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.
Yes, Pamela AGW theory proposed more poleward jets and a more positive AO. They thought that the positive AO of the late 20th century was a result of AGW. See here:
http://www.agu.org/journ…/2007/2006JD008087.shtml
“The IPCC models predict a strengthening and a poleward shift of the tropospheric zonal jets in response to global warming. The change in zonal jets is also accompanied by a strengthening and a poleward and upward shift of transient kinetic energy and momentum flux. Similar changes in circulation are simulated by a simple dry general circulation model (GCM) when the height of the tropopause is raised.”
The exact opposite has now happened.
Before the AO flipped to cold, many AGW web sites heralded the fact that while the AO had undergone normal fluctuations in the past, “since the 1970’s the AO has been primarily positive” as the author speaks of the growing heat around us. And several researchers proclaimed that models showed increased radiant heating due to increased greenhouse gases led to a positive AO/NAO:
http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/jfyfe/PDF/FyfeBoerFlato1999a.pdf
But this set of papers says that the negative phase of the AO will become more extreme due to global warming.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/arctic-oscillation-ao
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/earthandsun/arctic_changes_prt.htm
So, either we will continue to freeze because AGW has pushed the Arctic pressure system to the cool phase, meaning the Arctic itself will be warmer leaving us wet, colder and buried in snow, or AGW has pushed the Arctic pressure to stay in the warm phase for longer periods of time, leaving it colder but us toastier and dry.
This site is all kinds of fun. Which way does it go? Up? Down?
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/papers-on-arctic-oscillation-and-global-warming/
Or sideways????
What is really getting crazy is Judah has an old paper saying global trends have nothing to do with either the AO or NAO.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3530.1
Thanks for those other links, Pamela. My link seems to be broken but I set out the most relevant bit.
I first noticed the cessation of the poleward drift of the jets around 2000 but did not enter the debate until about 3 years ago when I pointed out that very fact to a barrage of disbelief.
AGW theory having invested so much in the assertion that a warming world produced more zonal/poleward jets the reversal of trend has led to increasing panic and thrashing about in confusion as the reversal became more pronounced over the past ten years and especially since 2005.
Then the extended very low solar minimum has ‘coincided’ with a very negative AO.
We can also see from the records that the more positive era of AO was roughly in tune with the high solar cycles 21, 22 and 23 and that AO was generally more negative during slightly weaker cycle 20.
The exceptions to the solar fit would be occasions when opposing oceanic cycles such as ENSO affected the width of the tropical air masses from below sometimes opposing and sometimes supplementing the top down solar influence.
The jets just get bounced around between the polar and tropical air masses as the polar(solar) and oceanic influences interact.
The trend in ocean heat content will be found to be closely linked to the degree of cloudiness and global albedo and they will be found to be dictated by the behaviour of the jets at any given time.
Thus around 2003 the jets became sufficiently meridional for ocean heat content to begin to fall.
I think we now have enough persuasive evidence to diagnose what has been going on and suitable investment should be directed to that area of research.
Anyone who has been following my work over the last 3 years will know exactly which parameters need to be investigated most urgently.
Needless to say AGW had nothing to do with those poleward shifts and had nothing significant to contribute to the present situation either.
Similarly the evidence is becoming overwhelming that there is some sort of top down effect on the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere which appears to correspond to changes in the mix of wavelengths and particles as the level of solar activity varies.
In a sense it is primarily a matter of internal system variability BUT such internal variability is provoked by small external changes. An internal amplifier no less.
The amplification arises from albedo changes as the jets switch between polar/zonal and equatorward/meridional behaviour. The former produces significantly less global cloud cover than the latter as evidenced by the Earthshine project which reveals a change in trend for both albedo and cloudiness in the late 90s which is around the same time that the poleward shift of the jets went into reverse.
I don’t think that this is good news for Svensmark either. On that basis the cosmic ray variations would just be a proxy for solar variability with no necessary climate effect although there may be some.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
Dec 25, 1:12pm
while Mauna Loa is at the flanks of an active volcano, the CO2 measurements that are influenced by the outgassing (+4ppmv) are not used to calculate the averages. …
While I don’t for one moment doubt that the measurements taken at these stations are done with integrity, I recall a piece on WUWT some time ago that discussed this when there was a computer malfunction of some kind on Mauna Loa, I have no reason to think that a) the initial premise is sound methodology and b) that the results from all stations are not as creatively adjusted later as has been shown time and again with AGW organised temperature data.
