By P Gosselin
Much of Europe has been hit with cold temperatures and heavy snow falls so far this month, taking Europeans by surprise. “Experts” blame warming.
Rare early December snow at the German North Sea coast, December 2, 2023. Photo: P. Gosselin
Not “a thing of the past”
Don’t be surprised by all the surprise. After all, global warming-obsessed climatologists and media told us back in 2020 that snow and frost would be rare – a thing of the past!
Now with the heavy, record snowfall, global warming astrologists are looking a bit foolish and embarrassed. Their predictions are wrong. Already in November snow arrived and record amounts have already fallen, like in Munich. This has sent the media scrambling for an explanation, and they have concocted one, reports German news magazine FOCUS. Here’s the explanation:
Experts agree: Heavy snowfall is a sign of climate change!”
Strange how whenever there’s a winter with very little snowfall, that too is a sure sign of climate change. And when there are a couple of years of drought, it is the new climate normal. But when there’s too much rainfall, that too proves the climate is warming. No matter what happens, it’s a sign of climate change!
Snow now means it’s getting warmer
In a “fact-check” on ARD German national public television, Ms. Gudrun Mühlbacher of the German DWD national weather service basically said:
The opposite is true, say experts. Rather, they say, the snow is a sign of climate change: snow is becoming rarer, but when it does snow, it is heavy. One reason: due to global warming, it rains more, especially in the fall and winter. The completely rainy November confirmed this.”
More heavy snowfalls ahead!
FOCUS then goes on to explain precisely how our climate works, noting how important it is to distinguish between “climate” and “weather”. “Snowfall does not disprove global warming,” says Melania Botica from the Weather Channel.
“According to climate researchers, the atmosphere can absorb seven percent more moisture for every one degree Celsius increase. More moisture in the air also means more precipitation in the long term,” FOCUS writes. “In the fall and winter, this moisture is released in the form of heavy rainfall or snowfall.”
While climate scientists told us snow would be rare in the future, FOCUS and other German media outlets now report:
It will snow more heavily in the coming years.”
Yet at the same time, the DWD’s Gudrun Mühlbacher says “there will be 65 percent fewer days with at least three centimeters of snow cover at lower elevations.” For Oberstdorf in Bavaria, “it will, however, continue to snow in the coming years, sometimes even more heavily. And this is apparently also due to climate change.”
Junk science at its finest. No wonder Germany’s PISA results are plummeting. You can see it, especially in journalism.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I know I graduated closer to the bottom of my 1959 engineering class than the top, but the climate change “scientists” never fail to amaze me. There’s no way their CO2 theory can be falsified. ‘Seems to me the ‘scientific method’ has something to say about that.
That atmospheric CO2 emissions cause some amount of global warming was learned over a century ago. Is that what you call their “CO2 theory”.
If so, there has been a century to refute it with a 100% failure rate
It has been debunked time and again, it just refuses to go away; part of the reason is because it is not scientific but political and has become entrenched in the western political establishment. Another reason is that serious scientists cannot replace the ‘climate change theory’ with anything because serious scientists wouldn’t come up with global absolutes for temperature, weather, etc. with only sparse and partial datasets. Climate enthusiasts have used this ridiculous argument ad nauseum, demanding to see a ‘better’ version if theirs was so crappy, oblivious to the fact that a ‘global’ absolute must average every measurement to the point where the final data was useless, error-ridden and swamped by a truly massive error range.
Humour the climate enthusiasts, wipe their drooling chins as they stuggle to cope with things they will never understand and slap down the ones that are in it for the personal gain.
“slap down the ones that are in it for the personal gain.”
That’s all of them.
I would say that applied to all the temperature data mannipulators.
The data manipulators deserve to be investigated, arrested, prosecuted and jailed for their fraudulent data manipulations.
Richard
Wipe, yes, but don’t forget Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #5 — Ridicule!
Especially for those who should know better. Most of the others have been duped.
[image shamelessly stolen from Roger Pielke’s delightful & informative substack blog. The Honest Broker. Check it out!]
Lol.
So far it’s undetectable.
The current warming can just as easily be explained as being caused by Mother Nature, since we have similar warmings in the recent past that have no connection to CO2.
The current warming is of the same magnitude as previous warmings, and the current warming is no warmer than previous warmings.
There is nothing unprecedented occurring with Earth’s weather or temperatures currently. it’s business as usual.
The temperatures behave the same way regardless of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.
It is “their” conjecture…..
… and they have yet to produce one bit of scientific evidence to back it up.
Perhaps you’d like to peruse this paper?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.00808v1.pdf
A complete study of CO2, by Wijngaarden & Happer.
These two scientists, have used the accepted calculations for CO2 influence on the atmospheric warming, and used a model, which unlike the notorious CMIP5/6 models touted by the IPCC, which have not even a shred of credibility. Have been verified with observational evidence (P29), also look at the graph on (P25), and if you’re interested have a look at this working model at the University of Chicago.
https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
You know, some scientists claim CO2 net cools the Earth’s atmosphere after feedbacks are figured in.
