Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Because climate scientists predicted all along that global warming = more snow.
Austria Avalanche: How much more snow will fall? HUGE snowstorm hits Austria and Germany
AVALANCHES caused by heavy snow fall in parts of the Alps have resulted in the deaths of at least seven people. But how much more snow will fall after a huge snowstorm hit Europe?
By RACHEL RUSSELL
PUBLISHED: 09:34, Tue, Jan 8, 2019A plunge in the jet stream has been made a devastating impact in parts of Europe since New Year’s Day, according to The Weather Channel. The deadly weather started by a storm sweeping in from the North Atlantic into Scandinavia and northern Europe on the first day of 2019. This system was reportedly named Storm Zeetje and brought the first storm surge of the year on the Baltic coast of Germany and southern Denmark.
The system then headed into eastern Europe and brought moist cold air into the higher elevations, including the Alps.
Ski resorts in the Austrian Alps reported up to seven feet of snow in the first days of January, which lead to many resorts closing amid safety fears.
Leon Brown, Head of Global Meteorological Operations with The Weather Company said this has been “probably one of the worst winters in the Alps for avalanches” since 1999.
…
Let us hope any other people in danger make it to safety.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pigs in space – read this morning (can’t recall where) that refugee camps
Lebanon are buried in snow.
Many of the unfortunate people are freezing to death.
The UN refugee bod in charge said ” Its global warming”
Say no more or does Mr Mosher agree with that prognosis?
“Many of the unfortunate people are freezing to death.
The UN refugee bod in charge said ” Its global warming”
Say no more or does Mr Mosher agree with that prognosis?”
Well, there you go again.
Didn’t I just explain to you not to get your science from a dude?
How can I make this ANYMORE clear. dont get your science from a dude.
1. Don’t get your science from the MSM
2. Don’t get your science from dudes who have a blog or twitter or instagram. like me
3. Single event attribution is not my field. I suspend judgment on these types of questions
unless I am forced to make a decision that is critical to something I am working on.
4. Check Ar5? do you see his claim there? Nope? ok, ignore it, go read the comics.
If they are freezing to death I would not say it’s global warming, I’d say it’s poor fashion choice.
Or most likely I would just ignore the claim. It’s not important to form an opinion about it.
Mr Mosher,
Thank you for your reply.
I can assure you I do not ‘take’ my weather knowledge from any fake MSM.
I do actually have some background and knowledge about basic botany, weather forecasting and basic science.
As a fellow Catholic, I am disappointed at your rather snide dismissal of the plight of thousands of (mainly) Christian refugees suffering severe cold weather conditions. After all they are fleeing the slaughter inflicted upon those in the middle east who have not submitted to the “religion of peace”
To call it “a poor fashion choice” in beneath contempt in my opinion.
The main point I was making was the UN refugee head Honcho blaming the ubiquitous global warming for their suffering.
wrong steven mosher.
thats steven W Mosher
I’m Steven M
many others have confused the 2
Here is a special treat for you all
Samuri Suggested the following
##########################
Steve-san:
Here is the empircal evidence showing both 30-year and 49-year trends for Northern Hemisphere Snow Extents are increasing:
If you have empirical evidence (not climate model BS) showing decreasing snow Extent trends, post it.
Ciao.
########################################
Now a while ago our old friend Tiny Heller was on twitter pushing these charts about snow.
Here is what I love about skeptics! If Mann had posted any chart, ya’ll would be digginmg through the details.
But, when you see a chart that shows something you believe in? Why crap, all your skepticism flies out the window and you repost that shit without checking
So, I made up a little script for Samuri.. to show ALL the data. I fixed it up a little for him because december 2018 data is now in
So the first thing you have to gronk is that the rudgers data has missing months
https://ibb.co/LnVLCtq
If we want annual data it looks like this for the average snow extent per year.
Three sets here: 1966 to present; 1972 to present ( get rid of the years with missing data)
and 1988 to present, cherry pie.
https://ibb.co/VT60RQn
https://ibb.co/jHBG2my
https://ibb.co/BfY98r4
See? if you hunt for data where the snow goes up, You can find it!
What else do we see?
Short story:
A) in a time of warming you can see an INCREASE of snow falling in the fall and winter
Snow requires 2 things at least. The right temperature and the righ tamount of moisture in the
air.
B) In the spring and summer warmer weather kinda helps to melt snow. duh.
