Heaviest Snowfall in a Century Hits Moscow – WWF has logic fail

Snow_100YR_RUSSIA

UPDATE: See a new related story here.

From the Moscow Times

By Roland Oliphant

The heaviest snowfall in a century brought Moscow and the surrounding region to a near standstill and left hundreds of people without power, officials said Tuesday.

And with snowfall set to continue at least until the end of the week, the authorities are bracing for more chaos on the roads.

“There hasn’t been such a winter in 100 years,” Pyotr Biryukov, deputy mayor for residential issues, said Tuesday in comments carried by Interfax. “The snow this year has already reached one and a half times the climatic norm,” he said.

The capital has seen 216 centimeters of snow fall since the beginning of winter, Biryukov said. 

Average snowfall in Moscow is 152 centimeters a year. Biryukov said the city saw 26 centimeters in the 24 hours preceding his Tuesday afternoon news conference and has seen 36 centimeters since the beginning of February.

The heavy snowfall that struck the city Monday quickly led to chaos on the roads. The Yandex Probki traffic monitoring service reached a full 10 points, and on Monday evening it issued the seldom-seen warning that “it’s quicker to walk.”

Read more: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/heaviest-snowfall-in-a-century-hits-moscow/475102.html#ixzz2K4m8i13z

In a similar story here

The WWF in Russia blames the exceptional winter weather on global warming: 

Whether or not Blinkin is right about the tires, City Hall would be well-advised to give the massive snowfall some serious thought. Scientists say such extreme weather is only likely to increase.

“The weather we’ve seen in the past couple of days completely fits with the tendency that was identified a couple of years ago, that we are going to to see much stronger, intensive bursts of precipitation in the future,” said Alexei Kokorin, director of the climate and energy program at WWF Russia. “In the summer, we will probably see stronger bursts of rain.”

===========================================================

Gaia is angry, send more money to Pachauri@wwf.ru

Seriously though, the logic fail here by the WWF spokesman is typical for clueless zealots. If global warming caused this snowfall event, what caused the heavy snow 100 years ago when CO2 levels were below Hansen’s “safe” 350ppm?

Inquiring minds want to know.

UPDATE: The popular warmist theory is that reduced summer sea ice causes the enhanced snow effect, and that sea ice reduction is caused by global warming, but it isn’t cut and dried proof. Then there is the months-long lag problem between reduced sea ice and weather.

From a previous WUWT essay by Willis Eschenbach, I repost this graph. Find the correlation between Arctic sea ice and Snow area.

Figure 2. Arctic sea ice area (blue) and Northern Hemisphere snow area (red).  Upper panel shows actual data. Lower panel shows the anomalies of the same data, with the same units (note different scales). The R^2 of the snow and ice anomalies is 0.01, meaninglessly small. The R^2 of the first differences of the anomalies is 0.004, equally insignificant. Neither of these are significantly improved by lags of up to ± 6 months. SNOW DATA ICE DATA

Willis wrote then:

I’m not going to say a whole lot about this graph. It is clear that in general the arctic ice area has been decreasing for twenty years or so. It is equally clear that the northern hemisphere snowfall has not been increasing for the last twenty years. Finally, it is clear that there is no statistical relationship between decreased ice and increased snow.

UPDATE2: Speaking of statistical relationships, here’s a couple.

The graph below plots annual snowfall vs December to April temperature, for all Colorado USHCN stations which have been continuously active since at least 1920.

USHCN_Colorado_snow_vs_temp

The Colorado USHCN Stations plotted are:

BOULDER, CANON CITY, CHEESMAN, CHEYENNE WELLS, DEL NORTE 2E, DILLON 1 E, EADS, FT COLLINS, FT MORGAN, FRUITA, GUNNISON 3SW, HERMIT 7 ESE, LAMAR, LAS ANIMAS, MANASSA, MONTROSE #2, ROCKY FORD 2 SE. STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, TRINIDAD, and WRAY

And for those that would say that is too small a sample size, let’s take it up a notch. Below is all USHCN station temperature for December-April in the CONUS versus snowfall.

USHCN_Snowfall_VS_Dec-Apr

Here is all USHCN stations annual temperature in the CONUS versus snowfall.

