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
Patrick, go look back at my statement and your accusation that I said the record temperature experienced in Hobart was due to climate change. You made that up.
Then you continue to use this lie as a basis for all sorts of illogical extensions, which fails the logic test (I caused the Hobart bush fires because I use a laptop).
Then you accuse me of an admission that I don’t believe what I am told. I made no such ad,is soon, but you base this accusation on the fact that I couldn’t tell you where the BOM make their temperature readings. This is not an admission of not believing what I am told. I believe that they had a record temperature.
@ur momisugly richardscourtney
I find it somewhat funny you are calling lower up a troll on this site. From what I have read here I think the very creator of this site (Anthony W)would say everything LU has said would be far more accurate than the stuff you have been delivering here. AW is on record saying he accepts there has been warming as a result of the human produced CO2 increase, he just doesn’t believe it will is as much as the alarmists do and will cause the trouble often stated in the media I.e i don’t think he would disagree with any of the the statements LU has made.
“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”
You on the other hand seem reluctant to accept some of these which would make you the odd one out here. Perhaps you have a new definition of the word troll.
GabrialHBay, I am not a troll and you appeal to everyone to ignore me, is, I suspect dime to the fact that I am challenging your beliefs about AGW and do not want other people exposed to my ideas. Still the (four) facts remain that underpin the AGW. If you can’t show me they are incorrect, then the AGW is a real phenomena.
OtherAndy. I notice that you are trying the minimise the effect the low concentration on CO2 has on the greenhouse effect. I cannot understand this argument. Small quantities of things can have massive effects. For example, a very small amount of virus (less than the 0.0000005% you quoted) can kill an organism. A very small amount of nuclear material can flatten a city, a small amount of cyanide can kill many people etc.
The problem with your argument is a small amount of CO2 does have a greenhouse effect, and when there is more of it, the effect is increased. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing all the time, so it is reasonable to state the greenhouse effect is increasing all the time.
Look guys and girls, I know I would be nice to open the minds of the trolls we get here but really it is a total waste of time, energy and CO². Just ignore the nincumpoops.
Ed:
re your post at January 5, 2013 at 12:32 pm.
Please show where I have ever said or written what you attribute to me.
Failing that: APOLOGISE.
Richard
Lower up:
At January 5, 2013 at 12:26 pm you ask me
I answered that question in the post where I asked if you are a paid troll at January 5, 2013 at 5:16 am.
Your response convinces me that you are a paid troll.
Unless, of course, you have an alternative explanation for your behaviour.
Richard
Lower up says:
“Still the (four) facts remain that underpin the AGW.”
Not really. And climate alarmists always neglect the next logical step: acknowledging that there are no empirical, testable measurements of AGW. Thus, AGW is a conjecture. It is not a hypothesis, nor a theory because it cannot make testable, accurate predictions. It is only a conjecture.
Now, AGW may in fact exist. But it’s importance is far overstated by the alarmist crowd. If it had a measurable effect, we could measure it. But any putative effect of AGW is too small to measure.
Further, at least one of your “facts” is wrong:
…the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.
That was true for the first few dozen ppm, but it is no longer true. That is why AGW is not measurable: adding more CO2 at current levels has no measurable effect. The IR window has been painted over too many times.
Because your premise is wrong, your conclusion will necessarily be wrong. The Scientific Method only requires that one premise be falsified, for the entire conjecture to be falsified. If you understand basic radiative physics, and agree with the Scientific Method, you must reassess your AGW beliefs.
You also assert that “humans are largely responsible for the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.”
Maybe. But there are arguments on both sides of that issue. You refused to accept this chart, but you provided no credible argument falsifying it. Note also that it stops a decade ago, and that there has been much more CO2 added to the atmosphere since then — without any global warming.
If you are emotionally invested in your catastrophic AGW belief, there is nothing any of us can do to change your mind. But if you have an open, logical mind, then you can accept the scientific evidence, and lack thereof. Keep in mind that AGW is only a conjecture, that it has no empirical, testable evidence supporting it, and that even if it exists, it is such a minor, third order forcing that it can be completely disregarded. It really doesn’t matter at all — except to the rent seeking alarmist crowd that is cashing in on the AGW scare.
Lower Up;
For example, a very small amount of virus (less than the 0.0000005% you quoted) can kill an organism. A very small amount of nuclear material can flatten a city, a small amount of cyanide can kill many people etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, yes, yes, and one man produces enough sperm to impregnate all the women on the planet and in theory there is enough water in a single bucket to drown everyone on earth. There’s another thread running in which some moron posted a video of a pig suffocating to death in a gas chamber filled with 100% CO2. None of these arguments have diddly squat to do with a discussion of radiative physics.