Here’s all the charts for folks interested in all the data.
https://ibb.co/42LgvLF
https://ibb.co/1byYMnh
https://ibb.co/YQn2WTW
https://ibb.co/jkwCrzy
https://ibb.co/KD8tY5D
https://ibb.co/848DVbP
https://ibb.co/XVz51zf
https://ibb.co/5rZr8BM
https://ibb.co/LnVLCtq
https://ibb.co/9njsxfC
https://ibb.co/RjbD4St
https://ibb.co/HXGmp7G
Years ago when I heard these predictions by climatologist that there would be less snow I was surprised. More warming means more energy in the wave patterns so why would there be less snow? Then I thought well maybe they’re actually thinking about centuries from now when the planet warms enough to make snow very rare except above the Arctic Circle. But then I thought how could they be thinking like that and saying that we’ll see the end of snow? Are they just being over enthusiastic about their theory and not thinking in practical terms?
I’ve met a few climatologists and they don’t seem to have a lot of experience looking at daily weather charts, season after season. They’re like physicists who want to formulate ideas from very small scale views.
When did you start in the field? Did you ever expect to find confirmations in your working lifetime?
started in 2007.
as a hobby.
confirmations? for what I do? not sure.
Thanks Steven –
Take these quick comments as something to think about. What does the future hold? It’s not all bad if it would stay like this.
Since 2011 seasonal onsets have been delayed as indicated by the wave pattern at 300mbs.
The autumn turnover has been delayed by a few weeks which is bad due to warmer conditions and more jet stream energy far enough south for late hurricanes. Hurricane Sandy was a late one, which was allowed by the warmth to thread the needle up the coast. That got peoples’ attention.
The spring turnover has been delayed by a month. This delays the setup in tornado alley and then luckily TX OK are quickly skipped over.
Cold winter weather in the storm tracks as been delayed about a month also. Same again this year.
Many thoughtful points made on this thread by multiple authors… and agree on the Steve quality factor. Thanks.
Have been thinking what JSnook said.
You are welcome James,
I have some spare time and using the computer for posting makes it easier to post at length.
Thanks for your time. Very informative. Hope it continues!
Agree. Many folks here try very hard to disagree with Steve Mosher. Partly it’s his acid sense of humor. Seems to me however, he’s close to being Judith Curry’s soulmate.
We can all learn more about being a good skeptic.
some complain about my “base” humor.
Hmm, I’m probably closer to Judiths position than many people think
heck we are co authors.
But I am critical of some of her weird attacks on data.
Really? Like what?
Steven, not familiar with the code (as above, in the earlier post to Sam) . . . looks like R maybe? Did you do this with a certain compiler and if so which one?
Thanks.
Germany sucessfully has combated Global Warming. According to some High Priests of the Green Order ist was necessary to install Wind Wheels, driven by Coal Power, to chop some birds as a sacrifice. No need to slaughter virgins. Very convenient.
Now, as the windwheels have blown away Bad Global Warming, methinks we have to demolish some of the windmills, to reduce the snow.
As our beloved Kanzlerette Mommy Angie says: “Wir schaffen das!” and “Alles unter Kontrolle!”
From the article: “This system was reportedly named Storm Zeetje”
“Storm Zeetje” is right at the end of the alphabet. Does that mean there were 26 storm fronts in their area for 2018?
I sure hope my local meteorologists don’t start calling our thunderstorms by a stupid name. We do just fine without naming them. How about numbering them instead? How about just leaving well enough alone?
How much time is wasted sitting around deciding what to name the next thunderstorm? Where the heck did they come up with “Zeetje” anyway? Is that a common name where they come from? Sheesh!
Zeetje is a feminine first name you may find everywhere
as shown here
*very explicit palmface*
Yes absolutely, snow is a thing of the past, big oil companies have secretly rigged up giant freezers suspended on balloons high beyond the clouds and we use de-icing fluid to make our rides undetectable by the alien civilizations chartered to save the earth.
Accessorily, earth is flat and can fit into “spherical cow” climate models.
Thanks for the applause, where’s my tenure / Nobel Prize already ?
Re mosher
**The only folks who seem to have taken it to heart are the skeptics who insist on getting their science from a suspect MSM**
Wrong Steve. The MSM only posts the CAGW exaggerations. Skeptics have to get their science from legitimate blogs.”
Err No.
Read the science papers.
If you dont undrstand them, then suspend judgement.
that is what real skeptics do.
