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.
various commentors pointed out Viners statement applied to the U.K. only.
For me the key words are these 4 “children will not know”
Assuming Viner was ONLY referring to the UK is to also assume only Eskimo children know of polar bears or only African children know of elephants.
For the children of the UK not to know what snow is, snow would have to be very rare globally. It’s not and never will be.
Viner didn’t express himself too well. This wasn’t because he lacked the education to do so. It was because being the obnoxious rent seeking alarmist that he is, he wished to drive home an alarming point.
@Gail
Thanks for the linked document. It reports that in principle there can be liquid brine in capillary form, but 12,000 ppm? Why would it accumulate like that? That’s crazy.
On p. 10/58 it mentions CO2 disappearing into the water if it melts ‘and re-freezes’ but this is proposing that the concentration in the air bubbles that supply the CO2 are at something like 600 ppm.
The math on this does not look too good for trying to sell the argument that ice contains a lot of CO2, and that melting ice does not pick up CO2 from the atmosphere. For a start, ice contains virtually no CO2. Second, if it were generally true that ice accumulates CO2 when compressed (for example) or from melting and refreezing, it would be hissing out when decompressed and someone would have noticed and commented on how much better it would be to take samples from the ice rather than the miserable little air pockets.
It is important that the article notes that a portion of the CO2 was absorbed ‘by meltwater’ (not ice). That is exactly my point. Melting ice, not ice, absorbs CO2 and it can only do that because the ice has no CO2 in it!
I notice that the ice analyses rexamined made no attempt to locate any CO2 in the ice cores, only in the air bubbles trapped in them, with the comment that they measured values should have been higher than they appeared to be because some of it (part of 400 ppm?) had escaped into the ‘partially melted and refrozen’ ice. Well, if it was, it was expelled from the ice on refreezing and (I suppose) into the air. Apparently the author felt it did not go back into the air bubbles on the basis that ‘there is liquid water within the ice’ which is unbelievable at that temperature. Brine? What is the freezing point of brine? This story line doesn’t hold water.
The claims in the early part of the paper try to sell the idea that there is liquid brine with high CO2 in it locked in the ice and that CO2 came from air bubbles that were samples of a pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level far higher than today. Good luck with that series of …. well, whatever it is.
I am not sure if you have any lab facilities but I do so I will try see what happens to the CO2 level when it is trapped in a small container with melting ice. But all it will prove is that ice contains no CO2 and that meltwater absorbs it, rapidly, which we already know. Before expanding on the topic I bothered to consult a professor of chemical engineering to confirm the basic mechanisms at play. As the conventional explanation for the CO2 rise in winter is impossible, I have been looking for a realistic alternative and I think this is it.
Crispin in Waterloo:
At January 4, 2013 at 5:45 pm you say to Gail
With respect, that shows a misunderstanding of the problem.
There is liquid water on the surface of solid ice – and solid ice crystals – at all temperatures down to -40deg.C. This was first discovered by Michael Faraday but it is only in recent decades that it has been discovered why. And this liquid phase on ice surface is why ice is slippery.
Gases dissolve preferentially in water and, therefore, will dissolve in the surface of fern during the decades that the ice is solidifying. Also, the air entrained in the fern expands and contracts with varying atmospheric pressure so is pumped in-and-out of fern surface. How this alters the composition of the gas
“a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
Wish he had put a date/time and qualifier (what is rare) on that statement.
My children have had NO problems knowing what snow is,and neither have my grandchildren,nor do I expect my great-grand kiddies will either.
There are only 5 certainties on this hunk of rock……you will die,taxes will go up,we will keep reproducing,the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow,and climate will change. And there is not a darn thing any of us can do to change this.
Sorry, my post to Crispin in Waterloo went too soon. This is a completed post. Richard.
Crispin in Waterloo:
At January 4, 2013 at 5:45 pm you say to Gail
With respect, that shows a misunderstanding of the problem.