Are you sure that doesn’t happen?
Refute what, exactly?
That CO₂ is a greenhouse gas? Unlikely.
That CO₂ warms the atmosphere and exactly by how much with formulae to calculate how much warmth every ppm of CO₂ warms the atmosphere?
No need to, those parts have never been proven or established, except as fantasies of the climate deluded.
Let us know when the ‘expert climerati” finally get around to proving CO₂ warms the atmosphere.
Maybe you should have taken gender studies. It might not change your class position, but your GPA would be much higher. A survey said students taking gender studies get the most A’s, and engineering and science students get the least.
Which probably says a lot more about the people teaching gender studies than it does about the class.
Maybe not so much the teaching as the marking of the exams.
There is a major difference between testing knowledge and testing based upon tuition payment.
The former students make industry and science work. The latter whine and pretend tree rings reveal ancient temperatures/
Maybe it’s because it isn’t a scientific theory. A scientific theory starts with a hypothesis which can then be confirmed with either experiment or observation. It only takes one such experiment/observation to disprove the theory leading to it being re-evaluated. The climate scientists have a hypothesis and some dodgy models, not a theory.
Dodgy models that waste processor time and produce nothing useful aren’t models. They are delusions and self satisfaction computations.
As the man said, putting ‘climate’ in front of scientist is like putting ‘witch’ in front of doctor.
+100. I like this a lot, I may have to borrow it.
That line deserves to be on a T shirt. 👍😎
Just made a meme with that, thanks!
New meme free to use.
Every outcome proves global warming? How convenient!
A coupe of hot days is global warming but some cold days is just weather….and they wonder why people this global warming is a leftie idea when it shows the classic tenet of leftism – hypocrisy.
CO2 erodes the scientific method.
“CO2 erodes the scientific method.”
“See we were right. CO2 is a very dangerous molecule!”
— Global Warming Alarmist with no STEM Degree
Are you suggesting that mask wearers are the purveyors of junk-science?
Only the climate scientologists wearing gimp masks
They are certainly the believers of junk science.
Caused by carbonic acid when all that CO2 dissolves in all that moisture.
I blame all of the bugs they eat at climate conferences.
My prediction: In the future, snow will either be or will not be, depending on climate change.
I cannot lose with that prediction.
Where is my Nobel prize?
I predicted more snow, unless there is less snow.
Sounds like a great prediction but I could be wrong.
THE AMOUNT OF SNOW MIGHT REMAIN FAIRLY STEADY, AS IT HAS IN THE Northern Hemisphere for over 20 years
Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab
Bogus.
More anomaly manipulation and nonsense.
Now show us the graphs showing total snow amounts by month since 1900, NOT starting in 1970.
That’s just a simple “one-off” error. Let’s change this bit from false to true and the model is fixed.
Inverted hockey stick data redux.
Your children will never know what it’s like without snow.
Story tip: Even normally wintry Anchorage, AK is having snow problems:
At the meeting, he and others channeled weeks worth of residents’ complaints about missed medical appointments, damaged vehicles, school closures, vanishing traffic lanes and neighborhoods that went a week or more without seeing any plows or graders on their roads.
Climate alarmism is a religion.
Just as some religious folks see the hand of good in every event, and when they are flummoxed by terrible events, they say the ways of god are mysterious—-so one can see “climate change” behind every weather event.
And the final chapter of every religious book is about an apocalypse.
You forgot forgiveness, redemption, and everlasting life. None of those are available in the climate alarmism.
Climastrologists believe in CO₂ bringing on the apocalypse.
Where exactly do you think climastrologists should place forgiveness, redemption and eternal life in their climate religion?
And which climastrologist practices, let alone believes in forgiveness or redemption?
I’ll do my part. I’m getting coal in my stocking this Christmas, and I’ll make sure to burn it…
I think the best description for the “experts” is: They Don’t Know
As an engineering student, we referred to experts as X-spurts: former drips under pressure.
or alternately… Someone from out of town with a bunch of letters after his/her name
According to Climare Reanalyzer, which has been a reliable guide over recent months, every day in December so far has set a new record global warmest temperature for the date, including today. But look, snow in Germany – in winter!
Isn’t it funny how Global Warming only ever appears in the fatuous “Global Average” temperature, and not in real, measured temperatures.
GAT would not register even a Glacial Maximum if Antarctica warmed slightly at the same time.
Well, it does show up in past local “adjusted” temperatures compared to present local “adjusted” temperatures.
But, then again, the local “adjusted” temperatures are just “local”.
They aren’t included in the “Global Temperature” numbers.
Adjusted data into a Model = Truth out.
Check out UAH in recent months. Their chart is on the side bar here.
Shows El Nino warming around the tropics.
