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.
“Lower up says:
January 5, 2013 at 12:15 am”
Are you talking about the record temp just ahead of the fire front, or at the airport?
Lower up,
It is easy to show that your presumption is incorrect:
http://www.co2web.info/C-atm-vs-human.jpg
If you believe that human emissions are to blame, you are clearly deluded. There is much we do not know about CO2 sources and sinks. Your assertion that human activity is the entire cause of rising CO2 is risible.
Of course, none of this will convince you, because your mind is made up and closed air tight. Such is the false reality of the climate alarmist crowd.
Lower up:
It is a new dawn and a new day so I have returned.
At January 4, 2013 at 4:56 pm you asked me
At January 4, 2013 at 5:21 pm I replied saying
And at January 4, 2013 at 11:40 pm you replied to that answer by saying to me
“Sort of”!?
Pray tell, what more clear and all-embracing answer could I have given than “ANY”?
I think you need to question your motivations because it seems you are not capable of accepting undeniable truths which do not fit your belief.
Having answered your question I reciprocated by listing some of the evidence that refutes there is any discernible AGW and I asked you
You claim to have answered my question but you have not: instead, you demonstrate that your belief in AGW is not related to evidence but is pure superstition.
You say
I address each of your “facts” in turn.
Your fact 1.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but so what?
Your fact 2.
The atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing, but so what? This is good for the biosphere.
Your fact 3.
At present levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration any increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration will have trivial increase to the greenhouse effect: the effect on global temperature is so small as to be indiscernible.
Clearly, you are not aware that each additional unit of CO2 added to the air has less effect than its predecessor. This reducing effect is logarithmic. Think of it this way.
Light enters a room through a window. A layer of paint over the window pane reduces the light entering the room. A second layer of paint also reduces the light entering the room but the reduction is less than for the first layer. A third layer has even less effect.
IR from the Earth’s surface is entering space via the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHGs) and in the atmosphere it absorbs IR in two narrow wave bands (at 25 micron and 4 micron) with almost all that absorbtion being in the 15 micron band. There is much CO2 in the atmosphere so adding more CO2 has negligible effect on the atmosphere.
Additional atmospheric CO2 has as trivial an effect as adding a seventh layer of paint on the window: see
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115707ce438970b-pi
and
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
Your fact 4.
I don’t know what has caused the recent increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration, but I want to know. And anybody who thinks they know is mistaken because available data permits either an anthropogenic or any of several natural causes to be attributed.
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) ).
Hint: you may want to notice the second author in the reference.
Anyway, nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 into the air for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activities. And CO2 is essential for life on Earth. It is a very strange assertion that a tiny increase will convert the ‘stuff of life’ into the ‘destroyer of worlds’ especially when life flourished on Earth when atmospheric CO2 was much higher than now. Perhaps you would consider how that strange assertion can be justified?
In summation:
1.
I listed some of the evidence which refutes the existence of discernible AGW and I asked you,
“How much more evidence do you need before you reject the AGW-scare?”
2.
You have not mentioned any potential evidence that would cause you to reject the scare.
3.
You have stated ‘facts’ which are not pertinent to the existence of discernible AGW but which you say need to be refuted for you to recant your belief in discernible AGW.
4.
Your “facts” are clearly the foundation of your superstitious belief in discernible AGW which has no supporting evidence and which is denied by much empirical evidence.
You then try to claim that a list of organisations which endorse the AGW-scare somehow indicates the majority of scientists accept AGW. NO! It does not.
Firstly, the number of scientists who accept or reject is a political – not a scientific – point. As Einstein famously said when told that 100 scientists had rejected his “Jewish science”,
“It would only require one of them to provide one piece of evidence if I were wrong.”
Secondly, that organisations endorse AGW is the logical fallacy of ‘Appeal to Authority’. It says nothing about the truth of a matter. Indeed, the great benefit of the Enlightenment was the replacement of statements from Authority with acceptance of empirical evidence.
Thirdly, the organisations represent the ‘interests’ of their members. Governments support AGW so provide funding for AGW research. Few Executive Committees of organisations will make statements which amount to, “Stop funding our members”.
Fourthly, the organisations’ statements are not an indication of what the members of the organisations think. No polls of the members have been taken and when given the opportunity tens of thousands of them have rejected AGW; e.g the Oregon Petition.
And you have been misled about the Oregon Petition. Signatories had to print a response from their computer, personally sign it, then post it by snail-mail at their own expense. Each signatory was then checked individually before being added to the list. Also, those 30,000+ signatories consisted solely of Americans and, therefore, are ‘the tip of the iceberg’.
Fifthly, the Executives of science organisations have been usurped by activists. Richard Lindzen details this – and names names – in a fascinating and shocking paper that can be read at
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/LindzenClimatescience2008.pdf
Lower up, you really need to learn about the AGW-scare because it seems you have been duped by propagandists.
Richard
Lower up says: January 5, 2013 at 12:15 am
====================
You should know that Australian climate “science” is a foul abominal stench in the nostrils of decent people. That is just a plain fact. It has to do with your reputation. It has to do with sks. It has to do with types like you. Ask Jo Nova. Ask anybody.