As for your four facts, they can all be true and insignificant at the same time. I’ve spent countless hours on this blog explaining that the GHE in fact does exist, and so has richardscourtney. The fact that it exists and that CO2 is increasing does not however lead to the conclusions you draw. The real questions that must be asked are what are the order of magnitude of the direct effects, plus the order and magnitude of the feedback effects. The data increasingly shows that the total of these is very low. If it were high, we would have seen substantive temperature changes that are clear and distinct from natural variability (but we haven’t).
You further seem to think that there is some one to one relationship between CO2 concentration and GHE, or that there is some amplifying effect. The opposite it true. The direct GHE of CO2 is logarithmic, look it up in any radiative physics text or refer to the IPCC reports themselves. That being the case, going from 400 ppm (where we are now) to 520 will have far less effect on temperature than going from 280 (pre-industrial background level) to 400 despite both being a change of 120 ppm. In addition, the number of w/m2 required to maintain a temperature increase is exponential. w/m2 vary directly with T in degrees K raised to the 4th power. So, what warming we will see is minimal at day time highs in the tropics and maximum at night time lows at high latitudes in winter.
These factors all combine to ensure that CO2 increases and their impact on temperature become increasingly irrelevant as CO2 concentrations grow. You can be a fear monger making irrelevant claims about virus percentages, or you can learn the relevant physics and draw some logical conclusions from them.
Friends:
The troll posting as ‘Lower up’ says – in total – at January 5, 2013 at 12:37 pm
The troll asserts that he/she/it is not a paid troll, and the response to GabrialHBay is consistent with ‘Lower up’ being a bot.
In addition to the fact that (at January 5, 2013 at 4:17 am) I clearly explained to the troll that those points do NOT mean “AGW is a real phenomena” (I assume he/she/it means ‘phenomenon’) except in an abstract sense because those points do NOT mean AGW could be sufficiently large as to be discernible. And the troll has not addressed any of the points I put to him/her/it.
Clearly, the troll has made a deliberate lie in the quoted response to GabrialHBay.
And the troll’s points completely ignore feedbacks. The net feedbacks are probably negative. Even if his points were sufficient to give AGW a discernible magnitude then it does not follow that “AGW is a real phenomena” unless it were shown that net feedbacks are both large and positive.
Richard
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.”
Yes, the current Tasmanian fires are another unprecedented AGW induced catastrophe.
“No deaths or serious injuries have been confirmed, despite conditions comparable to 1967 when 2000 homes and 62 lives were lost.”
http://www.smh.com.au/national/insurers-declare-catastrophe-on-tasmanian-fires-20130105-2c9v7.html
Lower up says:
“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.”
Then you need to move to another planet as the climate on this planet is always changing and you don’t need to be a climate scientist to understand this, just go read some history books and prepare to be shocked.
Lower up says:
January 5, 2013 at 12:45 pm
“The problem with your argument is a small amount of CO2 does have a greenhouse effect, and when there is more of it, the effect is increased. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing all the time, so it is reasonable to state the greenhouse effect is increasing all the time.”
You need to go back and read the post by Richard S Courtney.
richardscourtney says:
January 5, 2013 at 4:17 am
@richardscourtney says:
>>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…
>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.
I have agreed that this is the case, that such a liquid layer exists. The paper states it is 10-20 nanometres thick. I can’t dispute the numbers, I do not know. Let’s take then as true. Ice crystals are very large. 10-20 nanometres is nothing.
>Gases dissolve preferentially in water and, therefore…
Therefore we should look at the total volume of the liquid phase of the matrix and calculate whether or not the absorption of CO2 will occur when ice melts, which is what I am talking about, and the numbers relevant to the idea.
>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.
The effect, even on the tiny air bubbles, is minor compared with the huge amoutn of CO2 that is incorporated into water when the ice melts. If the ice was trapping 420 ppm (m) like the water from which it froze, then the argument that ice is an important sink for CO2 falls away. But this is not the case. Ice contains almost no CO2, and if there is CO2 in the surface layer of crystals, then it is insignificant relative to the absorbing capacity of the mass of the crystal 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.