Steven nice deflection, he said MSM not science papers, hmm about those science papers!
Steven you quote IPCC, I missed the part where IPCC looks at all climatic influences and not just anthropogenic.
Steven you don’t do projections, well thats a safe hide.
Steven you don’t do sea level, well another safe hide.
Steven said
“Now, one practical reason you don’t want me doing that forecast work is because of the potential for self interested decisions Having the same person doing the forecast and collecting the data? recipe for bad things.”
Wow thank you Steven, is that not what skeptics have been pointing out all along about adjusted data.
“Read the science papers.
If you dont undrstand them, then suspend judgement.
that is what real skeptics do.
Steven nice deflection, he said MSM not science papers, hmm about those science papers!”
##############################################
MSM? they always suspend judgment. duh.
###########
Steven you quote IPCC, I missed the part where IPCC looks at all climatic influences and not just anthropogenic.
Chapter 14, duh.
####################
Steven you don’t do projections, well thats a safe hide.
No thats a job description.
Steven you don’t do sea level, well another safe hide.
Nope, that’s a job description. Let me put it to you this way. After about 10 years
of working on temperature, I feel pretty confident that I won’t make horrible mistakes.
Sea level rise? Not gunna change my field, unless you pay me.
“Steven said
“Now, one practical reason you don’t want me doing that forecast work is because of the potential for self interested decisions Having the same person doing the forecast and collecting the data? recipe for bad things.”
Wow thank you Steven, is that not what skeptics have been pointing out all along about adjusted data.”
A.) No not really. If you look at the aunadjusted data it shows MORE WARMING than unadjusted.
B) With adjusting data, the prospect for fiddling is avoided by several means
1. Different groups using different approaches
2. Using algorithms as opposed to human choices
3. Double blind testing the algorithms.
C) For the most part skeptics have been completely wrong about adjustments, presenting
half truths and partila truths and sadly NEVER looking at the actual code.
Looks like he was given some different meds as a Christmas present.
Thanks micheal for that classic ad hom.
Just when I thought I’d heard the most devastating personal attacks, you pop up
with a a rote one.
Now back to the data.
See the charts for winter month?
See the charts for Spring and summer?
See the annual
care to comment on the data?
Thought not.
Actually, Steven, I will briefly. (Well done, you guessed who I was talking about.)
Up-thread you instructed someone to go and read IPCC AR5, as if this was something to be proud of.
“read AR5
Thats the summary of the best science. If you want more, dig down into the bibliography
and get the actual papers. Still not satified, dig deeper.”
A while ago I did go to AR5 and started by reading a part of it I consider to be closes to my own scientific training.
When, speaking from memory, I read that carbonic acid (formed from water and carbon dioxide) was “highly acidic”, i felt like punching my fist through my computer screen.
A lot more than 97% of chemists would be very surprised by this statement. It is clearly written by somebody who either
a) Has no knowledge of chemistry
b) Is a very dishonest chemist seeking to deceive those less knowledgeable in chemistry, or
c) Both
To cut a long story short, I already had good reason to believe that the IPCC was a primarily political organization, populated with many people who had long since abandoned any scientific principles they may ever have held in favor of political activism, and this confirmed it. If this is the level of scientific discourse that you would direct people to to, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
Also, you are quite fond at generalized ad-hom swipes at skeptics, which is allowable, but please spare me any complaining when it comes back round.
What I am willing to do, Steven, is give you credit if you have gone out and read the literature to know the reply/excuse the ‘dishonest chemist’ would give me for taking exception to them describing carbon dioxide and water producing something “highly acidic”
And no, saying “highly acidic” is just a relative term is not the answer.
You’ve clearly read AR5 and supporting references (ho, ho) so should be able to come up with answer very quickly.
Bonus point available.
And for three bonus points, tell me why the answer is something that probably ought to be included in chemical-radiative models of the atmosphere.
“When, speaking from memory, I read that carbonic acid (formed from water and carbon dioxide) was “highly acidic”, i felt like punching my fist through my computer screen.”
Citation please.
Instead of getting emotional ( there are meds) write down the page and reference.
That way you can have an intelligent conversation from fact rather than memory.
Without a citation I reserve judgment on your reaction.
You supply me with the full AR5 report as it was originally documented, and I’ll supply you with the reference. I actually thought it would be easy to go back and examine all of them, going back to the beginning. But they seem to have strangely deleted what was previously easy to find. (I’ve got a retired computer I may try to have a look on).