USHCN_Temp_vs-Snowfall

Clearly increased snowfall and decreased temperature correlate. The three graphs above were plotted by Steve Goddard.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Chris B

“Seriously though, the logic fail here by the WWF spokesman is typical for clueless zealots. If global warming caused this snowfall event, what caused the heavy snow 100 years ago when CO2 levels were below Hansen’s “safe” 350ppm?
Inquiring minds want to know.”
================================
This was the wrong kind of snow?

kim

What caused it? Why Rasputin’s thingie. Hey, it caused it this time, too.
==========

Chris Beal @NJ_Snow_Fan

Got to love it ,Blame Global Warming on Everything today. When are they going to give in and just say Global Cooling is the cause. Dam Broke Governments and everyone thinks the can get rich like Al Gore did. Party is over and the last ones in the house will go to jail that are not wearing white collars.LOL

Robert of Ottawa

Oh so lame, oh so lame. You probably think this is about you, AGW. WWF into a cloud of snow…
Carley Simons anyone?

albertalad

Go figure! Global Warming snow. Only possibly down the rabbit hole. The Brits are having a fun winter. Here in northern Alberta we’re experiencing more minus thirties than God Himself intended. How do you fight insanity? Where is truth? Who even care about truth anymore outside to the great folks on this site and a few others. WWF? Maybe someone should tell them all that ice on both poles was indeed snow at one time. Or was it Global Warming snow? Heck, now I’m confused.

This is unconventional snow, you know – the kind Global Warming causes – lol.

Robert of Ottawa

I am going to, in public situations, robustly proclaim Global Warming as the cause of whatever the problem is. Do it. Ridicule is the best weapon.

David J. Ameling

I think we are experiencing lake effect snow. That is the less ice coverage in the Arctic ocean the more moisture there is available to produce snow. There is a theory that glaciation did not occur until the South Americam continent ran into the North American continrnt. This forced the Gulf stream north, warming the polar oceans causing more ice free water to produce more lake effect snow. The more snow the greater the albedo and more cooling. More glaciers.

Ben Darren Hillicoss

I was in Moscow 16 years ago, in September, It snow twice in the 5 days we were there in 1996….wasn’t there even more globle warming then??….HHMMM
how can anyone be so short sighted to not see natural variation in the climate…my favorite media weather cast “worst WHATEVER in 100 years” then blame it on CAGW…lord help us

Greg House

If I was a warmist, I would say: “please, guys, we warmists do not say that global warming means always and everywhere, what we mean is an overall trend. There can be snow or record snow or cold waves, all this can happen, we have no problem with that, because we look at the overall trend and still see warming since the 19th century. Therefore your examples do not refute our concept.”

pokerguy

We’re going to have to wait a year or two. They can blame warmth on gw, floods and drought and even localized snow and cold evidently. The one thing they can’t blame gw is actual global cooling. Won’t be long now.

TimTheToolMan

It seems there has been a Sudden Stratospheric Warming event which disrupted the polar vortex and send cold air (normally confined further North) down over Northern Europe. On the other side Canada appears to have missed this and has been exceptionally warm.
It will be interesting to see how things progress from here but one thing’s for sure, extending stronger burts of rain in summer from this event is clueless.

Glen Michel

It only took 12 years of ” elevated”temperatures for this so called record fall to occur. So unremarkable in the context of medium term events. WWF has no sense of perspective; try talking to their foot soldiers sometime and you will quickly gauge their lack of real life experiences.

Pamela Gray

“The Day After Tomorrow” will be revisited. It was funny then. Still funny. Idiots.

Why is Atlantic Ocean moisture dominating N. Hemisphere climate feedbacks? (It is hard for me to imagine that the poorly understood *by me* contrast between a Warm AMO/ Cold PDO would enable such a pivoting of whether phenomena given the expanse of their source regions especially when the Pacific, I am told, is presenting, with its recent el nino, la nina inconstance a general La nada effect (whatever that means)

John Bell

They renamed global warming to climate change to protect for the possiblilty that the climate might cool, and now because weather is always changing then that means that climate is always changing which makes them look correct. We MUST keep asking how climate can change without the intermediate step of warming. We must stop their campaign.

Mooloo

Until recently Wikipedia was crediting Moscow will much less snow than normal, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Moscow while hinting strongly it was due to climate change being particularly strong there. The recent heat waves get a good mention. That is in line with
http://www.climateadaptation.eu/russia/en#climate-change saying mean snow depth is decreasing in the region due to climate change.
But that’s the joy of AGW, isn’t it? It causes less snow, right up to the moment it causes more snow.

LamontT

So let me get this right. It is freezing with more snow than normal in Russia because the climate has warmed. … …. …. Right…. and I have a bridge you can buy.

Mike

What starts out as a joke among skeptics is plagiarized by the warmists as being real.
Global warming is everything. As for pokerbuys comment that “The one thing they can’t blame gw is actual global cooling”, give it time and be prepared to be amazed by how alarmists will prove that global warming causes cooling.

Harsh winter every century and it is global warming? Lot of snow and I’m sure they are suffering, but I lived east of lake Michigan, so it’s not all that much snow.