There is liquid water on the surface of solid ice – and solid ice crystals – at all temperatures down to -40deg.C. This was first discovered by Michael Faraday but it is only in recent decades that it has been discovered why. And this liquid phase on ice surface is why ice is slippery.
Gases dissolve preferentially in water and, therefore, will dissolve in the surface of fern during the decades that the ice is solidifying. Also, the air entrained in the fern expands and contracts with varying atmospheric pressure so is pumped in-and-out of fern surface. How this alters the composition of the gas is debateable but it must alter the composition of the gas that becomes trapped in the ice.
Also, clathrates form and are released when the ice core is obtained. This release cracks the ice so the clathrates are extracted in the drilling fluid.
Jawarowski estimated that these – and other – processes lower the CO2 concentration in the entrained air obtained from the ice cores, and this is why ice core data is ~15% lower than stomata data of atmospheric CO2 concentration from the same times.
Richard
@Gail
Further considering the text and conclusions, at no time does the author claim ice contains CO2. A theoretical case is made that 10-20 nanometer quasi-water layers exist on the surface of ice crystals which it said to constitute a ‘capillary liquid network’ of ‘infinite’ size. The text contains dozens of statements which show that ice does not contain CO2 with the weight of evidence claimed to be that the ‘water’ between ice crystals is contaminated by S and dust. There is no evidence that such a capillary liquid network exists nor any evidence that it is high in CO2 nor that the volume of this ‘quasi-water’ is significant.
Conclusion: water ice contains no CO2 and when it melts, it absorbs it immediately.
Painter
Tasmania is too close Australia, the land of suspect temperature data. Everybody has heard about how things are in Australia, poor Australians.
Well, that’s a new one to add to the list of climate forcings: suspect data.
BTW, talking of suspect data, Tasmania is part of Australia in the same way Hawaii is part of USA.
BTW, you are not quite right to call us ‘poor’ Australians. That gave me a laugh, actually. You might try looking at a mirror.
Our average wage is higher than that of the US. Hardly anyone has negative equity in their houses. Our national debt is way lower than the US national debt as a proportion of GDP. Our unemployment rate is way lower than that of the US. Our inflation rate is right where the Reserve Bank wants it. Our dollar is above parity with the US dollar. In terms of percentage growth, our economy continues to grow at, or near, the top of the OECD table. While the US economy tanked during the GFC, our economy kept right on growing. We have the highest possible national AAA rating from all the international ratings agencies. And we are managing all that with an economy-wide carbon price.
We are welcoming to visitors so come on over and join us for a bracing beer. Compared to the US, we have extremely low rates of gun deaths. It is mostly safe to go out in most places most of the time. The icing on the cake is that when it gets to forty+ we have thousands of kilometres of unspoiled coastline where you can go swimming or fishing.
Painter
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.
Goodness now that 82% is what I really would call suspect data. You are making stuff up and it shows.
There are just short of half a dozen regularly published polls by reputable public polling organisations in Australia. Their results are made publicly available. Not one of the reputable polls over the last six months would support your figure of 82%. BTW, the latest polling results show that Climate-Science-is Crap-Abbott is less popular than Gillard.
They also show that his Coalition is more popular than the Government and is likely to form the next government some time this year.
This is exactly what the models predict…and that goes for whatever this is.
“So Sayeth the Shepherd! …So Sayeth the Flock!”
Climate Ace,
I very much like Austrailia and Australians, and I don’t begrudge you tooting your horn. But looking at this interactive map, I don’t see much economic difference between the U.S. and Oz. We both have our above and below average cities [put the cursor over the dots].
@ur momisugly richardscourtney
“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.”