Now why would honest ‘scientists’ do that?
And although it’s not the first time I have stated that here on WUWT, I’ll reserve judgement on you too. I really hate having to judge people. Poverty has its merits.
“Too much snowfall, so less skiers at Gries,”
less skiers? People with a lower ability to ski? People with only one ski? ‘fewer skiers’. Problem solved.
A lot of spin, little real information. Another Mosher bombed thread.
I see you didnt look at the charts.
It was just the media…
Link
(Note the date range.)
The highest level of avalanche danger applies in the Austrian Alps.
The northern Alps are buried in thick fresh snow, literally meters in some places. The situation is critical in many areas, with extreme avalanche danger. Indeed, a number of fatalities related to avalanches have already been reported. Further episodes of intense snowfall are expected in the second half of week and likely to persist into next week. We take a closer look.
As the synoptic pattern persists, it sustains the meridional flow of Arctic maritime airmass from the north towards the south. Persistent stau-effect snowfall is ongoing. Expect it to persist through Wednesday and Thursday. A pause is expected on Friday and Saturday, with some places not receiving any snow and others experiencing somewhat more moderate snowfall.
http://www.severe-weather.eu/recent-events/no-end-to-the-heavy-snowfall-in-sight-in-austria-and-switzerland-update-on-the-extreme-snowfall-across-the-northern-alps/?fbclid=IwAR0O0WKXJn1sWVEi1i5Vho3kCHCzY5VtXCgSreAOjVGoinD0uxB2co7ktlA
The current pattern of the polar vortex in the middle stratosphere indicates the influx of Arctic air to Europe.
Meanwhile in the Alps… Photo: Sieglinde Hutter
The end of warming in the east of the US.
ren – The models have the steering flow changing back to mild results after this short interruption. Maybe by late January a cold winter will begin in the NE.
Look at the forecast of the polar vortex.
an other nice one
Look at the forecast of the polar vortex in the middle stratosphere.
Minimal solar wind activity.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20190108.png
Wasn’t it Loockwood teling us, that strong and cold winters are result of a low sun activity and stroong reduced UV radiation cooling the thermosphere and affecting so the blocking weather events because of polar outbreaks ?
Small chances for El Nino this month.
The Mosher quote: “please dont get your science from one dude“.
Sorry, Mosh, but people do. After that headline news from a respected scientist, in a respected newspaper (and repeated in the formerly-respected BBC), what airport manager is going to invest in the $30 million of new snow-clearing equipment that the airport desperately needs?
Any manager ‘wasting’ so much money on non-existsnt snow would be pilloried in the press, and lose their job in an instant. Try explaining that employment gaffe to the wife and kids. The result was that no equipment was purchased.
And the long-term result was that ten years later Heathrow was paralysed by snow and closed for three full days, causing hundred(s) of million(s) dollars or more in airport and airline losses. The only people laughing were the local hotels, who I am sure paid Dr David Viner to make his stupid assertion about no snow.
And this was not an isolated incident. Local councils up and down the country also failed to invest in new snow clearing equipment, and so our road and rail networks all ground to a halt.
An entire nation paralysed by one deranged scientist….! Think about it – lSlS could not have done more damage to the UK economy if they tried. So who is paying Dr Viner and the CRU?
And did the CRU ever repay UK plc for the damage they caused? No, they just went on to make even more absurd and unsubstantiated assertions about dire climate change – when the reality of ‘warming’ (what there is of it) is that the number of destructive weather events is DECREASING, not increasing.
Number of strong tornadoes have been DECREASING for 65 years.
R
The slight decrease in hurricanes and the big decrease in tornados in TX OK this year is interesting.
Increased wind shear kills a circulation for hurricane formation. I think we’ve see n that, but looking at the case by case for tornados gives us a view of synoptic scale change, much more complicated.
“An entire nation paralysed by one deranged scientist….! Think about it – lSlS could not have done more damage to the UK economy if they tried.”
Stupid brits. Like I said, dont listen to the MSM. Better to buy that plow and be fired.
Interestingly you know the story about snow in chicago?
I lived through this
Much fun
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-the-blizzard-that-got-jane-byrne-elected-20141114-story.html
The slight decrease in hurricanes and the big decrease in tornados in TX OK this year is interesting.
