WUWT readers surely recall this most often quoted prediction about snow. From the Independent’s most cited article: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past by Charles Onians:
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.
It seems despite the sage advice from that East Anglia CRU scientist, a new record for snowfall has been set for the month of December.
From the Rutgers University Snow Lab, we have this graph for the Northern Hemisphere for all months of December. December 2012 was a clear winner.
![nhland12[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/nhland121.png)
Source: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=12
Increased evaporation combined with more heat loss in the Arctic due to a record low amount of Arctic sea ice is the likely cause.The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012 was a big factor in this.
To be fair though, lets look at all the data for all months. The 70’s were peak years, so was 1993 (post Pinatubo eruption) as was the winter of 2002/2003.
![anom_nhland[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/anom_nhland1.gif)
Source: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=12
While we surely don’t have a new annual snow record yet, the winter is not yet over and it remains a possibility. We’ll revisit this come spring.
h/t to Pierre Gosselin via Marc Morano
David Wozney says:
January 6, 2013 at 6:48 am
The use of the word “anomalies” gives many people the false impression that something is wrong with the weather or climate….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Excellent point. This is especially true when they choose a point in time (the 1970’s) that had cold weather as the base line.
A non-thermometer look at 20th century climate
Zoom on bottom graph From that it is obvious the true “anomalies” are actually the 1970’s and to some extent the 1910’s.
mrmethane:
re your post at January 6, 2013 at 7:21 am.
I think the very amusing article to which you refer is
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/climate-alarmism-and-the-prat-principle/
I commend it to everybody who wants a good belly laugh. It defines and describes the term ‘prat’ which is rarely used outside the UK.
And, yes, ‘Lower up’ is a clear example of a prat.
Richard
“richardscourtney says:
January 6, 2013 at 7:52 am”
Like!
richarscourtney,
You know very well that fishermen work very hard to pull enough fish out of the sea to compensate for the rocks being thrown in by children.
However, the fact of the matter is that there is a finite supply of rocks on the planet. Already children are having to walk sometimes two or even three steps inland to find rocks to throw. The easy rocks right at the water’s edge have already been depleted. That’s why beaches only have sand left on them.
We can also attribute the recent decline in sea level acceleration to this very same problem. Even though there has been an increase in the number of children, the extra distance they must travel to find good rocks to throw is the dominant factor.
World governments have attempted to compensate by imposing fishing limits so that less fish are taken out, but this has been very hard on the fishermen who made their living this way for generations. Ultimately they will have to find new lines of work as allowing them to continue at present rates would obviously empty the oceans completely at some point in the future.
The sad fact is that tomorrow’s children will simply grow up not knowing what the meaning of “skipping stones” is.
@richardscourtney
I find it sad you feel it acceptable and needed to lower yourself to personal abuse on this thread. Clearly you are a person who feels the need to play the man not the ball so I will now no longer attempt to help you understand you have a defenseless narrow view of our climate and the forces that drive it. Good luck, I think you will find the walls closing in on you rather quickly.
I have no idea how “lower” got appended to my name.
and now the comment disappeared entirely?
davidmhoffer says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 6, 2013 at 10:36 am
I have no idea how “lower” got appended to my name.
Ed;
I will now no longer attempt to help you understand you have a defenseless narrow view of our climate and the forces that drive it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Is this some kind of new troll tactic that we’ve not seen before? Try and discredit one skeptic by claiming that they don’t agree with other skeptics? My reading of the skeptics cited by “Ed” is that they think the GHE of CO2 is real, but the net effect is too small to have serious consequences. My reading of richardscourtney in this and other threads is that the GHE of CO2 is real, but the net effect is too small to have serious consequences. So what, exactly, is “Ed” going on about?
This must be lunatic week. Though Ed pales in comparison to the complete idiot who posted a video of a pig being suffocated to death by CO2 in a gas chamber as proof that we need to limit emissions. Just when you think the debate can’t possibly get any weirder….
Ed:
I am copying all of your ridiculous post at January 6, 2013 at 10:33 am so others can again get the laugh.
YOU used personal abuse (against me) and nothing else. I did not.
YOU “played the man” (i.e. me) “not the ball”. I did not.
I obviously know more about climate than you are willing to learn. Hence, I am at a loss to understand where you gained the daft idea that you can help me to “understand” anything about “climate and the forces that drive it”.
I don’t think any walls are likely to ‘close in’ on me. But if you continue to make posts of the kind I have copied here then the walls enclosing you are likely to be padded.
I don’t know who has payed you to be a sock puppet but they should demand their money back.
Richard
davidmhoffer:
Thankyou for both your posts at January 6, 2013 at 10:01 am and January 6, 2013 at 11:17 am.
I especially enjoyed the parody about stones. Excellent! Thankyou.
Richard
davidmhoffer says: January 6, 2013 at 11:17 am
who posted a video of a pig being suffocated to death by CO2 in a gas chamber
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, that was Martin van Etten and I won’t forget that guy- ever. I don’t recommend the video.
Gail, I realise where coal comes from, the point is that the carbon has been effectively been out of the carbon cycle for some time. Humans are liberating the carbon back into the carbon cycle at a rate far greater than it was laid down and therefore increasing the the amount for CO2 in the atmosphere. I am sure given time, the amount of CO2 will come down through natural chemical reactions, but that is not happening at the rate that humans are putting it into the atmosphere.
This will be my last post (much to the relief of many a poster I am sure). I would like to thank a lot of people here who have engaged me here, particularly Richard, DBoehm, David and Gail. Even those like Mpainters although provided nothing of substance, at least paid me the courtesy of reading my posts (at least I think you did).