You seem to be saying that this is all just part of a NATURAL El Nino event.
Hence nothing to do with “Global Warming™”
Shows record global temperatures in an El Nino that so far is nowhere near as prolonged or strong as the one that occurred 2015/16. why might that be?
We’re all ears….
“There are none so blind as those who can not see.”
The past temps have been adjusted to fit the meme.
I’ve seen lists of record highs for a date where I live that are lower than past list of record highs highs for the same date.
“Recent” doesn’t mean it can be trusted when those “reporting” have a meme.
(Back in the day, I knew how to put up a table comparing lists of NOAA records. The “pre” formatting thing doesn’t seem to work anymore. The numbers are there to scroll across as one line at a time but not as a table.)
For my little spot on the Globe, about 10% of the records for highs and lows have been “adjusted”.
The “adjusted” local numbers are what is fed into the data used.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Thanks for the correction.
There’s a big difference between being ignorant and being willfully ignorant.
Reality has limits, stupidity has none…. Napoleon
We are truly faced with premeditated stupidity.
“premeditated stupidity.”
Wow..!!
Brilliant description of Fungal and Simple.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Or deliberately ignorant fools, like you, who are in complete DENIAL of climate change history.
See what?
Talking to yourself?
Yeah, the temperature data mannipulators don’t limit themselves to bastardizing the global temperatures, they do it on a local and regional basis, too.
The good news is the unmodified data is usually available, so their cheating and distorting of the temperature records is discoverable.
I was going to suggest using the </> button, but:
1 |2 |3 | --------------- | | |I guess that doesn’t work either 🙁
nice, it works after posting but not while composing
On the “Test” (under “About” on the title bar) I’ve tried the </> with “pre” but instead of displaying about 30 rows and 5 columns from an Excel spreadsheet as a table like it used to do, it now shows up as one line (row) with a scroll bar.
I remember when UAH was but a twinkle in Christy and Spenser’s eyes.
El Nino has started. Completely normal natural increases in warmth.
Check out the latest UAH global heat distribution chart. Pretty widespread.
June- Nov charts shows a general warming throughout the Tropics from the El Nino event
The is no evidence of any human causation…
You have never been able to show the slight warming is anything but NATURAL.
A record warmest year despite a moderate and fairly short (to date) El Nino. So….?
ROFLMAO
Very strong El Nino.
Been going since June.
And again.. you have absolutely ZERO evidence of any human causation.
You are just making empty whinging noises, because it is all you have or are capable of.
So?
Record warmest? What about before 1979?
Yawn, I think everyone here is aware of the warming trend while you keep thread jacking and getting away with it because you can’t address the topics because you can’t handle it.
Do you have to be an imbecile every day?
No, some days I have the sense to avoid this geriatric support group.
We do try to support you….
… even though your mind is barely that of a 5-year-old.
?
Someone who wasn’t on drugs throughout the 1970’s or 80’s.
Better if you address the article instead but seems to live in a sandbox which is why you make it seems like everyone else here is unaware of the warming trend despite that it is shown right there in the side box of the main page and that some of us actually do climate research.
El-Nino’s are the dominant cause of step up warming then nothing after it fades away that always has a cooling down back to a lower level then flattens out which indicate CO2 isn’t doing shit at the 440-ppm stage.
You are indeed an imbecile.
I really don’t understand why anyone feeds the troll, just ignore everything it says and it’ll soon go and play somewhere else.
I wonder how much compensation it receives for each reply it gets. Maybe it goes laughing to the bank for all those comments it extracts.
He will not leave even if ignored but it is fun to show how dumb warmist/alarmists are to the world by getting them to make fools of themselves with their low IQ replies.
Pre-industrial means the Little Ice Age. The Earth is only a few degrees warmer than those disastrous times.
One or two degrees doesn’t mean a thing. I moved from Ohio to California which was over 20F degrees warmer and both had nice and bad weather.
Warmer winters in NH
.. that is a BIG YIPEEE !!!
FFS, stop your mindless caterwauling !!
Perhaps you should move to Russia, if you want to go back to the freezing cold of the LIA.
All that cold regionally yet still the warmest temperature for the date globally.
SO WHAT !
Still far cooler than most of the last 10,000 years.
Barely a degree or so above the coldest period in those 10,000 years
Stop your irrational and mindless panic.!
Now.. how much warmer MUST it have been for forests to grow where now there are glaciers.???
Right, so we’ll all burn. Or enter another ice age. Or somewhere in between.
Nail —
.
DENIAL yet again that surface data is massively modified and tainted.
NOAA data is not worth a scrap, becaue it relies totally on data from totally-unfit-for purpose urban and airport sites… and is then manically mal-adjusted to suit the agenda.
You STILL haven’t provided one single bit of scientific evidence that CO2 causes any warming.
Calls to far-left AGW-agenda organisations , is NOT evidence.
