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?quality=75)
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
UKIP now calls for an immediate halt to unjustified spending on…
The Leader of the Opposition in Australia is on the public record as saying, ‘Climate science is crap.’
Since he was talking to an audience of BAU adherants at the time, we can only assume that he meant AGW climate scientists, and not climate scientists such as Nobel Laureate Lord Moncton.
Whatever he actually meant, his (current) climate policies are to destroy Australia’s carbon pricing mechanism, and then spending $10 billion of taxpayers’ money on reducing greenhouse gases by buying out inefficient generators, subsidising soil carbon sequestration, and planting tens of millions of trees using by turning people on the dole into a Green Army.
Lower up:
Your post at January 4, 2013 at 3:31 pm begins saying
Nice try but you don’t win a coconut.
Climate is changing? Yes, it is. It would be strange and unprecedented if climate were not changing. Climate changes everywhere: it always has and it always will.
In March 2000 Viner made a specific prediction about UK climate change; viz.
That prediction is seen to have been plain wrong. For example, here in Cornwall (in SE England) where snow is unusual we have had severe snow falls in both of the last two winters. This is exceptional snow fall in both years.
Astrologers, palm readers, and climastrologists alter their predictions after the event.
But WUWT is a science site and we don’t allow it here.
Richard
Lower up says:
“Isn’t record snow falls an indication the climate is changing. “
So the climate is changing?
Do you know anybody that says it doesn’t?
And yes, our CAGW ‘scientists have predicted that lower snowfall, higher snowfall, increased rainfall, droughts, high temperature records, low temperature records are all signs of global warming.
So far we have had it all so they must be right.
“After all one, of the predictions of a warmer planet is more extreme weather events.”
Only the CAGW adherents predict more extreme weather events when the planet warms.
On the subject of predicting, I find those people who love to mock someone when they get a prediction wrong are people who never have to make a prediction themselves. There has never been a rule that states every prediction has to be correct, it has to be the best guess at the time it is made with the available data at hand. But still this mocking serves a purpose here in that it gives people who never have to be held to account for their prediction a sense of community of like minded people.
You guys keep banging on about the Viner quote. But you always somehow fail to mention another quote from the same article.
“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.”
In other words Viner is referring to 20 years from now, not this year. Yet you keep on juxtaposing your favorite quote with this years snow coverage.
OtherAndy, it would appear the CAGW adherents are right then. For every extreme cold event you can mention I can match with an extreme warm event. So there are more extreme climatic events.
Is there a possibility that Onians misquoted Viner? Given that climatologists prefer to look at changes over multi-decade timescales, I’m a bit skeptical that Viner actually used the words “within a few years”. Especially since those words are Onian’s, not Viner’s.
Lower up says:
January 4, 2013 at 4:18 pm
On the subject of predicting, I find those people who love to mock someone when they get a prediction wrong are people who never have to make a prediction themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But we did make a prediction. We predicted they would be wrong. That’s why we’re mocking them.
Richard C, just to clarify Dr Viner’s prediction, by what year did he say this will be in effect?have we reached that yet? If not, why are you calling him wrong on this now. As for your comment about allowing stuff on WUWT, I didn’t realise you were a moderator. And if the policy of this site is to allow only scientific material, then you are failing miserably as most comments here are personal attacks and have nothing to do with science.
Anyone else here have a clue what ‘lower up’ is even talking about?
Lower up says: January 4, 2013 at 3:35 pm
I should mention that Hobart (capital of Tasmania an island on the south of Australia, experienced its hottest day on record yesterday. 41 degrees C (or 106 degrees F, for those stuck on the old imperial metrics) which is extremely unusual as Tasmania is usually a very cool place.
===================================
Tasmania is too close Australia, the land of suspect temperature data. Everybody has heard about how things are in Australia, poor Australians.
Lower up says:
“…it would appear the CAGW adherents are right…”
No, they are clearly wrong. But take the A out of CAGW, and I could probably agree with you.
Lower up:
Your post at January 4, 2013 at 4:18 pm says in total
That is so wrong it is risible!
Scientists – all scientists – make predictions on the basis of their understanding then adjust their understanding if a prediction is observed to have been wrong.
Pseudoscientists – all pseudoscientists – make predictions then adjust their claim of what they predicted if a prediction is observed to have been wrong.
Scientists mock pseudoscientists for their pseudoscience.