Do you seriously believe that the scientists on this planet who do not accept AGW outnumber those who do? If so, you are deluding yourself. That is simply not true. And if we ask those who work in the field it (even if you ignore the often quoted 97%) you would be in la la land if you thought more doubted the concept than accepted it. It is a fact that a total of 34 national science academies have made formal declarations since 2001 confirming anthropogenic global warming and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
I am going to make the bold statement here that those who are serious about finding answers as to why temps are rising all acknowledge CO2 has a part to play. The only real debate is how much and will it cause catastrophic trouble in the future? It would be virtually impossible to find a scientist in the field who would say CO2 is completely innocent.
Well, my children will have little experience of snow, but that’s because we now live in the tropics. It is just getting too damned cold anywhere else for me.
Another thing they will not experience is a pool that is far to cold to swim in most of the year.
Ed,
The OISM Petition did not exactly say that AGW does not exist. It said that the rise in GHG’s, mainly CO2, is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
And yes, the number of scientists who hold that position far outnumber the relatively small clique of self-serving rent seekers who are pushing their catastrophic AGW narrative.
AGW is a minuscule, third order forcing that is too small to measure. It simply does not matter.
With a name like “Climate Ace” from Australia and automatically no one believes you.
You see how it is.
D Boehm
Climate Ace,
I very much like Austrailia and Australians, and I don’t begrudge you tooting your horn. But looking at this interactive map, I don’t see much economic difference between the U.S. and Oz. We both have our above and below average cities [put the cursor over the dots].
Sure, the economy of individual cities go up and down in both countries because economies are dynamic.
My statements were at the national economic level and at that level Australia is well ahead of the US on most economic parameters. It is actually causing us some problems because the Aussie dollar is being bought as a safety hedge in these times of global uncertainty. As noted above, Australia has done this with an economy -wide carbon pricing mechanism.
A week before christmas Environment Canada predicted most (whatever that is) Canadians would not see a white christmas. I would bet the % of canada not white at christmas was below 1% . See those computer models have it down pat. Of course we are sure about the climate in 2100 AD [sarc]
I’d like to see a trend line in the second graph, the “all months” graph. Going by eyeball it looks like the trend is downward but, as the saying goes, appearances my be deceiving.
Wow .. someone should send that graph to Dr Mann … looks like a snow cover hockey stick in the making.
Richard, sorry for the late reply, but you have some important questions that need to be answered.
Let me start off by listing the organisations representing scientist that accept AGW: The national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, the People’s Republic of China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, the UK, Japan, Russia, U.S. Mexico, South Africa, The Network of African Science Academies, the Polish Academy sciences, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization.
I am surprised that you should use the 30,000 names on the Oregon petition to refute this. Many of the people on that list are not practicing scientists (and I am not referring to Dr Gerry Fawell, Professor Homer Simpson or Dr Red Wine, but the other real signatories). The method that was used to get the petition was misleading and organised by a fellow who heavily supported the tobacco industry claiming smoking didn’t cause cancer. Once on, the signatories can not take their name off if they change their minds.
You have answered my question (sort of) and I will pay you the courtesy in return.
I will not accepted AGW if one of the following facts are shown to be incorrect:
That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
That the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.
That the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.
That humans are largely responsible for the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air (ie the chemicals in the petrol in my tank at the start of week does not land up I the atmosphere.
Venter says:
January 4, 2013 at 5:04 pm
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.
Venter, I was stating a fact about the record temperature reached in Hobart. That is all. Please don’t make up stuff and then call me low life because of your fabrication.
“Climate Ace says:
January 4, 2013 at 7:00 pm”
An economy wide “carbon” price, and what is that doing to our economy? Please explain how Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania are in the list of top 250 “polluters”! Sounds like you are an ALP/Green troll.
“Lower up says:
January 4, 2013 at 11:40 pm
I will not accepted AGW if one of the following facts are shown to be incorrect:
That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
That the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.
That the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.
That humans are largely responsible for the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air (ie the chemicals in the petrol in my tank at the start of week does not land up I the atmosphere.”