Residency time is only a few years, if that, and CO2 is constantly moving in and out of the carbon cycle. Are you in DENIAL yet again.. or is it just deliberate ignorance?
You are obviously well aware of that fact, but are in DENIAL of reality.
So you believe the current peak (which helped ”break the record”) is the result to human co2?
James Hansen thought the 1998 temperature highpoint was caused by CO2.
Then the temperatures cooled after 1998.
This caused James Hansen to start lying about the climate and mannipulating the temperature record.
Poor Fungal Nonce doesn’t understand the difference between minor adjustments dues to known satellite movements…
vs… wholesale agenda-driven mal-adjustments to massively tainted surface data
Science is not a subject it has even the remotest understanding of.
All it can manage is its own premeditated stupidity.
Pre-industrial was the Little Ice Age.
Only a person with deliberate and premeditated stupidity thinks this was a good time to live.
Civilisation has advanced so,so much since then, thanks to the advent of the use of fossil fuels.
Also crop growth and yield are up by a huge amount, due to the extra atmospheric CO2.
The slight rise in temperature and the enhanced atmospheric CO2 has been massive benefit to all the planet…. especially mankind.
But the far-left AGW stooges can’t abide that fact.
They live in an anti-science, anti-human, anti-life little la-la-land of deliberate and abject stupidity.
“with a long atmospheric residency time”
How long?
One must understand that the IPCC is not neutral in this argument, an unbiased arbiter of these sorts of things. Do you know what the terms of reference are for that organization’s mission? ‘Terms of Reference’ means the scope, or fenceline of the activities undertaken. In other words, if you are told everything is a nail, Nail, then a hammer is the solution. In still other words, prudence and humility would caution against your hammering away at things you appear to merely weakly understand.
A) Temperatures in the 1880s and the 1930s were much higher than today.
Hansen spent years trying to adjust the 1930s below his cooked temperatures.
NOAA finally achieved fraudulently lowering the 1930s to below modern temperatures,
B) Absurd! That is not significant, scientifically or by climate religion.
Pre-industrial values occurred during the Dalton Minimum!
A 1.5°C increase since then does NOT return the globe to normal climate.
“July 2023 exceeded the pre-industrial average for July by +1.5C. The pre-industrial average is -0.18C with a SD of +/-0.11C.”
C) Pure fear mongering. See B) above.
D) Totally unproven in the atmosphere. Decades of IPCC and alarmist faux science and none of them have bothered to prove CO₂’s actual greenhouse effect.
Real atomic Physicists have highlighted this alarmist fantasy and proven it false.
E) Argumentum Ad Verecundiam!Specious sophistry and faux science. You are totally morally bankrupt.
Besides, measurements have demonstrated that CO₂ has a very short residence time, perhaps as short as 3 to 4 years.
The trouble with claiming long residence times is that CO₂ is:
1) Oceans, indeed all bodies of water absorb CO₂ when the water cools (winter) or emits CO₂ when the water warms.
Indeed, science postulates that oceans warming are the significant sources of CO₂ atmospheric increase.
2) CO₂ is a major component of life! CO₂ is taken up by all chlorophyll plants in massive quantities.
Those plants either die releasing their accumulated carbohydrates as CO₂ over time or are consumed and quickly release CO₂.
A long residence time for CO₂ is pure speculation of alarmists by refusing evidence.
every month this year has been more than 3 standard deviations warmer than its pre-industrial value.
In and of itself that means nothing other than it was colder at one time and warmer at another.
What temperature SHOULD it be?
Oh, codswallop. You know damn well that the warmistas cherry pick the hottest thermometers.
UAH doesn’t use thermometers.
UAH shows warming only at El Nino events, like now.
There is absolutely NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in the satellite data.
UAH has only been around since 1979.
UAH was initiated in 1979, about the coldest period we have experienced since the 1910’s, so the current warming is an expected result of a cyclical climate where it warms for a few decades and then it cools for a few decades and the process repeats.
Climate alarmists don’t think the “cool for a few decades” is in our future. They think CO2 will keep temperatures elevated and even cause them to climb higher. That’s what James Hansen was thinking in 1998. He proved to be wrong then. Temperatures started cooling and burst Mr. Hansen’s CO2 bubble.
No record temperatures were set around my neck of the woods this year, UAH or no UAH.
Now, the jet stream is bringing cooler air into the central U.S.. It looks like we in the U.S. will get a mild cold front coming in over the next week or so, and then much colder air is to the west moving this way due in a few weeks.
It looks like business as usual.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-102.97,42.78,264/loc=-106.467,46.858
The Earth is still in an ice named the Quaternary Galactic period in a a warmer, but still cold, interglacial period that alternates with very cold glacial periods. Over 20% of the land is frozen as permafrost or is under glaciers.