Increased wind shear kills a circulation for hurricane formation. I think we’ve see n that, but looking at the case by case for tornados gives us a view of synoptic scale change, much more complicated.
Mosher (from above),
I am happy you don’t subscribe to adjectives like unprecedented or dangerous. I am comforted to learn that you don’t subscribe to the incessant fear-mongering which the MSM fires almost daily (which is of course ratcheted up several times leading up to a COP meeting).
That said, you do appear to be attempting to ‘run interference’ for Mainstream Climate Science, at least regarding the dubious claims made at the end of the past century that snow would become a thing of the past [as a result of human beings continuing to combust fossil fuels at a sustained high, or even higher, rate].
As I understand it, your expertise is in compiling global mean surface temperature anomalies. Correct?
My comment was directed at your sense of intellectual curiosity and, by extension, intellectual honesty.
I noted that you agreed with the assessment by the IPCC from a decade or so ago, that over half the observed warming during the latter half of the 20th Century was in fact (now at 95% certainty, if I recall correctly) due to the increased human GHG emissions; at least you said that you could think of no other plausible cause. Do you agree that the accepted range of equilibrium climate sensitivity is still on the order of 1.5-4.5℃ per doubling of CO2? Do you find the 95% certainty above scientifically coherent with the 3-fold range given for climate sensitivity? What are your thoughts on the Hansen et al. 1988 long-term climate projections / scenarios (as a function of human GHG emissions) and how these compare to the actual record (of both human GHG emissions and the global mean surface temperature record over the past three decades?
Apparently you have considered the ‘big picture’, which, if implementing so-called Climate Policy were to gain any traction worldwide, would necessarily need to address the question of ‘effectiveness’, i.e., the success of said policy in achieving its stated goal of stabilizing long-term temperature growth to a maximum of 1.5-2.0℃ (above pre-industrial times).
In this context, I find it curious that you decline to address the apparent lack of a long-term acceleration signal in the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) dataset. Do you not have some intellectual curiosity here, or, indeed, a yearning for intellectual honesty?
But on the policy question, namely the stated goal to reduce human GHG emissions in 2030 to some arbitrary figure of 25 or 30% below 1990 levels, then to achieve zero human GHG emissions by 2050 or so, do you believe this is even remotely possible, given:
a) continued growth in Asia, particularly the documented, sustained carbon intensity increase per capita
b) currently available technology, namely the lack of blanket replacements for coal, oil and gas (and I’m not just talking about power generation).
https://patricktbrown.org/2019/01/04/does-the-ipcc-say-we-have-until-2030-to-avoid-catastrophic-global-warming/
“That said, you do appear to be attempting to ‘run interference’ for Mainstream Climate Science, at least regarding the dubious claims made at the end of the past century that snow would become a thing of the past [as a result of human beings continuing to combust fossil fuels at a sustained high, or even higher, rate].”
NOPE, I said the EXACT OPPOSITE, the IPCC says the decline will be small to modest
Swiss dude
“I noted that you agreed with the assessment by the IPCC from a decade or so ago, that over half the observed warming during the latter half of the 20th Century was in fact (now at 95% certainty, if I recall correctly) due to the increased human GHG emissions; at least you said that you could think of no other plausible cause. Do you agree that the accepted range of equilibrium climate sensitivity is still on the order of 1.5-4.5℃ per doubling of CO2? Do you find the 95% certainty above scientifically coherent with the 3-fold range given for climate sensitivity? ”
1. is that the accepted range, pretty much
2. I prefer my formulation: given an over under bet of 3C, I choose the under bet.
“What are your thoughts on the Hansen et al. 1988 long-term climate projections / scenarios (as a function of human GHG emissions) and how these compare to the actual record (of both human GHG emissions and the global mean surface temperature record over the past three decades?”
1. Hansen was more right than wrong.
2. The correct way to re evaluste his projection is to re run his model. Can’t be done.
(orginal model is lost to history)
3. I would not judge a science by early crude modelling efforts 30 years old.
Apparently you have considered the ‘big picture’, which, if implementing so-called Climate Policy were to gain any traction worldwide, would necessarily need to address the question of ‘effectiveness’, i.e., the success of said policy in achieving its stated goal of stabilizing long-term temperature growth to a maximum of 1.5-2.0℃ (above pre-industrial times).
In this context, I find it curious that you decline to address the apparent lack of a long-term acceleration signal in the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) dataset. Do you not have some intellectual curiosity here, or, indeed, a yearning for intellectual honesty?