But let me conclude by saying what I have taken out of these exchanges. The mechanism for AGW is in place, some people agree with this, others don’t or won’t admit it. For some of those that admit it, feel it should not be a concern because for some reason it will not operate (I would find that difficult to accept), while others say it will operate, but the effect will be trivial. To be honest, I don’t know as I haven’t looked into that. What I find of concern is that if a climate has been relatively stable for 13 thousand years and suddenly something changes relatively quickly, I would expect there to be consequences. So when the major greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere increases by 30 something percent (most of which has occurred in my lifetime), I think we should expect to see something to happen to the greenhouse effect. Although CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere, we can ignore the th other 99 something percent because they have no greenhouse effect.
We haven’t really discussed the changes we could expect from these changes in CO2 concentration (the GW part of AGW) but I wanted to explore the mechanism underpinning AGW first. If we are to expect to see the globe warm up due to increased CO2 concentrations is this happening? There are indications that it is. Eleven of the hottest 12 years have occurred in the last 12 years with 1998 included in that list (being 14 years ago). To say it hasn’t warmed in those last 11 years can only be an attempt to confuse the issue, they remain the hottest years. Similarly, the statement that there has been no statistical warming in that time is a statement created to mislead and designed to somehow indicate that the temperature change has plateaued. People should work out how long would be statistically significant and see what the outcome is then.
I don’t know if Australia is particularly effected by these high temperatures, but there are enough people who feel there is a need to something. Australia has introduced a price on carbon last June and many householders have put solar panels on their houses. In the great scheme of things this has had a minuscule effect especially when you consider the huge amount of coal we export to be burnt elsewhere.
Must sign off now and water the garden, we are expecting another sweltering day and without their daily watering, the garden will shrivel up (we have received record low rainfall for the last three months).
Lower up:
In your post at January 6, 2013 at 12:45 pm you say
NO! Water vapour has NOT increased in the atmosphere by “30 something percent” or any other amount recently.
In fact it has reduced slightly.
Richard
Lower Up;
To be honest, I don’t know as I haven’t looked into that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, I see. Confronted with the actual science that addresses the issue pointed out to you by several of us, rather than consider the facts and evidence presented, you choose to instead ignore it, and then use the excuse that you haven’t looked into it as an excuse to avoid the discussion.
Ball is still in your court from the physics discussion upthread. I bet myself a beer that you’d fumble the ball and then refuse to play. Thanks for the beer.
“Lower up says:
January 6, 2013 at 12:45 pm”
July 1st 2012 in fact. I don’t see many households with solar installed at all, not where I live anyway. And as I rent, in a unit block, I cannt install solar anyway (Not that I would in any case). Seems to me you are on the receiving end of the “carbon” price and FIT for solar installations. Never mind, it is clear you have been drawn, hook, line and skiner, into the AGW and carbon price scam. You don’t seem to understand that for solar to work with maximum efficiency you need to match the generating side of the system (6, 12 or 24V DC) with the consumption side of the system (6, 12 or 24V DC) DC – AC inverters WASTE a lot of the energy generated. And lets not talk about storage at this stage.
Lower Up;
I wanted to explore the mechanism underpinning AGW first.
>>>>>>>>>>>
You did? Then why did you ignore or reject every single attempt on this thread to discuss that precise topic?
Lower up says: January 6, 2013 at 12:45 pm
Even those like Mpainters although provided nothing of substance, at least paid me the courtesy of reading my posts (at least I think you did).
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is no cure for people like you . You come here to chant your AGW mantra, thinking that will pass for science. Then, as you are exposed to some actual science you become bewildered, so you return to your global-warming guru for strenthening..
richardscourtney says:
January 6, 2013 at 7:44 am
Friends:
I write to provide clarity for all.
I will strongly rebut any further attempts by trolls to induce disagreement on this thread between Gail Combs and myself….
However, to avoid trolls jumping in with misleading irrelevance, I add that I suspect her political philosophy is very different from my socialist principles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks Richard,
And you are correct. I consider myself a capitalist but one who supports SMALL business since it is the least wasteful, the least likely to cause major problems to the public and in politics and the most likely to be innovative and responsive to the market. I have no problem with some socialism since I consider care for those in need the sign of a civilized person. However I want my government as small and as close to home as possible for the same reason I want small corporations. More innovative, more responsive, least wasteful. It is when government or business becomes too big that the sociopaths can rise to the top and do a lot of damage without any check by the man on the street.
(I drive some people nuts because I side with the socialists on some issues and the capitalists on others)
Board up all windows, switch off all TV’s and radios and internet and do not let the kids out of the house lest they happen to see that white stuff. Thus the prophecy that children shall not know what snow is shall come to pass.
Europe is up for another big freeze according to Big Joe Bastardi. Is SC24 alreaady effecting the climaate?
Obviously what’s falling from the sky these days isn’t actually snow, but simply water that has been solidified by below freezing point temperatures. It is completely in line with our models that water that is cooled below freezing is frozen and precipitates as ice crystals, and in no way contradicts our earlier statement, since snow is merely a concept held by the layman public and reinforced with millions of dollars by the koch/oil industry.
@scooba
And every one of those below-zero ice crystals has ‘spewed’ its CO2 into the open air polluting the environment! Why the mere act of turning on your refrigerator creates additional CO2 when condensation turns to frost and accumulates on that butterball turkey. Ma-a-an you’ve got a lot to answer for.
Every time some do-gooder sequesters CO2 and the temperature of the Earth plummets and all that additional ice spews out the CO2 that was contained in the water from which it was formed, they have to start all over again! This is just a never-ending merry-go-round of funding! In fact this puts more FUN in FUNding.
Imagine if the climate sensitivity was exactly balanced by the ice-melt sensitivity, which for some measure of ice cover it will be. You could create CO2 and absorb it in exact balance. That would put a twist in the modellers’ knickers!