About 4.6 million people each year die from cold-related causes compared to heat-related causes. When we breathe in colder air our bodies constrict our blood vessels to conserve heat, which raises the blood pressure causing increased strokes and heart attacks in the cooler months compared to the warmer months.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
No doubt about the blood pressure. I measure my BP at home frequently. Mine is low normal during the summer, but in winter it goes to normal to high. Definite response to cold temperatures.
I too have a home based blood pressure monitor. I used to run high, during the period I listened to and watched the BBC, I was also reading the Observer on Sundays. (I know)
I became so environmentally aware, I stopped taking the Observer when the paper boy took to using a wheeled buggy rather than a satchel to carry the massive tome to my door.
My blood pressure started to drop, I then stopped watching the BBC and listening to their propaganda. Blood pressure lowered even more,
The only feature of my life that raises blood pressure now, is hearing government advisors and government ministers tell us they need more power to continue failing us at every time of asking.
Oh, one other change that reduced blood pressure was the installation of a wood burner fifteen years ago.
I never thought about seasonal blood pressure.
I’ll have to check mine out now with that in mind.
‘Galactic?’ Shirley you mean Glaciation?
Belgium to Japan is regional?
Only because they lie.
CR shows nearly all the warming is in the Arctic.
Yet Arctic sea ice is basically at the 2005-2022 average
Seems that Arctic warming doesn’t affect Arctic sea ice.
You have just destroyed another AGW meme. Well Done. !!
“Yet Arctic sea ice is basically at the 2005-2022 average”
You are becoming more like “Make it up Mark” by the day.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The always wrong simpleton makes yet another stupid yapping sound.
Current level is 11.111 x 10⁶ km² 2005-2022 average is 11.378 x 10⁶ km².
That is basically a 2% difference. So basically the same.
Don’t let the data kick you in the posterior on the way out, fool !!
Simple Simon clearly didn’t think things through before posting. But he never does.
Just a few years ago, silly s regularly proclaimed the Arctic was melting and would soon be ice free.
It also eagerly whined through summer that the ice was melting worse than before and proclaiming the Northwest Passage would be open to abundant sea travel.
Every September, it was majorly disappointed by the ice returning, again and very few ships making the Northwest transit during the summer. It also never discussed ships caught midway by ice.
These last few years, silly stopped proclaiming that Arctic would be ice free and rarely mentions the Northwest Passage.
And your point is..?
Ar tic ice extent is currently se enthusiasts lowest in the 45 year record, in other words nothing special at all.
Tell us about the predictions of imminent disappearenc of Arctic ice.
Autocorrect fail. Please replace enthusiasts with seventh.
Looking bad, no doubt about it.
Was ABOVE the 2005-2022 average for most of October and November
“Was ABOVE the 2005-2022 average for most of October and November”
But that’s not what you said is it Mr MIU.
“Yet Arctic sea ice is basically at the 2005-2022 average”
But Arctic ice is not “at” the 2005-2022 average is it? In fact, it is well below as I showed. And yet the faithful here are happy to celebrate your dishonesty(or stupidity) with an upvote. Says it all about the level of integrity here. Gotta love the consistency though.
The 2001 IPCC report projected a DECREASE in snowfall and increase in rain/freezing rain.
Instead, snowfall has been increasing since 2001 which is now 22 years.
Yea! I’m burning up at my Indiana home.
And meanwhile, it is same ole, same ole in the Arctic:
Real Climate Science | “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman
I thought Indiana represented global temperature too. How about that?
Neither does the Arctic, which is where CR shows all the warming, which for some reason doesn’t affect sea ice.
Where is the evidence this is anything but a NATURAL El Nino event.
How much warmer MUST it have been 1000 years for forests to have grown where now there are glaciers. ?
Big emphasis on “which for some reason doesn’t affect sea ice.“
CR shows Indiana with very positive anomaly.
Person who lives there says.. nope.. not so warm.
Who to believe..! 😉
A faked re-analysis…. or reality !
Ironically just a few global proxy locations are frequently used to describe just that.
My fireplace insert was in use everyday the last 7 days until today when the high got up into the 50’s.
As for the Arctic. Tell me? Does CO2 flow away from the pole during the summer and then back towards it during the winter? This year is showing the same pattern we’ve seen up there for over a decade. Every summer temps run at about the mean and then come winter they run well above the mean.
Moscow, after recording a day at -55 F set a new single day record for snowfall last week.
Oh, the sheer embarrassment of witnessing the circus clown struggle to grasp the concept of a natural event! Instead of embracing the inevitability, all we get is a delightful display of panic (or more accurately, trolling). Bless his heart; perhaps the elusive ‘global average temperature’ is just too sophisticated for his limited cognitive repertoire.
