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
richadscourtney
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate you making the effort answer my questions.
I think it would be a bit schoolteacherish of you to really expect an apology don’t you? My point is that your views (as read above) are far from mainstream and I can think of no prominent skeptics (Monckton, Watts, Christy, Spencer to name a few) who would side with you in these statements. They (your comments) are those of an extreme skeptic and while it is good to challenge I think the time has long past where people can deny man is having an impact on our climate. I am with the likes of Monckton and Watts who say yes it’s happening, but it is not the big deal being put out there by the media and we certainly don’t need to blow all our hard earned dollars putting a band aid on the problem.
In short I think you do our side no favors refusing to acknowledge the good science that is done by the other side.
Lower up says: January 5, 2013 at 6:24 pm
mpainters, I have provided four facts that provide a mechanism for AGW. Some of posters have agreed that all four facts are valid. If you have a reason to believe that they are incorrect, please share it with us.
======================================
You have provided a theory without support and then you challenge us to disprove your theory. You are a pseudo-scientist of the adolescent variety and it shows, believe me, it shows.
Ed;
I am with the likes of Monckton and Watts who say yes it’s happening, but it is not the big deal being put out there by the media
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ed, seriously. Read what Richard wrote again. I’m not certain if you misunderstand Courntney, or Watts, Spencer, etc.
Just for the record, the “Dragon Slayers” are those who battle against the horrible destruction threatened by CO2 increases. I.e., the Warmists. The book referencing them is IN OPPOSITION to the myth and the rationale for flailing away at non-existent “Sky Dragons”.. Capice?
Slightly OT but the equatorial Pacific surface 150m water temperatures currently (BOM) suggest a nice La Nina is brewing. Do Viner et al will have to wait a little longer for their snow-free future.
David, thank you for your comment: ‘I am accepting your facts as stated’. So we agree that we have a viable mechanism for AGW. Your challenge will take a little thought, but if all the pieces are in place for the mechanism to occur, then it will occur.
DBoehm, I have had another look at the graph and I see that most of the greenhouse effect has occurred when CO2 concentrations were low as you have stated. One thing I note is that earth would be a lot colder had we had no CO2 in the atmosphere. The second thing I notice that the CO2 concentration has increase between pre-industrial and 2010 by 100 ppm. In that time the Earth’s temperature has increased by about 1.5 degrees. If the concentration of CO2 increases by 100 ppm again to 480 ppm (which it is expected to do in 30-40 years time) we can expect a little less than a 1.5 degrees increase again. As you have rightly pointed out the greenhouse effect is very much diminished as the concentration of CO2 passess 180 ppm. This means at the tail end of the graph the relationship is almost linear. Have I read this graph correctly?
David, you have provided some interesting maths, very impressive. The only query I have is that you changed the power of ten from -8 to -6 in one of the lines and I cannot see why.
Apart from that I don’t understand your point, do you accept the IPCC calculations and estimates?
As for the mystery to missing third degree, I must admit I don’t know, but then again I am not right across the math or the significance of what you are trying to show.
Mpainters, I have presented four facts that are not in dispute between myself, Richard, David and DBoehm. So I will have to assume your summary of me applies to them as well and I quote your attempt at belittling your fellow posters:’You are a pseudo-scientist of the adolescent variety and it shows, believe me, it shows’. Rather than name calling please provide why the four facts are in error. If not, I will assume you also accept them too.
Lower up says:
“I have presented four facts that are not in dispute between myself, Richard, David and DBoehm.”
Wrong once again. I deconstructed one of your “facts” in two separate comments, yet you continue to state that I am in agreement with you. I am not. I disputed that belief of yours. And AGW does not matter; it is completely inconsequential. I also disputed one of your four “facts” in detail, and with citations. It appears that I am correct when I say that you do not read comments. Either that, or you have no reading comprehension.
It’s too late now to deconstruct the mistakes in your post above. There are several. But your biggest mistake by far is blithely carrying on with your uneducated beliefs, while never reading [or maybe just not being able to understand] what others are saying.
Lower Up;
David, you have provided some interesting maths, very impressive. The only query I have is that you changed the power of ten from -8 to -6 in one of the lines and I cannot see why.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Typo on my part. The formula is P=5.67*10^-8*T^4
the calculations were done correctly however, I double checked.