Rick Bradford

There is no doubt that Man-Made Global Warming is true — last night I ordered a pizza and there was a clear image of a polar bear visible between the anchovies. What more proof do you need? /sarc

MichaelS

@TimTheToolMan – I don’t know what part of Canada has been experiencing exceptionally warm weather because here in Ottawa we’ve been in a deep freeze since January 21st.

rogerknights

If warmists say, as they sometimes do, that AGW theory predicted these sort of extreme events, the response should be:
Yes, but only later, after more warming had occurred.

geran

Greg House says:
February 5, 2013 at 5:41 pm
If I was a warmist, I would say: “please, guys, we warmists do not say that global warming means always and everywhere, what we mean is an overall trend. There can be snow or record snow or cold waves, all this can happen, we have no problem with that, because we look at the overall trend and still see warming since the 19th century. Therefore your examples do not refute our concept.”
Sadly Greg, the warmists do not “look at the overall trend”. They want to define the “trend”, and then declare it is warming. And, in a global warming “trend”, you would not have recurring “new” record lows.
But, the battle continues because belief systems are not vacated easily.

@Greg House
No ‘if’ or ‘was’, you are a warmist.
Not many people here say there hasn’t been a warming trend since the 19th century .
However, there seems to be a disconnect between the trend and the rising levels of CO2.
In case you ‘forgot’, Man-made-CO2-causes-global-warming is the basic tenet of the post-modern warmist.
Remember this one Greg?
The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
As for trends, what trend are you following?
It has been cooling for the last 12 years
It has been warming for the last 400 years
It has been cooling for the last 1100 years
It has been warming for the last 2000 years
It has been cooling for the last 8000 years
It has been warming for the last 100000 years
It has been cooling for the last 5000000 years

Gary Hladik

When asked for comment, President Obama said, “It’s Bush’s fault.”

Pat Frank

Guess we can say that WWF gets a WTF moment.

Mark and two Cats

WWF should change their name to WTF.

TomRude

“There hasn’t been such a winter in 100 years,” So 100 years ago this happened too… that must have been “Global Warming by Anticipation”… LOL

Greg House

Other_Andy says, February 5, 2013 at 6:31 pm: “@Greg House
No ‘if’ or ‘was’, you are a warmist.
Not many people here say there hasn’t been a warming trend since the 19th century .
However, there seems to be a disconnect between the trend and the rising levels of CO2.”

========================================================
Am I a warmist now, because I have shown you how easily the main idea of the article above can be countered by warmists? And your mention of CO2 has nothing to do with my “warmist” argumentation. I did not refer to CO2 at all, only to the alleged warming trend.

http://www.climateadaptation.eu/russia/en#climate-change
Due to climate warming, a substantial reduction in snow cover is expected in most of the country. The increase in winter precipitation in the EPR will be due mainly to liquid phase, and in Siberia the major portion of additional precipitation will be in solid phase. Thus, in the EPR, the reduction in snow mass and the increase in winter runoff will occur, and in Siberia further accumulation of snow mass in winter and its more rapid melting in spring can be expected. This will result in more frequent and extensive flooding.
Trends of wintertime snow mass accumulation vary over the country. In European Russia (that is, Russia east of the Urals) and south of Western Siberia snow mass is expected to decrease compared with long-term mean values. By 2015 a 10-15 percent decrease is expected.
CAGW prediction = FAIL

bikermailman

It’s funny the way the brain fills things in to fit one’s mindset (esp while enjoying a nice Kentucky bourbon). I saw “Pachauri@wwf.ru” as ‘Pachuri w t f r u’, and had to double take. I’m thinking my brain on autopilot even knows Watts Up With That.

Jeff L

” WWF in Russia” …… ???
World Wrestling Federation … would explain the logic fail :))
/sarc

Peter Laux

Oh Anthony please !
You dare ask, what caused the heavy snow fall 100 years ago ? Mankind of course!
It was simply Gaia preempting our wicked, selfish attempts to bring prosperity to ordinary people by the use of her evil fossil fuels !
No “logic fail” here !

William McClenney

OK. I’ll see your….
“The weather we’ve seen in the past couple of days completely fits with the tendency that was identified a couple of years ago, that we are going to to see much stronger, intensive bursts of precipitation in the future,” said Alexei Kokorin
And raise you….
“In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities……marked by at least two warming events….The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages.” http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf
Dealer calls cards……..

Michael Tremblay

Did You Know – That the according to the latest dogma from the AGW crowd, that the last ice age was officially declared the result of Global Warming and mankind can be blamed because we didn’t try to prevent it?