Climate Reanalyzer isn’t worth the power it uses, frankly – it’s a way of polishing a turd, the turd in question being the climate numbers (can’t even use the word ‘data’ for the corrupt pile of garbage). TFN – even you have to realise that this is all flummery? Weather in pre-industrial times was dry, rainy, warm, cold, snowy and very windy at times – everything ‘climate change’ is said to cause ALREADY HAPPENS. Let me just let that sink in – ‘climate change’ has brought nothing new, no wildly high or low temperatures (without ‘adjustments’ and UHI that is), no freak weather events, nothing new whatsoever. And yet we’re told that there was a sudden shift over after the LIA, ‘weather’ is out and ‘climate change’ does what weather used to do.
Can’t you see what an absolute load of bollux this all is? Well, can’t you?
Did you all see all those jets frozen to the tarmac in Munich.
Elitists trying to escape the cold to get the COP shindig ! 🙂
When you say “global warmest temperature for the date” are you talking about that nonsensical construct called “average global temperature”?
GAT – Global Average Temperature, as in “GAT got your tongue” and “curiosity killed the GAT”.
The CO2 Hypothesis made a testable prediction, that European snowfall would become a thing of the past. Observation has falsified the prediction, meaning that the hypothesis is also falsified.
Can you point me to that prediction? (You’re going to quote some magazine interview with one person talking about the UK about 20-years ago, aren’t you?)
Peter Wadhams, Wieszlaw Maslowki, Andrew Serreze, all Climate “Experts”.
You really aren’t any good at this game, are you?
It is as though he/she/it has never paid any attention to anything..
… or has a memory smaller than that of a goldfish.
Or as has been suggested..
…. its comments are just premeditated and deliberate stupidity.
Sorry, a correction: it should read Mark Serreze.
Ok, so the average weight of 20 of us is 225lbs (102kg) at 5’9″ (175cm). You state I have to go on a diet when I weigh 160lbs (73kg) at 5’11” (180cm). How stupid is this thinking?
November is not winter, it is fall in Europe.
Winter begins on december 21st in Europe.
And already much of Europe is under a blanket of snow !
Hope their electricity supplies hold together !!
Europe doesn’t have ‘fall’, it has ‘Autumn’ instead, other than that minor quibble it’s a good point.
Urban Heat Island effect. 90% of the thermometers are in the warmer cities.
Plus, El Nino.
Try to concentrate. The story was about climate scientists and their followers lamenting that snow will be a thing of the past just a few years ago and now saying there will be plenty of snow in the future. They are making it up as they go.
” They are making it up as they go.”
Yes, they are. They’re winging it. They count on there being a lot of gullible people out there.
On GB News, climate alarmist Jim Dale forecast very low temperatures at the start of December and claimed that it was “a decade since we saw these temperatures”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XywWPrD_mqw
Great to see the alrmists contradicting one another.
Here in Virginia, I’ve been reminiscing about how much this fall has been like the Falls of my youth.
Keeping in mind that I was a mailman for years and therefore very aware of the daily temperature.
Summer temperatures are not hotter than those past years, but quite a few post 2000 winters have had more warm spells than decades past.
The first warning signs are that it has been quite cold over Spring recent years delaying Summer.
How embarrassing!
Yikes! More snow due to Globalbullschist Warming? OK, here’s another clue: hoping to annoy my twin brother, I looked up the max/min temps for Moscow: yesterday -14 and -15 C (doesn’t really matter which is which!), and today -12 and -15 (ditto). Where I come from cold is associated with snow. Just saying.
Where they fail here is to take it to the logical next phase.
Ever increasing northern ocean surface temperature in September leads to ever increasing fall and winter snowfall. At some point the snowfall overtakes the snow melt and the ice will expand down from mountains and south from permafrost. So far only Greenland is exhibiting this but everywhere north of 40N will eventually be covered in ice flows.
“More moisture in the air also means more” cloud cover. Hmm, higher albedo. What could that portend?
Cloud cover is not linear. There is a threshold at 26C over oceans. From that temperature, the cloud cover rises to block surface sunlight such that 30C becomes the maximum sustainable temperature.
But a lot more of the northern hemisphere oceans is hitting the 30C limit in September. The area exceeding 29C has doubled in the past 20 years. In 2003 the ocean surface area above 29C was 1.6E13m^2. By 2023 it was up to 3.7E13m^2.
The upward trend in area hitting the temperature limit is 2.5% of northern ocean surface area per decade.
The trend will continue because it is being driven by the precession cycle. The peak solar intensity in the NH has only been increasing for 500 years. It will continue for 9,000 years.
There needs to be a lot more snow before it overtakes the melt like it did 120,000 years ago in the same circumstances.
“The area exceeding 29C has doubled in the past 20 years.”
That sounds significant.
Yet we had a less-than-average hurricane season this year in the United States.
I would think higher sea surface temperatures would spawn more hurricanes.
“Cloud cover is not linear. There is a threshold at 26C over oceans.”