A) begins with choice of site. “Pristine” as touted by AGWScience is described as being away from ‘local sources of production of CO2, as from industry’, to eliminate contamination of the data which is attempting to measure this so-call “background” CO2 level.
How is Mauna Loa set among amid its massive CO2 producing surroundings, as I’ve described above in my last post to Onion, not indicative of a non-“pristine” environment, therefore, not fit for purpose?
That they keep calling it a “pristine” site for “background CO2” measurements is simply promoting a lie by their own standards of what is “pristine”. Most people hearing this simply believe it, why shouldn’t they? Most people don’t even make the association with Mauna Loa being an active volcano. Why not? Well, I think mainly because there is so much information from the AGWScience agenda in so many and various fields of science, that it simply gets lost in the noise. This applies as much to antis as pros, just as antis simply assume that CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere, and so on. So even the antis take as fact that Mauna Loa is a suitable place for measurements even when they know that it is an active volcanic spot, because they’re told it is. Because it is promoted as being “pristine”, its height etc., and told a whole slew of measurement parameters are in place ‘to exclude local production of CO2 and only capture what is coming, supposedly again, “untainted” in the wind across the Pacific.’
As an example of uncritical belief in the promotion of “pristine” – http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2010/01/21/the-real-uncertainties-about-climate-change-and-why-antarctica-may-have-the-answers/
Someone actually visiting and being told that there are only two places on earth with pristine air for measurement of CO2 – Mauna Loa and Antarctica. He believes it, unquestioningly. The phial of Antarctic air he is given to hold he is told is “the cleanest air on Earth”, has 385 ppm CO2 in it, he says that 200 years ago this would have been 280. Has he made any effort to check? If he had he would soon have noticed how disputed this is. Has he asked what it was in the 50’s when Keeling first began measuring it there?
Let’s take a look at some well established science of measuring CO2 in the history of this prior Keeling: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
‘Physiography: An Introduction to the Study of Nature’ by TH Huxley published in 1885, where typical values converted to ppm are generally from 327 to 380. The measurements were carried out by Angus Smith and are originally given in his book ‘Air and Rain’ published in 1872. (The 327 ppm recording was taken on top of Ben Nevis, Britain’s highest mountain at some 4000 feet).
I’d say Ben Nevis would qualify as a “pristine” site, high among clean air in a country still mainly sheep from the Highland Clearances, and a reading of 327. What measurement did Keeling actually find at the Antarctic? I haven’t been able to find any contemporary published material. But look at the ranges in these studies, with already higher than Keeling’s cherry picked base line, with levels in the 1800’s which are already at Mauna Loa’s present pristine site supposedly showing extraordinary levels from the rise in industrial production.
So, how exactly are these local levels excluded? By deciding what the figure for “background” should be without them and then excluding everything that doesn’t fit their choice. Their choice of what it should be. (This is the key point here which leads us to B, later down the page.)
The measurements at the South Pole even started before these of Mauna Loa.
Keeling again. As above, why should I believe Keeling’s measurements if he thought going to a heavily CO2 producing area on a volcano would be a great idea to measure “pristine” air?
Back to Mauna Loa. There is no way that they can prove that the figure they end up with is not solely from the local production.
Sometimes the local production is greater than at other times. Excluding high amounts of it and simply calling the lower figures “background”, does not make it this “background from across the Pacific”. It is still local, what’s left from having travelled higher into the atmosphere with the winds and heat, taking longer to descend, perhaps. The “background” from across the Pacific might well be adding to it, but from their measuring sticks in the position they are this is impossible to differentiate.
From one of your site links: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/ Observatory Measurements. To obtain detailed understanding of both the short term and long term variations of greenhouse gases, on-site measurements are made at four of the NOAA.ESRL baseline observatories, which are far from any pollution sources affecting the gases of interest.
Following that link gives us the four stations, one of which is Mauna Loa. If Mauna Loa was really “far from any pollution sources affecting the gases of interest”, why would all the complicated parameters to exclude local production of CO2 be necessary?
Looking at the graph, Mauna Loa even by the late 80’s hadn’t reached the level found on Ben Nevis a hundred years earlier.
B) Yearly averages of all the stations are within 2 ppmv within each hemisphere and within 5 ppmv between the hemispheres ..
