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
It seems that there is a concerted effort in several countries (lead by the IPCC?) to try to convince the general public that the current cold winter is caused by global warming, sorry, climate disruption. The same theme in the UK, Germany and now in Belgium too by Peter Tom Jones (IPCC connected) and several others. Interesting to see that no direct comments are allowed on this theme in the different media, probably out of fear that there would be too many sarcastic reactions…
See http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=GS7341PSQ (in Dutch). Title: It’s all the fault of climate change
LazyTeenager says:
December 24, 2010 at 11:52 pm
within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
—————–
Well considering that no one has seen snow in the UK for a while and that now we have had snow it’s seems we have proof that:
A. Snow falls are rare.
B. Everyone is excited by it,
I say Viner’s prediction is spot on.
But 3 years in a row is not rare and I can’t see the travellers stuck in airports being too excited.
And why if it is consistant with AGW was it not forecast by the senior AGW modelers in the MET but was by weather forecasters who do not follow AGW.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Actually call me a cynic but I have a different take, I think the media is trying to discredit climate change with these articles by by pushing a complex idea that they know readers won’t buy.
Cold causes warm???! omg that’s nonsense!
The articles all imply that scientists have changed their mind, there’s no mention that the sea ice loss -> colder winters is a hypothesis put forward by only a few scientists.
Even though of course the cited mechanism is entirely reasonable. It’s not however
Re Latitude
December 24, 2010 at 7:10 pm
“onion, do you really believe that those are big numbers? An increase of 100ppm?”
Yes! But not because 100 is a big number but because 280ppm to 390ppm is a 40% increase and that’s happened so fast! While CO2 has increased by 40% throughout history it isn’t known to have done so in just a few centuries. There really is no good comparison with the past to ensure these changes are safe.
“I’ve seem past recreations of CO2 levels that were around 3000ppm.”
Sure, but as per above it’s the change that matters, including the rate. A corresponding situation would be CO2 levels increasing from 2100ppm to 3000ppm within a few centuries. Even then it’s important for the purpose f comparison that the 2100ppm world is similar to the modern one.
Sadly this isn’t the case. When CO2 was 2100ppm this was long ago before our species even existed, even before chimpanzees and apes existed, before grass existed. Long long ago. Comparison with the modern day changes are stretched to breaking point even overlooking the rate.
“And guess what?
The planet crashed into another ice age…………..”
I thought most of the periods of glaciation are associated with low CO2 levels. Remember also that in the past the Sun was fainter according to the standard solar model, so everything else being equal the Sun should have been cooler, which allows for CO2 to be much higher than present without temperature being particularly higher.
“Don’t worry over how fast it has increased, the planet doesn’t care, and 200 years is plenty of time to see if it had any effect.
It obviously didn’t………….”
It’s very important how fast it has increased, in fact a 40% increase over a million years would be irrelevant. Plenty of time for various sytems to adapt – like species and ocean chemistry. But cram that 40% increase into just 200 years and well…this is the untested experiment we are running.
Re sHx
December 24, 2010 at 7:40 pm:
The theory can be falsified, just not by falsifying either of those two hypotheses.
Re Paul Coppin:
“Actually, we have tons of literature on injecting CO2 into an atmosphere. Even at levels as high as 1000ppm. No warming, no deleterious effects to speak of – commerical greenhouse growers have been doing it for ages… There’s even some literature online…”
Not into *the* atmosphere though. A commercial greenhouse doesn’t contain oceans and millions of species or 6 billion humans.
Onion says:
December 25, 2010 at 2:42 am
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
The articles all imply that scientists have changed their mind, there’s no mention that the sea ice loss -> colder winters is a hypothesis put forward by only a few scientists.
Even though of course the cited mechanism is entirely reasonable. It’s not however
Knowing the attitude of the media (near all pro-AGW), I suppose that the article was meant to be serious. But I don’t think that the general public will buy it.
While the mechanism of more snow from open waters is reasonable, the bitter cold isn’t. Early winters in this century were cool and wet, mostly with prevailing SW winds (with positive NAO), last winters were cold and snowy with more winds from N and NE (negative NAO).
The current solar minimum may be involved, as at solar minimum the jet stream positions are more equatorward, which makes that the polar highs have more room to reach the mid-latitudes. At the same time, rain patterns increase precipitation in the Mediterranean area and other more southern latitudes.