No there isn’t a threshold at 26 C. Its just a continuum of 7% more water vapor saturation per degree of sea surface temperature. Everywhere on the planet, when surface air convects upward, clouds form when the LCL is reached. High latitudes are some of the cloudiest regions on the planet. You need to rethink your whole 26 to 30 C cause-and-effect logic…
Pat Frank is right…more moisture evaporating means more clouds, especially low level clouds…that have a high albedo…and the incoming solar combined with IR escaping through the atmospheric window combine to cause sea surface evaporation and temp at 25-30C in the tropics….elsewhere, a different number….
Exactly, and a new ice age starts.
Yes. Every interglacial period ends with increasing peak solar intensity in the northern hemisphere. That started 500 years ago for the current cycle.
Earth is in the very early stages of deglaciation. Greenland is the only location exhibiting increasing permanent ice area extent and gaining elevation.
A lot more of the northern ocean surface will reach 30C in September before there is enough snow fall to overtake snow melt.
Spell check does not know reglaciation.
Can’t really fault spellcheck, I don’t know reglaciation either.
Actually, a warming planet will in fact have more precipitation. It’s always been that way n geohistory – cold periods are also dry periods, and vice versa.
But of course the warmunists have been tell the world for years that snow will become a thing of the past due to global warming … forget your dreams of a White Christmas, and you better get rid of your skiing gear as will will shortly become impossible to use.
Not ‘impossible’ – you can use skiing gear on dry slopes all year round, I’m told by those that have done so. Looks odd in the middle of a hot summer but there you go, can’t have everything.
“More moisture in the air also means more precipitation in the long term”
— quote take from FOCUS magazine as cited in the above article
That is not scientifically correct. One can have a higher absolute humidity reading for a given parcel of air (meaning more mass of water vapor per unit mass of air), but if said parcel never gets to a relative humidity level of 100% (meaning saturated to the maximum amount of water vapor the air can hold for a given temperature and pressure), the water vapor will not precipitate out as dew, clouds, rain or snow.
It frequently snows north of the Arctic Circle and south of the Antarctic Circle not because these zones have inherently have more atmospheric moisture (on a percent by mass basis) than do zones closer to the equator, but because the characteristically colder temperatures there, especially with the change of seasons, cause the associated air masses to frequently reach 100% relative humidity even though the air might contain only 1/40 or so of the absolute mass of water vapor per pound mass of air compared to humid air at the equator.
Not really. Warm moist air inevitably rises in the atmosphere – warm air being less dense than cold air, plus the effects of lifting due to thunderstorms and flowing over rising terrain. So yes, warmer moister air WILL rise until the air hits 100% saturation, then precipitate more moisture on a regional or planet wide basis, allowing for a lot of local variations due to other weather phenomena.
More moisture is in fact a net benefit – which is why “desertification” is being reversed in places that just a few decades ago were dry as a bone – a result of both greater precipitation and more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Warm and wet is good … cold and dry is bad, at least for all living things on the planet’s surface.
Not really. Warm air “inevitably” rises in the atmosphere and IF it reaches 100% relative humidity (not a guaranteed thing by the way . . . expanses over the world’s oceans can be cloudless for many consecutive days!), the contained water vapor will start condensing into microdroplets that form visible clouds. This does not always lead to precipitation, let alone precipitation that reaches ground level.
Witness many a blue sky with puffy cumulus clouds floating by overhead and nary a drop of rain to be had. Also, there is the meteorological phenomena know as virga.
If only the part about desertification being reversed due to greater precipitation were true!
This, from Expansion of the Sahara Desert and shrinking of frozen land of the Arctic, Ye Liu & Yongkang Xue, Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number 4109, 05 March 2020 (available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61085-0 ):
“Expansion of the Sahara Desert (SD) and greening of the Arctic tundra-glacier region (ArcTG) have been hot subjects under extensive investigations . . . Here we use both observations and climate-ecosystem models to quantify/project changes in the extents and boundaries of the SD and ArcTG based on climate and vegetation indices. It is found that, based on observed climate indices, the SD expands 8% and the ArcTG shrinks 16% during 1950–2015, respectively. SD southern boundaries advance 100 km southward . . .The projected climate and vegetation indices show these trends will continue in 2015–2050 . . .
“For the future projection through 2050 with the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 5th Assessment Report (AR5), which only CFS is capable to conduct, the simulated climate indices show that with no LULCC the SD will further expand by about 6000 km2/year (p = 0.18 for CFS/SSiB2 and p = 0.15 for CFS/SSiB4). An asymmetrical boundary shift is projected, with about 40 km northward displacement in the western Sahel and 60 km southward displacement in the eastern Sahel (Fig. 1d). In the future projection, the Sahel temperature is projected to be about 1.8 °C warmer than the mean of 1986–2015. Despite the projected increase in precipitation in the mid-21st century, the warming-induced high evaporation dominates and makes the area drier and yields an SD expansion.”
(my bold emphasis added)
More evaporation will cause more precipitation.
Period.