I have a bit more to say on this, but, apologies, will have to leave it until later today to continue replying to these posts .
There has been a total re-education process in effect from AGWScience for several decades now, to the extent that it has infiltrated the school system and children are brainwashed to believe the AGWScience agenda that the majority of teachers think it is science-fact.
Yes, the Mona Loa “pristine” meme almost rises to the level of a Big Lie. Outrageously false, but repeated so often and authoritatively that it has become The Trooth.
A p.s. to the A) above re Observatory Measurements far from polluting gases to be measured – one of these 4 is Samoa. I’ve just found this:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/insitu.html
Hmm, just how sure can we be that any of the numerous sites are actually “pristine”? I have to say that such statements as ‘oh, we take measurements upwind” is now a flag to suspect measurements, a pristine site wouldn’t need such excuses. As if the wind can be divorced from the rest of the atmosphere when in such close proximity to unpristine conditions.
(Before I continue, hopefully, with B) – A fascinating and, very much, must read re CO2 estimates and volcanic sources and monitoring stations, (with a mention also of Keeling’s methodology, “Keeling (1979) concurs with a bizarre emphasis on “formulating models rather than surveying and interpreting data”), in which the author says that volcanic CO2 is indistinguishable from industrial: Volcanic Carbon Dioxide Timothy Casey http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
As you can see, volcanic systems are diverse and unpredictable. They cannot be statistically second-guessed for the same reason that lottery numbers cannot be statistically second-guessed. This in itself raises serious doubt concerning the reliability of volcanic carbon dioxide emission estimates. This is especially problematic when significant elelments of the estimates, such as passive submarine volcanic emission, all active volcanic emission, and at least 96% of passive subaerial emissions, are based on statistical assumptions rather than on any actual measurement.
Brian H – ain’t dat The Trooth! Someone once said that the bigger and more outrageous the lie the easier it was get more people to believe it simply by continual repetition. Somehow we accept such as intrinsic common knowledge in the background of our lives, especially all the more naturally when all around us we hear it being repeated by so many. I once took it as read, because I, like so many others, had it going on in my background, but otherwise engaged and with no interest in it didn’t explore it. It wasn’t until I found a discussion started by someone promoting it and declaring he would take on all challengers, that I took an interest. I didn’t realise that it had ever been challenged! I wanted to know what the arguments were.
Ferdinand – re B)
I haven’t been able to find the analysis of Keeling’s choice for the base CO2 ppm re the available data at the time, but you might have come across it anyway. Keeling’s choice was arbitrary, a particularly low number and from papers where the method of collection was, already well before his time, considered flawed. This doesn’t matter to someone who has an agenda, which in the beginning movement of ‘environmentalism’ in the 20th century Keeling was very much a player, to prove that the burning of fossil fuels was bad and that man’s production of it was getting into the atmosphere, etc.
In 1958 Keeling was included in this fledgling agenda and he began measurements at Mauna Loa. He promoted the idea that this site was “pristine” for measuring such “background atmospheric” CO2 and devised a complex set of parameters as a distraction from the real value of Hawaii to him, that he had there abundant levels of CO2 to play with. And in less than two years, less than two years, he claimed that he had proved there was a definite rising trend of man-made CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere.
That every part to this claim is actually nonsense in real scientific terms wasn’t a problem, they were selling it to people who didn’t look too closely when touched for funding.
The beginning history is an alliance of people in the early green movement in the 30’s, which from memory is when the first scare stories were concocted that CO2 from fossil fuel use would cause global warming and a runaway greenhouse effect, melting all icecaps, etc., and whatever they could use which would give a veneer of scientific credibility to their claims was used, whether actually credible or not. This pattern continued in the following decades as the early players were joined by others, bringing Keeling on board. Later of course others came on board and cleverly manipulated this movement and its obviously faked science, when it’s examined, to further their own aims.
Even as it was growing it became imperative to maintain the fiction established at Hawaii, Keeling’s son at Scripps co-ordinated the various stations to fit with Mauna Loa.
There’s a potted history by Coleman on http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/global-warning-junk-science-is-hazardous-to-your-health/question-1396663/?feed=2085567&new=1&page=3
The problem is that we still have now what Keeling et al created then, but the noise of support has just got louder and, of late, nastier, and now with taxes in place to enrich the elite and make life miserable for the poor by hiking up fuel prices.