########################
Not really, I have my policy desires, mostly on no regret actions.
SLR. Best work I’ve seen says its too early to detect acceleration, but in general
its not that important. Here’s all you need to know.
1. COntinuing to dump co2 at the current rates is not risk free.
2. Drastically changing energy sources is not risk free.
3. We currently do not plan for weather of the past, much less climate of the future.
4. One course of action includes
A) Building resilient communities
B) removing barriers to the deployment of nuclear.
C) focus on energy efficiency, its win win
Pretty modest agenda given the uncertainty and risks.
“But on the policy question, namely the stated goal to reduce human GHG emissions in 2030 to some arbitrary figure of 25 or 30% below 1990 levels, then to achieve zero human GHG emissions by 2050 or so, do you believe this is even remotely possible, given:
a) continued growth in Asia, particularly the documented, sustained carbon intensity increase per capita
b) currently available technology, namely the lack of blanket replacements for coal, oil and gas (and I’m not just talking about power generation).”
Remotely possible? How remote?
I don’t think the goals will be reached. hence the focus on adaptation.
Sorry, I may not be the cartoon warmist you imagine. Nver have been.
Here is the BIG CLUE.
I do data. period, full stop. Ya’ll want to fit me in a warmist box ( Im a luke warmer) and get all confused when I dont fit in your box. Ya’ll want me to have an opnion and position on every topic.
Sorry, I reserve judgment. Its called skepticism.. which is NOT denial, but rather reserving judgment
where you have no specific knowledge.
Mosher-Dude,
Thanks for your reply.
I agree with your reasonable suggestions under 4:
4. One course of action includes
A) Building resilient communities
B) removing barriers to the deployment of nuclear.
C) focus on energy efficiency, its win win
Pretty modest agenda given the uncertainty and risks.
Very reasonable stuff, level-headed. Chapeau.
This article was about Weather in Central Europe, specifically recent heavy snowfall in parts of Austria and Germany, including some much-deserved ridicule heaved upon one Dr. David Viner of the University of East Anglia’s CRU, for his lame prediction nearly two decades ago [foretelling the ‘end of snow’, ostensibly for at least England, possibly also he intended for the lowlands of the British Isles or even most of Central and Southern Europe; difficult to say].
Now this Viner fellow was a senior research scientist at one of climate science’s leading research institutes at the time, lavishly funded by the UK Government. As I understand it, Viner was (and still is) a contributing author to the IPCC and is still gainfully employed by the Univ. of E. Anglia.
Now you’re essentially saying, “Viner was wrong” [STFW, end of story. Move along, folks]. Funny, I don’t recall having heard Viner being panned by his colleagues, let alone the UN IPCC, nor having been reprimanded by a professional association of climatologists for having spoken out of line. To the contrary, his essential views were often repeated for the ensuing decade, not dissimilar to those of Ehrlich’s Population Bomb predictions. Then once the predictions began to fail miserably, he was quoted less often. Nowadays the dyed in the wool warmists reckon he was ‘kinda sorta right’, must’ve been off a bit on the rate of decline, but he’s basically right [about the decline in snow cover as a direct consequence of human GHG emissions, which is still the IPCC position].
Nor do I recall having seen a ‘mea culpa’ by Viner himself, nor from his employer. Have you?
Not good enough. This is what irks ordinary citizens about the field of climate science. Anything seems to get a free pass, including fear-mongering a la Chicken Little.
Which brings me back to Hansen. You say he was ‘more right than wrong’. What? Hansen was demonstrably off by a factor of two (or more), despite human CO2 emissions being 1/3 higher than his Business as Usual Scenario, using his own temperature series and methodology. The lower error bound given for the future temperature (smoothed, 5y running mean) was approx. 1/3 above the actual measured temperature trend. In an engineering field such as aviation, get your numbers off by a factor of two or more and people die, which is generally a career-changing event.
Same goes for the lack of a sustained increase in the sea level rise rate (no observable long-term acceleration signal, which would indeed be a necessary metric to underline the existence of anything resembling a human-caused warming risk). You don’t appear to appreciate that this is rather important, indeed fundamental.
It is time to put some quality standards to climate science, e.g., regarding failed projections. It is also high time to drop the catastrophism, fear-mongering rhetoric about rising sea levels, infectious diseases, etc. But of course, that could mean climate scientists losing some funding.