“Lower up says:
January 5, 2013 at 2:21 am”
There isnothing to disprove with the statements you made that I responded to however, it is your durty to prove the bush fires in Aus are a result of climate change driven by emissions of C02 from human activity. It’s clear, by citing BoM and NIWA as “credible” sources in agreement with AGW (Still a theory BTW), you are a little confused about CO2.
D Boehm, what is the source of that graph? Although I doubt its accuarcy, it does confirm one of my points and that is that humans are contributing to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Patrick, I am not sure where that measurement was made, but I suspect it would be where they normally take there readings and not to the area where the fires are.
“Lower up says:
January 5, 2013 at 4:23 am”
Be the first to stop! Stop using your car, laptop, lights, heating, stoves etc etc, if you think you are contributing to a “problem”. Be the first, set the example, lead by example. If not, stop trolling.
“Lower up says:
January 5, 2013 at 4:26 am”
You admit you don’t really know what you are being told, you just “believe” what you are being told? KEWL! Your PoV on AGW makes a lot of sense now. How many fires were started by lightning (The major “cause” of fires in Aus)? How may were started by arsonists (The major cause of fires that draw media attention)? Your PoV on bushfires, in this fire ecology, seems pretty uninformed IMO. Not before today did the MSM n Aus point out that BEFORE these SA/VIC/TAS fires, 30 fires were already burning in NSW, just almost all are remote.
Were the Victorian bushfires of 2009 a result of AGW?
If it wasn’t for a recent paper stating that the level of water vapor has remained the same for the last 50 years, I’d say that we should expect to hear how this increase in snow coverage supports the contention that increased CO2 has at last produced the foretold increased levels in water vapor.
mpainter says:
January 5, 2013 at 4:18 am
Lower up says: January 5, 2013 at 12:15 am
====================
You should know that Australian climate “science” is a foul abominal stench in the nostrils of decent people. That is just a plain fact. It has to do with your reputation. It has to do with sks. It has to do with types like you. Ask Jo Nova. Ask anybody.
the last sentence makes a good point, I will ask anybody.
If there is anybody out there that can explain mpainters statement, could you please do so, it makes no sense to me.
Lower up says:
“what is the source of that graph? Although I doubt its accuarcy, it does confirm one of my points and that is that humans are contributing to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.”
The source of the graph is right in the URL. Are you that computer illiterate? And you can ‘doubt’ whatever you want to, but the graph clearly shows that human additions to GHG’s are minuscule. Even the UN/IPCC admits the same thing:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/eia_co2_contributions_table3.png
Finally, there is zero empirical, testable evidence showing any harm to the planet as a result of increased CO2 — and plenty of empirical evidence showing its benefits. Thus, CO2 is ‘harmless’; more is better, and there is no downside at either current or projected concentrations. CO2 is, after all, only a very tiny trace gas. If it doubled, it would still be only a very tiny trace gas.
You are a victim of anti-“carbon” propaganda. You can use reason to get out of the propaganda trap — or you can continue to be an alarmist lemming, believing everything you’re being told by self-serving rent seekers pushing their alarmist agenda. It’s up to you.
Patrick, I don’t have a ‘durty’ to do anything. You on the other hand should not make something up and then sling off at them based up on your falsification.
What are you talking about regarding laptops etc…… I cannot see why you giving that advice.
And finally please point out where I ‘admit you don’t really know what you are being told’. I find it a little tedious reading things that are made up and then being castigated for the fabrication (actually I am noticing this appears to be your standard operating procedure, please stick to the real facts not stuff you make up).
Lower up:
Are you a paid troll?
I ask because of your post addressed to D Böehm at January 5, 2013 at 4:17 am.
Shortly before your post to D Böehm, at January 5, 2013 at 4:17 am, I gave a reply to you which included
You did not question that, dispute it, or ask for explanation.
Instead, in response to D Böehm presenting
http://www.co2web.info/C-atm-vs-human.jpg
you say of his graph
NO! It does NOT “confirm” that!
And you would have known why it doesn’t “confirm that” if you had not ignored the answer I took the trouble to give you.
There are many people employed to mislead about AGW on blogs. And it is clear that you ignore anything which refutes your superstitious belief in AGW and you deliberately misrepresent anything presented to you. So, I ask
Are you a paid troll?
If so, who is paying you?
Richard
Allen Cic says:
January 4, 2013 at 6:53 am
“Wasn’t it Yogi Berra who said something along the lines of, “Predicting the future ain’t what it used to be.”
The Yogi Berra “quotes”, which may or may not be accurate, are
“It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future”, and
:”The future ain’t what it used to be. ”
Both of which are applicable in this case
The snow thing was not the only comical contribution of friend Viner!
In 2006, he wrote a paper predicting
“European tourists flocking to the UK to escape unbearably hot continental summers”.
If our last few summers here are anything to go by, they better bring their fur coats with them.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/costa-brava-has-moved-to-blackpool-says-david-viner/
Lower up says: January 5, 2013 at 4:58 am
If there is anybody out there that can explain mpainters statement, could you please do so, it makes no sense to me.