Lower Up
Apart from that I don’t understand your point, do you accept the IPCC calculations and estimates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: I accept that the direct effects of of CO2 doubling will be an approximate increase in downward energy flux (that otherwise would not have existed) that will be 3.7 w/m2 larger than the upward energy flux (that otherwise would not have existed) as per the IPCC definition of same.
Lower Up;
As for the mystery to missing third degree, I must admit I don’t know, but then again I am not right across the math or the significance of what you are trying to show.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: If you don’t know why the calculation comes out to 0.32 degrees less than what the IPCC claims it should be (slightly over 1.0 degrees) then do you still believe that the IPCC number is correct and if so, why?
DBoehm, what part of ‘Finally, as I have written many, many times: AGW probably exists’ did I misunderstand?
DBoehm you have failed to deconstruct any of the facts, but rather provided evidence that supports those facts. The two pieces of evidence you provided are that humans are contributing to CO2 to the atmosphere and that this increase will cause an increase in the earth’s temperature. You only provided a qualifier that the effect is minor, but as I am pointing out it is an effect just the same. Sorry if you find this inconvenient.
I have read through all posts from davidmhoffer, richardscourtney and D Böehm etc in response to “Lower Up”, guys you are wasting your time. If he/she is from Australia then this person classically demonstrates the sort of uninformed mindless twaddle people spout here everyday in the AGW debate (We certainly DON’T have any debate in Aus regrding CO2 and AGW – Nanny state knows best, so shut up and pay your carbon price). They have been severely branwashed by the various “authorities” and refuse to look at actual science. Australia was the lucky country once, now look at it.
Ed:
I am replying to your nasty little post at January 5, 2013 at 7:55 pm. In this reply I shall quote every word in your post and rebut each of its statements in turn.
It says to me
NO! I don’t!
Any decent person would have already apologised. However, no decent person would have behaved as you have.
And you assert
That is a lie!
The most prominent “skeptic” is Lindzen and his agreement has been repeatedly reported in this thread.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley certainly does agree my view; see
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938
etc.
Stop trying to justify your disgraceful behaviour by making false claims that others would support you.
Then you say
The truth is what it is. I state the truth and you have failed to find any flaw in my statements.
I am a realist and you are a liar who has repeatedly attempted to misrepresent me in this thread. The next point in your thread does it again, saying
I “deny” nothing: I merely report empirical findings.
Humans changed local environment when they first cleared a forest to plant a field. You again misrepresent me by implying I have said otherwise. For example, in this thread at January 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm where I wrote
And I am truly disgusted by your blatantly false statement saying
You are clearly a ‘concern troll’ who has tried to disrupt this thread and you misrepresent the science which refutes AGW.
Your concluding statement is a demonstration of pure ‘concern trolling’. It says
What “good science that is done by the other side”? You cite none.
Almost all of the AGW-scare is based on very, very bad science; see
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm
Apologise then clear off.
Richard
Patrick says: January 6, 2013 at 1:18 am
============================
I put this upthread but it bears repeating: poor Australians
Patrick:
Your entire post at January 6, 2013 at 1:18 am says
With respect, I think you are misreading the situation.
Firstly, we are debunking the “mindless twaddle” from ‘Lower up’ so that twaddle does not mislead people who are reading this thread as a method to obtain information.
Secondly, and importantly, I don’t think ‘Lower up’ is the “brainwashed” idiot he/she/it pretends to be. His/her/its behaviour is typical of a paid troll or a bot. For example, ‘Lower up’ says at January 5, 2013 at 6:12 pm
But I have provided no such “evidence”.
On the contrary, I have repeatedly – including in two posts specifically addressed to ‘Lower up’ – stated that it is not possible to know if humans are – or are not – “contributing CO2 into the atmosphere”. This is because “emitting” and “contributing” do not have the same meaning in a complex system.
We know that humans emit CO2 to the air (e.g. with each breath) but it is not possible to know what – if any – contribution that makes to the CO2 in the air. ‘Lower up’ has not requested any explanation of that but, instead, asserts I provided “evidence” that “humans are contributing CO2 into the atmosphere”.