Don’t believe in polls. People asked to prefer ‘normal’ or ‘bio food’ of course give the opportunistic answere ‘bio’.
The same questioned persons will buy the cheapest stuff to get regardless bio label or not.
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&q=polls+answers+opportunistic&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3hIaeyuHfAhWK2OAKHco2CVUQBSgAegQICxAC&biw=360&bih=560
Another awesome ski year in the making. Lived in Chamonix during the 1977-78 pounding with 100 year avalanche events and over a dozen deaths that region alone. Old timer locals recommended against building ski chalets on fields over 1/2 km from mountain base in Argentiere. Still remember seeing one of the concrete block structures completely filled with snow 20-30ft deep. Massive powder avalanche ran across the entire field killing all inside. Wise to have longer term horizons. Also recall the interesting ~1700’s woodcuts of the Mer de Glace spilling out of the Vallee Blanche nearly blocking the Arve valley. It started receding in the early 1800’s, continuing today. Would be great to understand what turned it around.
Steven Mosher: you mentioned black carbon in your earlier post. How do you think it affects the climate?
Black carbon on Arctic ice sheets greatly increases absorption of insolation.
It is entirely possible that the majority of modern warming was powered by changes in Arctic albedo, due to Chinese industrial soot, and not by CO2.
Examples of industrial soot on ice….
http://www.ccacoalition.org/sites/default/files/styles/listing6/public/fields/news_mainimage/box-climate-station-1024×576.jpg
The temperature we have is a function of the TOTAL of all raditive forcings.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig8-17.jpg
Not just C02, but CH4, Black carbon, CO, N20. etc
See those bars?
See the positive ones?
They all contribute.
See black carbon? At the extreme end it could be responsible for a full Watt of additional forcing
Not quite as large as C02, but compare the 2.
Policy? Seems to me you’d go after black carbon reduction before you’d go after C02.
I dunno maybe some skeptic will argue that soot is used to grow plants in green houses
and that soot is essential to life and not a pollutant
Soot in the air must block insolation, soot on the ice of course increases melting which cools the air above it. And finally after the arctic ice has melted the warmth escapes more easily to space from free water. So, I think the soot must have an overall cooling effect.
Lets recap.
article is about snow increasing in Germany
1. Folks bring up Vinter.
2. I explain that the IPCC says two things.
A) coming decades will see increased winter precipitation in germany
B) LONG TERM, the decline in snow is slight to modest. Vinter is one dude.
3. Sammy cuts and pastes a bogus chart
4. I show you.
A) a decline in annual snow
B) An increase in winter snow
C) A sharp deline in spring and summer snow cover.
5. NOBODY stays on the topic of snow, cause your view has been challenged instead
6. Folks ask me questions about different topics, energy, ECS, MWP, Acidification, SLR
ya see why folks question whether some skeptics are serious
On a good note Some folks were happy to see the snow data. THATS the old WUWT.
This is the right summary.
Thick fresh snow in Grevena, Western Macedonia, Greece last night, January 9. Report: Petros Potikas
?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent-frt3-2.xx&oh=c0099f9c89ccd23cf53b64b277c9a026&oe=5CBA8999
Norwegian roof avalanche 😀
Healthy sharp debate. Not a scientist just an ankle gnawing political type myself so it’s informative. Didn’t the IPCC just generate S.R 1.5 ? AKA we are all going to fry in hell report number whatever. AKA when you don’t have crap yell louder. That was a political screed if ever there was one. Guess that’s okay as long as you’re with the IPCC. Didn’t the perv at the head of that thing call real science “Voodoo science” You should be ashamed to bring it up.
You have data, you feed it into an excel spreadsheet and it spits out information. Later you stuff in some more and you get different information. Big deal. 1.5% here. 2.09999987 % there when attempting to predict the climate of the planet? What’s your next act Lysenko. Seriously. Marketing and data. How can you tell which one you are doing when.
You’re a data entry clerk with delusions of grandeur.
Sea surface temperature anomalies oscillate from 0.15 to 0.4 degrees C.
Brocken, Harz, Germany on January 9. Report: Matthias Bein / BEST of HARZ
?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-frx5-1.xx&oh=6c9a824090ee805f276f1544a33ca742&oe=5CC0FAB2
Have a look here, it is dated 2017-11-17
https://www.radiosaw.de/winter-auf-dem-brocken
It happened before, it will happen again. We are doomed!
2017-12-17 is the correct date.