===========================
Go see Jo Nova. You will understand.
“Lower up says:
January 5, 2013 at 5:08 am
Patrick, I don’t have a ‘durty’ to do anything. You on the other hand should not make something up and then sling off at them based up on your falsification.”
What did I “make up”? Certainly wasn’t “climate temperature data. And we now know ou are just a simple troll, no argument but to pick up on spelling!
“What are you talking about regarding laptops etc…… I cannot see why you giving that advice.”
All consumer devices, laptops, PC etc etc, use resources in their manufature. They also consume power. Both emit CO2. If CO2 is such a problem, and as you have intimated, CAUSED the lastest Aussie bushfires, then stop consuming. Be the solution, not the “problem”.
“And finally please point out where I ‘admit you don’t really know what you are being told’. I find it a little tedious reading things that are made up and then being castigated for the fabrication (actually I am noticing this appears to be your standard operating procedure, please stick to the real facts not stuff you make up).”
Here you go;
“Lower up says:
January 5, 2013 at 4:26 am
Patrick, I am not sure where that measurement was made, but I suspect it would be where they normally take there readings and not to the area where the fires are.”
Suspect, not sure or don’t know? Unless I am not reading your Enghlish, your statement suggests you don’t know.
And to the spelling troll “…normally take THERE readings…”, yo do mean THEIR don’t you!
Thanks for confirming you are a troll.
Actually I don’t care how many national science organizations go with the CAGW meme. The more the merrier. It will just add to the fun when they all have to start recanting and finding exit strategies. Man, is that going to painful for them and entertaining for me! I am particularly looking forward to said process involving the local head climate imbecile here at the University of Cape Town (forgot his name. Just too unbearable to try and remember it.) I just have to puke whenever he is quoted in the local press. Absolutely clueless he is. I am rubbing my hands in anticipation.. (Ok, it’s probably still years away. Damn.)
BTW: Lower up? A new troll? Never noticed him before. Best treatment is probably to ignore him. Judging from the normal trolling stuff coming from him it is not as if engaging him will make any difference to anything. But I guess we have many very polite posters here… (sigh)
Neo says:January 5, 2013 at 4:57 am
If it wasn’t for a recent paper stating that the level of water vapor has remained the same for the last 50 years, I’d say that we should expect to hear how this increase in snow coverage supports the contention that increased CO2 has at last produced the foretold increased levels in water vapor.
But water vapor has gone down.
http://i48.tinypic.com/2qlfnzn.jpg
http://i48.tinypic.com/14mwa5y.jpg
One contention I have seen is that CO2 displaces water vapor. Since WV has more of a greenhouse effect than CO2, at some point more CO2 causes cooling. Maybe that is why temperatures drop when CO2 levels are at their highest in the ice core records.
It is correct to call CO2 a greenhouse gas. After all, greenhouse operators routinely add CO2 because plants do much better at concentrations of 1000 ppm.
I’d like to contact “Crispin in Waterloo”. Kindly reply to imcqueen(at)nbnet.nb.ca
IanM
@GabrielHBay
You give it one, two tries.
You quickly find out if they are interested in the science of CAGW or are fixed on the politics and have made up their mind.
In this case it was 30 minutes of my life I won’t get back.
Won’t reply to his fallacies, straw man and circular reasoning anymore.
Somebody who still believes that a useful trace gas amounting to 0.00005% (Anthropogenic CO2) of the Earth’s atmosphere is the ruling driver of climate, even after shown evidence that there is no correlation between global temperatures and the amount of CO2, is beyond help.
I guess the CAGW ‘scientists’ and political activists did a good job brainwashing the sheeple
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
Other_Andy says: January 5, 2013 at 10:28 am
=================================
Here you lay bare the whole of AGW theory.
Richard, no I am not a paid troll. Why do you ask. On that particular point you said that humans contribute one out of every 35 molecules of CO2 to the atmosphere. This is consistent when I see the vast open cut coal mines, where once the carbon used to be in the ground, is now released into the atmosphere.
The graph presented by D Boehm also showed humans contributing to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
“lower up” says:
I call BS on that, because you certainly act like one. So far you have used several screen names and several email addresses at WUWT, all fake.
Lower Up
Pleeeeease
Thought4TheDay
Overthetop
Harddoneby
SuperiorIntellect
LetsBeReasonable
myfirstattemptatblogs
These all trace to the same person in Glen Iris, Victoria, Australia
This person has been warned in the past at WUWT about this sockpuppetry being a violation of WUWT published policy, yet persists.
Therefore, this person is now permanently banned from WUWT. Should there be a recurrence, two things will happen.
1. A full publishing of the person’s name and address here (as stated in our policy page as an option).
2. A complaint (with documentation) to the Telstra Internet service used, indicating a potential violation of the Telstra terms of service, resulting in a possible suspension by Telstra.
This person is now permanently banned from WUWT for repeated and systemic violation of the site policy. Be as upset as you wish. – Anthony Watts