Realclimate
Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?
Alec Rawls says:
10 August 2005 at 2:04 AM
Nice post, but the conclusion: “… solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming,” would seem to be a non-sequitur.
What matters is not the trend in solar activity but the LEVEL. It does not have to KEEP going up to be a possible cause of warming. It just has to be high, and it has been since the forties.
Presumably you are looking at the modest drop in temperature in the fifties and sixties as inconsistent with a simple solar warming explanation, but it doesn’t have to be simple. Earth has heat sinks that could lead to measured effects being delayed, and other forcings may also be involved. The best evidence for causality would seem to be the long term correlations between solar activity and temperature change. Despite the differences between the different proxies for solar activity, isn’t the overall picture one of long term correlation to temperature?
[Response: You are correct in that you would expect a lag, however, the response to an increase to a steady level of forcing is a lagged increase in temperature and then a asymptotic relaxation to the eventual equilibirum. This is not what is seen. In fact, the rate of temperature increase is rising, and that is only compatible with a continuing increase in the forcing, i.e. from greenhouse gases. – gavin]
===========================================================
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/reconstructedTSI.jpg
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/irradiance.gif
For me, the evidence above is clear, a ramp up of TSI from around 1900 and then a steady high from 1940 to 2000 leading to the slightly higher temperatures we see today, no room for CO2. Now the sun is quite and it`s cold, while CO2 still increases.
Gavins response is utter rubbish if the two graphs above are correct.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/
@Kate
The BBC appear to have edited that article – they are now saying ‘coldest since 1910‘ – interesting because other UK news providers (such as Sky) appear to have stuck with 1850.
Let us assume that the AGW proponents are right. Warmer northpole gives colder winters in Europe and Amerika. That means that warmer north pole will result in a far higher albedo in areas that actually are on lower latitude, which refects far more sunlight then areas on higher latitude. Also, snow cools the atmosphere drmatically, as anyone can notice once you have a clear frost night over fresh fallen snow. That means that snowy winters will function as a very strong negative feedback.
Now it seems to me you AGW proponents have managed themselves in an odd corner. Either they are spinning this winter, which means they practice politics rather then science, or they have just proven that the climate has a strong negative feedback, which would be a refute of doom predictions.
Keeling cherry picked this 280 ppm figure for CO2, he was against coal in the fledgling environmentalist movement. He then put his measuring stick on top of the worlds most active volcano surrounded by active volcanoes, pumping out CO2 with great abandon. He then claimed that from that massive production of CO2 he could accurately and to fine degree extract ‘background’ CO2 wafting over this hotbed of CO2 production from ‘pristine air’ travelling to Hawaii across the Pacific, mixed up though it is with all the weather system of Hawaii.
How good’s your BS metre? I don’t think it needs to be fine tuned at all to pick out the absurdity of such a claim. His steady rise of ‘global CO2’ continued inexorably through all the highs and lows of the following decades of temperature changes. ‘Nough said.
Oh, bit more. The levels the Keeling Curve are now reaching are about ‘average’ in all the studies in the centuries done to the date of his cherry picking, and current studies are no different. Cherry picking the hall mark of bad science, AGWScience has become expert in this. His son has control of these data, from Mauna Loa and from the other sites used to continue faking to Keeling’s agenda.
So no need to worry about such a steep percentage rise, so quickly, it isn’t there. The more that’s produced the more it comes down to earth where plants eat it.
Anthony I hope you are enjoying your break.
To be picky it’s the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (plus Ireland, an independent country, of course) mostly covered by snow. Scotland and Wales are part of Great Britain geographically (and politically too for the last few hundred years). (Wales since 1282, Scotland since 1707 after that unfortunate business in Darien)
“Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning about snow</i)?"
Fixed that for ya, geedubya!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushism#Education
[?]
Onion – some background on the Keeling cherry picking: http://newsbuster.org/node/12737
..the only anthropogenic global warming I see is in the rise of hot air from the exponential increase in AGWScience from cooking the books.
