMPERATURE of water going to people’s homes today (Christmas Eve) from reservoirs in London and the Thames Valley is the coldest on record.
According to Thames Water, due to sustained freezing weather since November, the water has cooled down to a “staggeringly chilly” 1.8 degrees Celsius – far below the comparatively balmy Christmas Eve average of 7.3 degrees.
The previous coldest recorded December 24 water temperature was 4.9 degrees, in 2001.
A spokeswoman for the company, Becky Johnson, said this was “a big problem” for Britain’s biggest water supplier.
“Whenever water below five degrees Celsius enters the company’s 20,000-mile network of supply mains, there is always a marked increase in bursts and leaks,” said Ms Johnson.
“This is because cold water makes the pipes, especially the century-old cast-iron ones, contract and this can make them break if there are hairline weaknesses.”
At this time of year Thames Water would normally expect to receive 75 new leak reports a day but it is currently getting nearly 300.
Jerry White, Thames Water’s head of operational control, sai it was the coldest start to a winter anyone at the company could remember, including staff with 40 years’ service.”
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=15480
“and there are rival, but less accepted, theories that it will get colder.”
=================================================
Who decided that they were less accepted?
There’s too many people with dogs in the fight, I’m sure it was the ones that said it would get warmer…………..
Re Richard Sharpe:
“Let’s be more specific. Which human activity?”
There’s a good graph here of the main human activities contributing:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html
“Secondly, scientists deal in mechanisms. Tell us about the mechanism.”
I recommend this:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
re Latitude:
“Who decided that they were less accepted?”
No-one decided it, it just is that way. The hypothesis in the Independent story is put forward by the researchers who did that study. Furthermore they might not be 100% behind it only offering it as a suggestion. There’s not a great deal of people coming out and saying “this looks true”.
“””Peter H says:
December 24, 2010 at 9:25 am
It’s been gloriously cold, sunny here today, in Devon, SW England, crisped snow lies on the ground glittering in the Sun and tonight is likely to be *extremely* cold. And, I don’t deny that reality (or the recent years of warm weather) for a second.
I also know what the global temperature trend is…”””
And Urban Leprechaun says:
And I am here in Devon, England, too, and it is taking all my driving skills to get home, a half mile of single track, slightly uphill, and smoothed to icy glass by my neighbour’s tractor. Seriously cold. -6C outside. So cold a fox ate my bird food.
BUT, I do not see this as the end of climate change. I see it as being the result of the wind coming from the north east for ten days. Look out the window! NE wind.
“The North wind will blow
And we shall have snow.”
(A doggerel taught to wee school kids in England)
onion says:
December 24, 2010 at 1:03 pm
That’s the opposite of my point. My point is that man-made global warming is not dependent on what UK winters do.
============================================
Since that UK winter has now sucked in most of the northern hemisphere, most of the southern hemisphere including all of Australia…….
Since we now know that CO2 causes it to get colder too, how much is too much, how much is too little. How in this world are we going to jiggle it so the temperature stays exactly on that thin little “normal” line?
Since the last decade was obviously a fluke and it’s getting colder fast, shouldn’t we start increasing CO2? Then we don’t know how much? Too much and we can have run away global warming, or run away ice age, where’s the tipping point?
The whole object of the game seems to be controlling the weather/climate, like we had some thermostat. It has even been compared to the dial on a radio, exactly like a thermostat.
I’m enjoying watching onion spin and spin and spin….
onion: That’s the opposite of my point. My point is that man-made global warming is not dependent on what UK winters do. What we have here is one theory and two hypotheses…
But to be a proper scientific theory, it must make predictions that can be verified or falsified. Here’s what the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I: Chapter 11 had to say about Europe:
Those sound a lot like a predictions to me, with all the “very likely” stuff. Do you simply demote failed predictions to mere hypotheses? Is it like Ghostbusters where an inconvenient rule becomes more like a guideline?
Oh do stop this “it’s cold in England” stuff, as if this puts the boot into ACC.
It’s f*cking boiling in Greenland right now. The polar bears are lathering on the sun-cream and sitting at the poolside drinking pina coladas.
This is Newton. First (?) Law, can’t destroy energy – or no such thing as a free lunch. The energy has to go somewhere. And it’s gone to Greenland.
onion says:
December 24, 2010 at 1:03 pm
What we have here is one theory and two hypotheses:
Theory: Man-made global warming
Hypothesis #1: Global warming will result in warmer UK winters
Hypothesis #2: Global warming will result in colder UK winters
Ah, I see your problem: You think manmade warming is a theory. Sorry, but it never got beyond the phase of a conjecture, based on extremely weak evidence (models are not evidence, by the way).
Both of your “hypotheses” are therefor complete nonsense.
The truth is that the natural, completely unremarkable warming which took place since the end of the LIA, and which has been on hiatus the past decade or so did result in slightly warmer winters. It appears now, however that the natural warming phase may in fact have turned to a cooling phase, which will likely be with us for at least several decades. Indeed, there is evidence for a return to LIA conditions by mid-century.
onion says:
December 24, 2010 at 1:37 pm
No-one decided it, it just is that way.
==================================================
onion, did you believe in global warming 10 years ago?
If you did, was it because you believed that scientists knew what they were doing 10 years ago?
Do you think that those scientists believed that they knew what they were doing because it looked like the temperature of the planet was actually increasing a little bit?
Now that the climate has not cooperated with their theory, do you still believe that they know what they are talking about?
John Hultquist:
I seem to remember from the dim distant geography lessons of my youth that the west coast of the UK is rising and the east coast is falling – something to do with the tectonic plates – unless someone else knows better!
Re Latitude:
“Since we now know that CO2 causes it to get colder too, how much is too much, how much is too little. How in this world are we going to jiggle it so the temperature stays exactly on that thin little “normal” line?”
The idea is to leave nature alone. Artificially elevating CO2 levels to 390ppm and rising is not a wise move. It will have knock on effects and the higher it goes the more risk there is.
The desire isn’t to control climate, we can’t, we don’t even understand it well enough. The plan is to not interfere with it (especially given that we don’t understand it well enough!)
This is what I told Monbiot in the Guardian comments and was rewarded with a prompt ban. I told him to grow up and admit he got it wrong. By the way there are over 1,600 comments from his article. Sceptics poured cold water all over him and his latest pet theory that attempts to explain why warming is in fact cooling. My only question is if we start to get a run of milder winters would it falsify AGW. 😉
“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. ”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Science requires that a theory on climate can make predictions and is judged on its eventual skill level. Science requires that a theory can be falsified. Ten years ago non of the GCMs predicted cooling in winter. AGW now has TWO conflicting positions regarding winter cold and snow in the northern hemisphere. This is not science but religion.
——————-
June 4, 1999
“Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990604081638.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399452a0.html
March 2000
“Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
—————————
Nov. 17, 2010
“Global Warming Could Cool Down Northern Temperatures in Winter”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117114028.htm
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013568
December 2010
“Expect more extreme winters thanks to global warming, say scientists”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/expect-more-extreme-winters-thanks-to-global-warming-say-scientists-2168418.html
—————————
Failed AGW Predictions And Forecasts
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
onion says:
December 24, 2010 at 12:56 pm
“The idea of reducing CO2 emissions is to stop tampering with the climate, just let nature do what nature is going to do.”
OK Onion. You stop breathing first.
Gordon Bennet.