Simply, ‘Lower up’ displays ‘word play’ of the kind produced by bots. Hence, it is most likely that ‘Lower up’ is a bot and not merely a simpleton.
Richard
“richardscourtney says:
January 6, 2013 at 3:46 am”
I agree that it is word play, disagree “Lower Up” is a bot, paid troll however, yes. I see these types posting all the time here in Aus. You see them pop up when there is “extreme weather”, especially in Aus, “Lower Up” appeared just after the recent fires in Aus, along with “Climate Ace”. Bots not, trolls yes!
Lower up says:
January 5, 2013 at 11:22 pm
DBoehm you have failed to deconstruct any of the facts, but rather provided evidence that supports those facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As put to you by any number of people previously, in any number of ways, how do your four facts support the conclusion that anything significant is happening as an outcome of those four facts?
Patrick says:
“…in response to ‘Lower Up’, guys you are wasting your time. …he/she … classically demonstrates the sort of uninformed mindless twaddle people spout here everyday in the AGW debate…”
True. ‘Lower up’ will not admit it, but if AGW even exists, it is de minimis It does not matter. It is too small to measure, therefore it remains only a conjecture. That fact deconstructs Lower up’s belief system. That is the difference between rational science and Lower up’s anti-science beliefs.
Regarding Mr Shehan’s descent into ad hominem name-calling, he is trying to cover up the fact that there has been no acceleration of global warming — the crux of his alarmist beliefs, as demonstrated by his John Cook cartoon of rapidly accelerating global temperature — something that even the UN/IPCC admits is not happening.
I have posted numerous links showing conclusively that there is no acceleration in the natural global warming trend, and in fact, that global warming has stopped. Shehan’s lame response is that I am “blowing smoke”. He needs to go tell the HadCRUT folks that their charts are wrong. He needs to tell U of Huntsville climate scientists that their satellite data is wrong, and his mendacious John Cook cartoon is right. He needs to tell Prof Richard Lindzen that Lindzen is wrong. And he needs to explain why the very long term trend charts I posted are “cherry-picking”. Simply asserting that nonsense shows Shehan’s desperation.
But Shehan cannot do any of that, because he would be laughed at by folks who know more than he does — doubled and squared. Shehan really hates the fact that I am simply showing what others have found: that there is no acceleration of natural global warming. That debunks Shehan’s ‘acceleration’ nonsense. He doesn’t like it, but he is too chicken to go straight to the sources and argue with them. He would only get laughed at.
Patrick says: January 6, 2013 at 4:22 am
“Lower Up” appeared just after the recent fires in Aus, along with “Climate Ace”. Bots not, trolls yes!
=============================
These clowns got hot to trot over what they perceived as an opportunity to propagandize, and so they come to WUWT to make converts, the idiots. The left side of the bell curve imagines to instruct the right side.
D Böehm :
At January 6, 2013 at 5:44 am you say
Yes. You, I and David M Hoffer have repeatedly said that.
I provide an analogy in case there are any who fail to understand the matter.
A stone thrown into the ocean displaces some water and, therefore, raises sea level. Children throw stones into the sea every day, so children are raising sea level. But the effect of those stones on sea level is too small to be discernible. The effect of the stones is trivially small because it is insignificant against the natural variations in sea level (caused by surface waves, tides, seismic variations, ocean spreading, etc.). Hence, for all practical purposes children throwing stones into the sea can be said to not raise sea level although theoretically it does. Indeed, no sane person would stop children throwing stones into the ocean for fear of the resulting sea level change.
But ‘Lower up’ says (first at January 4, 2013 at 11:40 pm) that he will not accept there is no AGW unless it is shown that his “four facts” are incorrect; viz.
Thereafter, he pretends that we accept AGW is a real and present effect because we don’t dispute his so-called facts but point out that any such AGW is trivially small and indiscernible against natural variations.
His pretence is daft.
It has equal merit to his being asked if he disputes that children throwing stones in the sea causes sea level rise, and when he replies it is trivially small and indiscernible against natural variations, his being told he admits child-induced sea level rise is a real and present effect.
Richard
The use of the word “anomalies” gives many people the false impression that something is wrong with the weather or climate.