Keeling’s measurements and associated claims about CO2 do not have any scientific credibility because as above, they do not come from a pristine site as claimed; because he in less than two years of measurements could not possibly have shown any trend, let alone any trend relating to man-made burning of fossil fuel, no methodology was even bothered to be concocted for this; that there was anyway no actual proof that CO2 was even capable of such effects and no further work was ever done to check this.
It began as a con, by deliberate manipulation of ‘science’ to further an agenda, but not at all scientific. Nothing has changed, the claims are still made as if it was fact, constantly repeating the same basic mantra.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1933780/posts
Bearing in mind what I’ve written and with the contrast as you can read in the above, how confident are you that the figures you gave of CO2 ppmv as being very precise measurements of averages between stations and hemispheres, actually means anything?
………………………….
sHx says:
December 25, 2010 at 3:06pm
Thanks, but I had read it a while back (several times!), during another discussion. I found it very helpful in visualising the setting and understanding the process used there as he is very good at giving detail. From which I then began exploring such things as the wind patterns and comparing their equipment with those used in other surveys and so on. One interesting thing found was that there are several recent surveys which dispute the idea that the flora can be discounted, but I’ve no idea now where all the pages are that I found. But suffice to say, I became sure by the end of my exploration that all the statements made were smoke and mirrors. There’s no way, etc., as I’ve explained above.
I didn’t get to see Big Island when I was there many years ago, but my ‘instruction’ after a holiday with my partner was that when it became time for me to be cremated, I wanted my ashes thrown into Kiluaea -we both loved the place and any excuse to go back. I think I should change that to Mauna Loa..
Myrrh;
re the flora there: I seem to recall that Freeman Dyson had some (direct knowledge-based) things to say about that somewhere; you might follow that track. He has observed, amongst other things, that if you had to manipulate CO2 levels, rather inexpensive and straightforward alterations of agriculture and silviculture practices would achieve the desired result (in either direction) quickly and powerfully, far beyond what even the most ambitious down-ramping of industrial activity etc. could achieve.
Thank you Dave, I’ll have a trawl, sounds interesting.
Ferdinand – I found the analysis of re Keeling/Callendar method of choosing the CO2 base line v available data, posted on:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts
The Real History of Carbon Dioxide Levels Dr. John Ray
Shows the same paradigm as the choice for Mauna Loa. They stopped being scientists at this point for certain, and the continuation in Hawaii of unsubstantiated claims about CO2 and trends and composition and downright lie re pristine merely building on that cherry-picked figure to suit their agenda.
I wonder what the Piltdown Man hoax would have led to if there had been the same level of interest in promoting it as that achieved by the greens’ forays into desire to change the world according to their creation via AGW? They would have been marginalised fairly quickly I think, genetics would have seen to that. Odd though the rapid success of AGWScience in achieving the reverse, against well understood basic physics it’s succeeded in marginalising real science.
I can understand how it happens, and how difficult I found it in the beginning to try and make sense of it all through the arguments about it. I remember when I first started exploring the subject my first objection was that AGW always presented temperature rise from the end of the LIA and discovering that the MWP had been flattened out to fit this point as a supposed ‘normal’ temperature which led to learning about the hockey stick and so on, but I would often be swayed to consider it real from discussions in areas I didn’t know anything about. That became a sort of anchor for me, if the AGW hypothesis was true, there would have been no need to expend so much effort on destroying the past, really well known, history of great variations in our climate, from all kinds of sources – historical, travellers accounts as well as the growing knowledge through such sciences as biology and geology.
It’s such an amazing thing, this earth, I wonder, maybe those leaders who try to impose their own idea by control of everyone else are actually rather frightened of it? We have such a long history of conquering and exploiting others, dressing it up to make the process sound honourable and glorious, giving out medals.. Perhaps in the end AGW is just another variation on the theme, the desire to flatten out diversity and creativity of our dynamic system of life and making others conform to it no different from the ’emperors’ in our societies through the ages, subjugating others through power and religion by restricting their world view to what they thought acceptable, what they could handle.
Anyway, that’s really going off topic.
Just to clarify Dr Viner’s comments, this is what he had to say 11 months ago, in January 2010, after snow had blanketed the UK:
“Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.
‘This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.'”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz19VGd0CJh