Agreed. All true. Put some numbers on the amount of CO2 invovled and it shows that hte effect on the air (which is what the article is about) is significant at 15%. However it is not significant relative to the amount of CO2 that the same ice will absorb when melted. Thanks for helping me clarify that in my own mind. The mass of CO2 in a kg of ice, inclusive of surface water, clathrates (if they exist) and the air pockets is a very small % of the mass of CO2 that the same kg will absorb when that ice melts. that is my point.
The mass of water that freezes in the biosphere each NH winter is very large. The loss of CO2 from that water is significant – enough not only to overcome the uptake by a cooling ocean surface, but enough to shift the whole atmosphere by 6 ppm in 5 months. The claim that this increase is from NH fossil fuel combustion is unsupportable as it is more than 4 times the annual average rise in atmospheric CO2 (presently 1.4 ppm/year).
>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.
And he is no doubt correct. It is however not relevant to the case I am making that melting glaciers and ice sheets will absorb very large amounts of CO2 – by my calculation, more than is emitted by the human population. I base that statement on the AGW alarmist narrative that ‘all the ice is going to melt because of human CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, land use changes and the burning of accumulated biomass’. It we burned every known fuel resource on the planet and ‘in consequence’ melted all the ice, that melting ice would absorb more than the total emissions and the atmospheric level would in fact drop below its present level. That is how large the numbers are. 20 nanometres of water containing a little CO2 is not going to offset this. We would have to hope that the oceans would warm considerably to give out enough CO2 to keep the plants alive. That may explain why for a billion years the CO2 level never got above 0.7%.
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And what have been the changes in government policy concerning wildfire and cut back of brush around houses???
Both in the USA and in Australia the wildfires and especially the destruction of houses is because of changes in policies forced by Activist Fanatics. Too bad someone can not do a class action suit against the whole lot!
“We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down…”
@richardscourtney
I was making the point you seem to think the increase in CO2 plays no part in the recent warming. In fact you said…
“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.”
And you also seem to think man contributes little to the recent increases in CO2…
“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.”
Lastly you seem to think there is no evidence at all for AGW. I wont bother quoting coz you have said it a few times and don’t think you will deny it.
So there you have it. My point is your thinking is further from the thinking of the creator of this site than that of lower up, which makes you the one who is different. How does it feel?
GabrielHBay says:
January 5, 2013 at 7:08 am
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)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Engaging a troll is not for the benefit of the troll but for the audience of Fence Sitters that he is trying to entice over to the ‘Dark Side of the Force’
Crispin in Waterloo:
I am responding to your post at January 5, 2013 at 1:35 pm.
We are getting somewhat off-topic but – I think – not excessively in comparison to effects of the troll infestation on this thread.
Firstly, I did misunderstand the conversation between you and Gail, and I apologise to each of you for that. When the subject of CO2 and water in ice comes up it is usually with respect to Jawarowski’s much-maligned but exceptionally good work. He was a personal friend with whom I collaborated for decades prior to his death so I tend to jump to his defence. Sorry.
Your point about the sequestration and emission of CO2 by seasonality of ice is interesting. I have given it little thought but – given my work on the carbon cycle – it interests me. Quantifying the effect may be difficult because seasonal ice volume is very difficult to determine with determined accuracy and precision. Area is indicated by satellite observations but not volume.
Please let me know if I can help with your investigation, and I look forward to your saying what you can or cannot eventually conclude about the issue.
Richard
Ed says:
“I was making the point you seem to think the increase in CO2 plays no part in the recent warming.”
Ed, THERE IS NO RECENT WARMING!!
Sorry to shout, but that central point apparently hasn’t registered despite the evidence being posted here every day.
You also say, “you seem to think there is no evidence at all for AGW.”
Let’s stick with the proper language: There is no testable, measurable, empirical evidence for AGW. If AGW exists, which is quite possible, it is only a minuscule, third-order forcing that can be completely disregarded. AGW is simply too small to matter.
As for catastrophic AGW [CAGW], let’s not be ridiculous. There is no such thing, at least according to the real world — where the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. Nothing unprecedented is occurring. What we observe now has happened before, and to a much greater degree. CAGW is a totally bogus scare, without a shred of scientific evidence to support it.
Gail Combs:
re your post at January 5, 2013 at 2:11 pm. Thankyou.
Yes, as is usual with your posts, your point is important.
As you say
“Engaging a troll is not for the benefit of the troll but for the audience”
It needs constant repetition for the information of new audience and I often forget that.
And please note my apology to you and Crispin in Waterloo in my post addressed to him at January 5, 2013 at 2:21 pm.