Do you think that water vapor will somehow increase in the atmosphere forever?
You seem to be ignoring the key part of the quote: “…in the long term.”
Not necessarily so according to basic science. More evaporation will lead to higher moisture content in the air, both short term and long term, but that fact alone does not mean there will be more precipitation . . . one has to account for changes in air temperature over both the short and long terms.
“Since the late 1800s, global average surface temperatures have increased by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius). Data from satellites, weather balloons, and ground measurements confirm the amount of atmospheric water vapor is increasing as the climate warms. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report states total atmospheric water vapor is increasing 1 to 2% per decade.) For every degree Celsius that Earth’s atmospheric temperature rises, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can increase by about 7%, according to the laws of thermodynamics.”
— https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
So, for example air at a pressure of 760 mm Hg, temperature of 25 C and relative humidity of 60% has an absolute humidity of 0.0138 kg/m^3 air. In comparison, air at a pressure of 760 mm Hg and temperature of 28 C actually has a lower relative humidity of 55% but a higher absolute humidity of 0.0150 kg/m^3 air.
Having a lower relative humidity means that there is less chance of that same parcel of air resulting in precipitation, over the short or long term, all other things being equal, even though—as the above comparison shows—there can be greater mass of water (vapor) contained in that same volume.
Now, about that “Period” . . .
Ooops . . . improper wording in last sentence of my fourth paragraph above. It should read:
“In comparison, air at a pressure of 760 mm Hg and temperature of 28 C actually can have a lower relative humidity of 55% . . .
It’s my observation that the climate “experts” are never embarrassed. They ignore their failed predictions and keep right on talking.
Yep, just project a date for the new tipping point.
The only thing they are “expert” at is fulfilling, “Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
I don’t want to share in their “doom”.
Long past time to root them out of positions of authority!
Maybe that should have been, “Those who refuse to learn from past are doomed to repeat it.”?
Subtle difference, maybe?
Given how they keep changing “history”, you might be right Gunga
That would be because their agenda has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with controlling the masses.
Yes. To paraphrase winston Churchill, they occasionally stumble over the truth, but they pick themselves up and scurry along as if nothing happened.
Ordinary folk are starting to notice all the failed predictions. I read the comments on articles about Climate Change, and I have observed how public opinion is changing.
The warmunists playing their usual game: heads I win, tails you lose
That’s the way it works, as confidence tricksters, bunko artists, grifters and fraudsters the world over will tell you.
The new religion analogy fits well. But also the fact that people just can’t stand to admit that their “ science “ is not science at all; and the time frames makes rationalizing away errors incredibly easy.
This is yet another example of the alarmists using any weather/climate anomaly as ” evidence” human activity is responsible for any storms, droughts, floods, wildfires, tsunamis—you name it. It’s also the reason that these people have such credibility gaps.
I get the feeling that everytime there are a series of the same weather event it becomes the latest thing that Climate Change will give us more of.
Twitty Forrest iron ore mining billionaire (yes China adds the coal to make the world’s steel) suddenly converts to religion in his dotage-
COP28 Summit is ‘billionaires’ telling the rest of the world ‘what to do’ (msn.com)
Careful Twitty you’re not part of the patriarchy spewing misogyny although some of your new found Metoo friends of Hamas are naturally very selective about calling that out-
‘Let’s talk about Meg’: Woodside wants Twiggy’s Meg O’Neill remarks condemned (msn.com)
Halleluja! Twitty has seen the renewables light along with the usual subsidy miners and taxeaters.(forget the Sunpower fantasy of solar power to Singapore as hydrogen is all the rage now)
Meanwhile here’s the South Australian weather Friday and now it’s pissing down on Saturday which is nothing unusual for this time of year as we change from spring to summer-
SA hit by worst bushfire conditions in years | Watch (msn.com)
It’s all part of the dooming having to put up with them and their hysterics.
Since every daily weather record eventually becomes an integral part of a climate record for that location, then the experts are simply stating the obvious. They never answer the question as to why their ‘prophecies’ are wrong.
Not so long ago our newspapers had daily horoscopes. It is sad to see these meant to be fun reads replaced by the lunatic thoughts of a bunch of charlatans who claim to be climate experts but simply cannot take the medicine needed to get their heads back to some kind of normality and instead publish daily insults to our intelligence ….
Please can we have characters like Mystic Meg back please – more fun and more accurate too. .
Cold is the new warm.
”More moisture in the air also means more precipitation in the long term,” FOCUS writes. “In the fall and winter, this moisture is released in the form of heavy rainfall or snowfall.”
But won’t more moisture = more cloud (albedo), more precipitation (latent heat of vaporisation) and thus global cooling to counteract global warming (Net Zero – grin)… ‘in the long term’?
They are lying. What they are not saying is that humidity alone is insufficient to explain the snowfall. There needs to be cold temperature as well as humidity, which is something they can never admit to.