But you *WILL* accept AGW if the orgs you cite (BoM in Aus and NIWA in NZ? NIWA already been proven to have “hacked” climate data, which was vetted by the Aussie BoM. And you cite these as credible?) say so, even though there are many variables little or not at all known nor understood?
@lower up
The CAGW theory was, from the start, used for political purposes.
The climate gate emails and statements by several ‘climate activists’ has confirmed this.
After several years, most of the scientists have moved on and it is now a political issue only.
The ‘conference’ in Doha confirmed the latter. This conference was all about Not at any stage was this conference about science
Political activists, politicians, a small group of bullying ‘political scientists’ and opportunists want us to believe that AGW is real. However, there is no empirical evidence.
The CAGW Theory is based on computer modeling. Data is fed into a computer and software predicts a likely outcome. If predictions made by the computer models do not reflect what is actually happening you would question the software. Instead, they are revising the input to fit the model, hide data, destroy data and change data so the model will show what they want it to show. Climatology has now become the victim of politics. Those who don’t toe the official line are smeared, called deniers, skeptics and flat-earthers. They won’t get lucrative research grants and their scientific integrity is questioned by ‘activists, with the aid of the MSM.
To see what happens when science becomes politicised Google Lysenkoism.
You (with your list) appeal to authority.
This is a fallacy.
You (with your list) appeal to consensus.
This is also a fallacy.
Science is not about authority or consensus. To see what happens when science is hijacked by consensus Google “Plate Tectonics”.
Science is about proposing a theory with supporting evidence while others try to disprove it.
Hydrocarbon use is uncorrelated with temperature. Temperature rose for a century before significant hydrocarbon use. Temperature rose between 1910 and 1940, while hydrocarbon use was almost unchanged. Temperature then fell between 1940 and 1972, while hydrocarbon use rose by 330%. Also, the 150 to 200-year slopes of the sea level and glacier trends were unchanged by the very large increase in hydrocarbon use after 1940. Again, none of these trends has accelerated during the period between 1940 and 2007, while hydrocarbon use increased 6-fold.
And, although CO2 levels have increased steadily during the last 15-16 years, the global temperature has not.
The theory does not work.
Patrick and Other Andy,
Please do not confuse my very short list of things to refute with your conspiracy theories and other claims.
All you have to do to change my mind, is to explain why one of those four statements are incorrect.
The point is I really wish you could prove those statements are incorrect as I am happy with the way the planet is now and don’t want it to change.
Jimbo says:
January 4, 2013 at 7:05 am
“I have to ask what caused those peak years? I’m no weatherman, just asking.”
Presumably such was related to the relative coldness in temperatures then. The relative cold can be seen in the temperature data of the time like in the old Newsweek article at http://tinyurl.com/cff4qm5 and the old National Geographic article at http://tinyurl.com/cxo4d3l (and, albeit for the arctic as opposed to the northern hemisphere average in the preceding, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif ).
Later, historical temperature records were revised until the inconvenient downturn visible in the prior links was about all deleted. You won’t see such in any of the plots on the WUWT reference page, for instance (rather modern-day revisionist propaganda). But actually the global cooling scare did not happen for no reason.
As for the cause of the temperature downturn, solar cycle 20 of the period was exceptionally weak, with the solar-driven interplanetary magnetic field not deflecting cloud-seeding galactic cosmic rays as much as the cycles before and afterwards (as in http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg *), while also such was the cold-encouraging part of a multi-decadal ocean cycle.
* (which also fits with other observations like those seen in http://s13.postimage.org/ka0rmuwgn/gcrclouds.gif , http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf , http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg707/scaled.php?server=707&filename=kirkby1.jpg&res=landing , and http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS134/Sources/03-Cosmic-rays/more/Kirkby_cosmic_rays_and_climate_2007.pdf )
The next decade or two and beyond, in the coming future, will probably see substantial cooling, based on how solar activity looks headed. This snow record in modern-day observations will probably not be a record for long.