Viner predicted that snow in the UK would disappear “within a few years”. His prediction was wrong. Has he said his assertions of AGW need amendment? No, he keeps quiet while apologists – including you – say the prediction was not about absence of UK snow but was about “extreme weather”.
You and he warrant all the ridicule possible.
Richard
I recall shovelling at that white stuff in the early 70’s when I was a teenager in Connecticut.
Lower up says:
January 4, 2013 at 4:26 pm
OtherAndy, it would appear the CAGW adherents are right then. For every extreme cold event you can mention I can match with an extreme warm event. So there are more extreme climatic events.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Well the most recent report on weather extremes from the IPCC says the opposite. Maybe you should go argue with them and let us know how it comes out?
Mpainter, that is an outlandish claim. Please back it up with evidence. As for your sympathy, I am sure it is appreciated by the people who have had their houses destroyed and the family members who have lost loved ones in the bushfires in Tasmania yesterday.
Richard, interesting point and I agree with your dichotomy between scientists and pseudoscientists. Presuming that you are on the side of real scientists, what evidence would change you mind that AGW is a real phenomena? After all many scientists disputed the theory originally now the vast majority of scientists accept it.
David which report would a that be the latest released report or the draft that was leaked?
David, I am also surprised that you should use the IPPC report as a reference. Most of the time the IPPC reports are ridiculed on this blog.
Lower up, you back your outlandish and frankly disgusting claims and show what Tasmanian summer temperatures or fire had to do with CAGW or CO2. And show scientific evidence. Your personal opinions don’t count as evidence.
There’s nothing more lower in life than a being who attempts to use a natural disaster to promulgate a lie.
Lower up says:
January 4, 2013 at 4:57 pm
David which report would a that be the latest released report or the draft that was leaked?
>>>>>>>>>>>
Neither. They just released a report on extreme weather. (technically that would make it the most recent, but I presumed you meant AR4 by “latest”)
Lower up says:
January 4, 2013 at 4:59 pm
David, I am also surprised that you should use the IPPC report as a reference. Most of the time the IPPC reports are ridiculed on this blog.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I resemble that remark. I’m pretty much IPCC Ridicule Central. If you’d read some of my articles you’d know that I don’t ridicule them for their science, I ridicule them for promoting conclusions that the science they present doesn’t support. Here, start with this one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/30/ar5-chapter-11-hiding-the-decline-part-ii/
Lower up:
Having lost your attempt at defending Viner, at January 4, 2013 at 4:56 pm you ask me
Either you cannot read or you make a spurious implication by stating my support of science needs to be presumed.
The “vast majority of scientists” do NOT accept AGW. Indeed, when given the opportunity they state their disagreement with it in their tens of thousands[ e.g. the Origon Petition.
I would accept ANY evidence for AGW, but there is no such evidence; none, zillch, nada.
Decades of research costing tens of billions of $ have failed to find any.
But much evidence which refutes discernible AGW has been obtained; e.g.
missing ‘hot spot’
Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’
missing ‘committed warming’
lack of accelerated sea level rise
lack of accelerated warming from the LIA
lack of any global warming for the last 16 years despite continued increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration
etc.
Now, I have answered your question so please reciprocate by answering this question.
How much more evidence do you need before you reject the AGW-scare?
Please note that I will refuse to answer any more of your posts until you answer my question.
Richard
Lazy T says:
“You guys keep banging on about the Viner quote. But you always somehow fail to mention another quote from the same article.
‘Heavy snow will return occasionally’, says Dr Viner…”
So Viner has all the bases covered. Got it. Now, will you please go find someone credible to quote?
•••
Lower up says:
“…what evidence would change you mind that AGW is a real phenomena?”
Wrong question.
The correct question is: Is AGW a significant forcing, or is it a minuscule, 3rd order non-event that can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes?
Based on all the available empirical evidence supporting AGW [ie: None], the answer is that AGW can be completely disregarded. It simply does not matter.
Lower up says: January 4, 2013 at 4:51 pm
Mpainter, that is an outlandish claim. Please back it up with evidence. As for your sympathy, I am sure it is appreciated by the people who have had their houses destroyed and the family members who have lost loved ones in the bushfires in Tasmania yesterday.
===============================
It is common knowlege. You said so yourself: “Tasmania an island on the south of Australia”
I directed my sympathies on account of the political situation in Australia, where polls show that 82% of Australians hate the present government but Gilliard refuses to resign and hangs in there like a bloody global-warming tick.