David Ball

Why did “Fiddler on the Roof” leap to mind when Greg House wrote; “If I were a warmist,…”
8^D

Reg Nelson

The fact that they had to change the narrative (propoganda) from Global Warming, to Climate Change, to Extreme Climate is just more proof how inept, incompentent and corrupt these charlatans are, and how complicit MSM has become.

David Ball

No offense whatsoever to Greg.

William McClenney

Let’s see if the link works in this paste:
http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf

Austin
RockyRoad

Greg House says:
February 5, 2013 at 5:41 pm

If I was a warmist, I would say: “please, guys, we warmists do not say that global warming means always and everywhere, what we mean is an overall trend. There can be snow or record snow or cold waves, all this can happen, we have no problem with that, because we look at the overall trend and still see warming since the 19th century. Therefore your examples do not refute our concept.”

Except, Mr. House, they can’t accuse CO2 for being the villain! The reason? The increase in CO2 for the first two-thirds of this warming period you’ve identified was negligible. In fact, the rate of warming since 1860 ’till the present has been pretty much constant. From that, one can surmise that the warming has been pretty much natural, and refutes the suggestion that man’s use of carbon-based fuels is the culprit.
Only thing the “powers that be” want to do is control our energy sources, for he that controls energy controls pretty much everything.

EW3

Place I worked about 20 miles west of Boston, MA was in a converted New England Mill. On the first floor the WWF had an office. They used to use the marble floored overlooking a lake during warmer weather to hold wine and cheese fundraisers with the people who felt guilty that they were successful. They put out all kinds of “scientific” litereature to support their views.
We need to remove their tax exempt status, so donations to them are taken off the taxes of the donater. In effect it’s the federal government supporting the WWF. Sadly they have so many lawyers on staff, they would certainly block any change.

Higher winter snowfall?
makes sense
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/05/impact-of-declining-arctic-sea-ice-on-winter-snowfall/
“Abstract. While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and East Asia. Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic Oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in mid-latitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic Oscillation. This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter, and the northeastern and mid-west United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters.”
of course there is always some room for doubt.. always and forever in science.. there is room for doubt…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/06/i-used-to-be-snow-white/
But, when you raise an objection and the snow doesnt fall your way, look out for UCT or MbW.
( two patterns of conspiritorial ideation )
The link between less ice and more winter snow in particular locations is an interesting one. Surely not settled. But, its not exactly wrong as the events in moscow attest. In fact we can probably say that it will never be proven, and can always be doubted, but since it was predicted one can hardly call it evidence disproving AGW. observe the subtle differences in that sentence.
For me, when the ice fell below the record, my prior was “expect some record snowfall/colder winters in the NH.” Better than a 50/50 bet. Clearly not a sure thing, but clearly not a pure coin toss.

J.H.

If global warming caused this snowfall event, what caused the heavy snow 100 years ago when CO2 levels were below Hansen’s “safe” 350ppm?
Inquiring minds want to know.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Well that’s simple….. This is Unconventional snow…. What fell in 1912 was Conventional snow. 😉

pottereaton

Mosh: would lower winter snowfall make more or less sense than higher winter snowfall? Jes askin.

William McClenney

The link below must be copied and pasted in another tab, window or browser:
http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf
Alternative, you can do a google.scholar.com searth on a portion or all of the title:
Instability of climate and vegetation dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe during the final stage of the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) and Early Glaciation
For some reason a live link will not properly post here for this site.
Moderator: please delete previous attempts to fix this link. Thanks!

RockyRoad

Steven Mosher says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:40 pm


For me, when the ice fell below the record, my prior was “expect some record snowfall/colder winters in the NH.”

Considering the relatively short duration of our weather records and the high variability of weather events on a localized scale, it is not at all uncommon to have additional “record weather events” as time goes by. Indeed, a lack of further record setting would be highly improbable.
However, we’re certainly not seeing evidence that snow is a thing of the past as some Warmistas once predicted. I’m sure such claims are never mentioned except in derision around Moscow about now.

Reg Nelson

Steven Mosher says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:40 pm
Higher winter snowfall?
But, when you raise an objection and the snow doesnt fall your way, look out for UCT or MbW.
————–
So, “deniers” are now sub-divided into denier acronym categories. WTF? LOL! EF (Epic Fail)
You seem to forget that it is the scientist’s responsibility to prove their hypothesis, not mine or anyone else’s) to disprove them.
The Earth is billions of years old. Looking at a few dozen decades of incomplete, corrupt and highly manipulated (homogenized) data is meaningless. And basing policy decisions based on unfounded “Chicken Little Sky is Falling” science is ridiculous.