Wiktionary’s first three definitions for the word “anomaly” are:
(1) A deviation from a rule or from what is regarded as normal;
(2) Something or someone that is strange or unusual; and,
(3) (sciences) Any event or measurement that is out of the ordinary regardless of whether it is exceptional or not.
Lower up says: @ur momisugly January 5, 2013 at 6:12 pm
….Gail, you are contradicting the evidence that both Richard and DBoehm have provided that humans are contributing CO2 into the atmosphere. You have also failed to explain why the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. I am aware of the carbon cycle where carbon is cycled between living things and the air. However it is a cycle, so if plants are soaking up carbon from the air, there is a corresponding release of carbon through respiration. Unless you can point to a pile of dead plants and animals locking carbon out of the cycle your point lacks validity. On the other hand I can readily point to holes in the ground where carbon was locked out of the cycle in the form of coal, and this has now been released through combustion back into the atmosphere…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gail, you are contradicting the evidence that both Richard and DBoehm have provided that humans are contributing CO2 into the atmosphere…..
……
Most everything is contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere, plants; animals, microbes, the oceans, volcanoes and other geologic processes. I ‘know’ Richard via WUWT well enough to know his views and mine are very closely aligned. D Böehm is new here and I have not read much on his views on CO2, just on temperature. However I doubt if he is stupid enough to ignore the long and short term cycles in the climate and the real carbon cycle when they are pointed out.
Your problems is you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about or what the actual points of disagreement between skeptics and warmists are. This makes your attempts at debate confusing and often times out right hilarious.
For example the carbon cycle:
You say:
That is the kiddie view of the carbon cycle. It leave out the major players, the hydrosphere, and the lithosphere, only showing a simplified version of the biosphere in order to confuse.
For example “holes in the ground where carbon was locked out of the cycle in the form of coal” is completely incorrect because short term natural oil seeps and burning coal seams returned this carbon to the atmosphere without the help of man (The bacteria gobbling up the gulf oil spill is a case in point) Long term ALL sequestered carbon is returned to the atmosphere via geological processes. Or are you ignorant of Plate Tectonics too?
…..
BTW Where in hell do you think COAL comes from anyway?
Plant and animal remains get deposited in lake beds that become swamps as they are filled with sediment. There are four stages in coal formation: peat, lignite, bituminous and anthracite.
…..
You also completely left out THE biggest short term player, the ocean.
First lets go to the EPA environmental scientist and see what he says:
Then lets go to a geologist who taught geology and geophysics at the University of Oslo, Norway, and at Pennsylvania State.
Edmund Burke’s made the comment “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”
It applies to the climate too. Those who ignore what geology tells us are continually surprised. Those who have at least a smattering of geology are not. I paid attention in my geo classes and made sure I built my house well above the flood plain. My new neighbor’s did not heed my warning and built on the flood plain, actually they put in an entire subdivision. The next hurricane like Hurricane Fran will see them all flooded out.
What does geology tell us about the recent temperature? graph and graph An explanation.
A while back, on one blog or other, the term “prat” was defined and discussed. Does not “lower up” fit that mold? (or, mould, if you prefer.)
phlogiston says:
January 5, 2013 at 9:35 pm
Slightly OT but the equatorial Pacific surface 150m water temperatures currently (BOM) suggest a nice La Nina is brewing. Do Viner et al will have to wait a little longer for their snow-free future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, the ‘rise’ in Global SST stalled and has been flat since about 1998. It will be interesting to see if multiple La Ninas dump heat the way Bob T. showed Le Nino’s caused a gain in SST heat.
♬ The times they are a changing ♬
mpainter says: @ur momisugly January 6, 2013 at 5:48 am
…. The left side of the bell curve imagines to instruct the right side.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So true, now I have to clean the tea off my screen again LOL.
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.
Gail Combs wrote in her post at January 6, 2013 at 6:49 am
In the context in which she wrote she is completely correct.
Gail’s posts on WUWT clearly display similar views to my own concerning climate and the AGW-scare. And I support all she has written in this thread concerning the carbon cycle.
I admire her informative and cogent posts on WUWT which are always supported by pertinent links, quotations and references.
However, to avoid trolls jumping in with misleading irrelevance, I add that I suspect her political philosophy is very different from my socialist principles.
I have never met Gail Combs but her posts on WUWT cause me to admire the lady.
Richard