A fraction of the CO2 production in the atmosphere above the Hawaiian islands, nice pics: http://www.travellady.com/Articles/article-volcano.html
Mauna Loa, the largest active volcano in the world: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/maunaloa.html
Thousands of earthquakes a year Hawaiian islands: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/earthquakes/ and http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitorying/anss/regions/hi/
Onions says:
While CO2 has increased by 40% throughout history it isn’t known to have done so in just a few centuries. There really is no good comparison with the past to ensure these changes are safe.
This is the classic, childish “better-safe-than-sorry” CAGW stance. Spending trillions on a fear that “something” might happen is idiotic. The antidote to fear is knowledge, but obviously, True Believers like Onions aren’t interested, preferring to wallow in what is little more than a superstition.
The “Independent” rebuttal is hilarious! It’s falling apart and they are starting to
dance like cats on hot bricks.
This summer on the sea ice threads I pointed out once or twice that a larger area of open sea in the Arctic – combined with well below average summer Arctic air temperatures – results in a big increase in heat loss from Arctic ocean to air / space. I used the analogy of a dog hanging its tongue out and panting to lose excess heat. In this way excess ocean heat from el Nino events ends up in the Arctic and is lost over the open Arctic seas.
However the warmists argued againt this – that instead open water had a darker colour and thus absorbed more solar photon energy. Combined with reduced albedo from decreased ice cover, low ice extent was argued to add heat to the oceans.
Now someone is doing a 180 turn and accepting that low ice extent combined with low air temperature causes ocean heat loss – just to provide a narrative to “explain” the
freezing NH winters while preserving AGW.
Increaingly the public will recognise this for what it is – as Scientist for Truth eloquently put it – the religion of charlatans.
peeke says on December 25, 2010 at 5:40 am
You are correct …
I can see the next set of statements that will be issued:
No trend visible over the past decade. Just aks Dr. Jones.
Yet ppm of over 4,000 did not lead to runaway. I’m prepared to stare at the headlights and not run. Are you? ;>)
The caption from the Independent article reads as follows:
“Some experts believe the Arctic ice cap will disappear completely in summer months within 20 to 30 years”
In an effort to be “fair & balanced” maybe it should read:
Some experts believe the Arctic ice cap will disappear completely in summer months within 20 to 30 years. Other experts believe that’s hogwash!
I think I will not read the comments on WUWT until Onion has gone back to school.
During the last colder winter period for CENTRAL ENGLAND , UK ,namely 1962-1987 , 13 of the 26 years had average winter temperature of 4C or less. The past warm winter period of 1988-2008 had only 2 such winters , 1991 and 1996. So over the next 20-30 years snow like Uk just had the last 2 years could become a more common event . Possibly at least 50 % of the time?.
LazyTeenager says:
December 24, 2010 at 11:52 pm
within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
—————–
Well considering that no one has seen snow in the UK for a while and that now we have had snow it’s seems we have proof that:
A. Snow falls are rare.
B. Everyone is excited by it,
I say Viner’s prediction is spot on.
==================
Lazy, you’ve departed from the stock answer of “you just wait and see” and now you’re saying Viner’s prediction has already been borne out.
Noting that he said “very rare” and you settled for merely “rare”, I’m left wondering what it would take for you to disavow Viner’s putative prescience.
The great strength of CAGW as a manipulative social tool is its spectre of IMPENDING doom. Like a soufflé chef on crack so many of the faithful find themselves unable to resist yanking open the oven door to flaunt their creation.
All you can show us is some half-baked batter.
Jimbo says:
“Yet ppm of over 4,000 did not lead to runaway.”
It doesn’t have to be runaway to be a problem.
Re Bruce Cobb says:
December 25, 2010 at 7:20 am:
Onions says:
While CO2 has increased by 40% throughout history it isn’t known to have done so in just a few centuries. There really is no good comparison with the past to ensure these changes are safe.
——-
This is the classic, childish “better-safe-than-sorry” CAGW stance. Spending trillions on a fear that “something” might happen is idiotic. The antidote to fear is knowledge, but obviously, True Believers like Onions aren’t interested, preferring to wallow in what is little more than a superstition.
————–
That’s a fair argument. I am not saying that reducing CO2 emissions is safe. I am saying that increasing CO2 emissions at the rate we are is dangerous (both can be dangerous, they are not mutually exclusive). There are no reassurances from the past that what we are doing is safe. Maybe we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.