Richard
If not a bot, Lower up is extremely immature and probably a juvenile. It’s kind of embarassing to even read his/her comments.
Lower up says:
January 5, 2013 at 12:26 pm
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You missed the other half of the carbon cycle.
………………….Photosynthesis…………..die…………sink……………compressed
Atmos. CO2 =============> plants ===>bogs =====> peat =========> coal
I suggest you read the explanation by retired EPA Environmental Scientist, F. H. Haynie. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf (A set of very nicely done slides)
Humans are doing nature a much needed service.
Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
Ward JK, Harris JM, Cerling TE, Wiedenhoeft A, Lott MJ, Dearing MD, Coltrain JB, Ehleringer JR.
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas….
Ed:
I am replying to your post addressed to me at January 5, 2013 at 1:59 pm.
I objected to your original post at January 5, 2013 at 12:32 pm which asserted to me
That is a gross misrepresentation because I addressed each of those points in my post at January 5, 2013 at 4:17 am which was addressed to that troll.
I explained why each and every one of his/her/its points is not relevant. And the only ONE (n.b. not “some”) of his/her/its points I am reluctant to accept is the unjustified – and unjustifiable – certainty that “That humans are largely responsible for the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air”. I cited a peer-reviewed paper of which I am a co-author which explains why it is not possible to know if the cause of the recent rise is entirely natural, or is entirely anthropogenic, or is some combination of the two.
You misrepresented me then and you have again misrepresented me in the post I am replying. And don’t think I am unused to trolls ‘hunting in packs’ so I will be discouraged by your support of the other troll.
I await your apology.
Richard
D Böehm
By recent warming, I mean in the last 100 years.
Lower up says:
January 5, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Still the (four) facts remain that underpin the AGW. If you can’t show me they are incorrect, then the AGW is a real phenomena.
The following is from Richard S. Lindzen
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
“It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal.”
Lower up says:
January 5, 2013 at 12:45 pm
OtherAndy. I notice that you are trying the minimise the effect the low concentration on CO2 has on the greenhouse effect. I cannot understand this argument. ….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Lets start with a couple of graphs
Incoming and outgoing radiation Think of the top number (10^9) as a billion dollars and the lowest (10^-1) as pennies. Earthshine is low energy and very strung out compared to sunshine.
Solar Energy, Top of Atmos, Surface & 10meters below ocean
Absorption Spectra of Atmospheric Gases
In AR5 this table is on page 8-39: radiative forcing table
Now this is a very interesting graph. Compare it to the graph above. Water is 4% in the atmosphere and absorbs at a lot more wavelengths but it gets a tiny slice of the forcing compared to CO2. The reason for this is the ASSUMPTION that CO2 will produce warming and the relative humidity will increase so the effect of water is rolled into that of CO2 . Water is ASSUMED to increase the effect of CO2 by a factor of 3.
However you were already show relative humidity has not increased.
NOAA Relative Humidity So that factor of three falls apart when compared to real life data.
The reason is 70% of the earth is covered by water and the energy from the wavelength that CO2 bounces back have no real effect on the ocean.
Ocean: Radiation absorbed at various depths Read the information at the bottom: “Back radiation in the far infrared from the Greenhouse Effect ocurrs at wavelengths centred around 10 micrometres, well off the scale of this chart and can not penetrate penetrate the ocean beyond the surface ‘skin'”
Now go back to the top graph and look at the amount of energy from a thin slice of the earthshine half of the graph. That is the amount of energy you are talking about impinging on the surface skin of the ocean. This chart may help energy for various wavelengths
A change in cloud cover that bounces back sunlight will have more of an effect on the ocean than CO2 infrared.
NOAA
NASA Solar Variation
NASA Article (for above graph)
richardscourtney says:
January 5, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Richard, No problem.
I knew that Jaworowski’s work showed there was water coating ice crystals and I wanted that ‘Out There’ I have no idea if that is true of ice at normal atmospheric pressures and was hoping someone would pick up the ball, so thanks.
You were very lucky to have worked with such a great man as Jaworowski, may history treat him with the respect and honor he deserves.
On another note this Biology information has a very interesting bit of information: http://proteomics.ysu.edu/courses/BIOL3745/UnitII/chapter9.ppt
on page 31 it says
delta 13C:
C3 plants = 28%
C4 plants = 14%
Air = 8%
So it looks as if you can change the C12/C13 ratio by changing the amount of grass vs trees. corn and sugarcane are also C4 as are most grasses. Trees are C3.