Michael Fish ... Snow Events Less Likely

[NorthernRab]

Well that's brilliant! If Michael Fish says it wont snow, it definitely will.

[Solar Cycles]

Yes, well as you work backwards from the premise that AGW is a myth and fit evidence around it, of course you're going to say that.

What Michael Fish said is entirely in line with current predictions from climate models, namely that this part of the world is highly likely to get warmer over the coming decades, and therefore, such snow events will probably continue to become less common.

The current snow event does not disprove AGW (or GW, as some members seem to be making out!), the globe is still warmer than the long-term average, but we happen to have had very favourable synoptics for snow today. Think about it logically: if it snowed widely at temperatures of -3 to -5C in January 1987 and February 1991, a warming of 3C, all other things being equal, would make no difference other than that the snow would be less powdery.

It is entirely feasible that we could go into a period of snowier winters, as part of the "snow drought" in the past couple of decades has been down to unfavourable synoptics, and global temperatures have stalled since 1998- so a change to more favourable winter synoptics would, in the short term, mean more snow. But even that isn't certain to happen- the last two winters were very mild.

There we go again with computer models TWS, you know my opinion on them!

[yamkin]

According to michael fish these snow events will be less likley because of Global Warming , another forecaster jumping on the global warming bandwagon. Even in the 90's we didn't have these events EVERY year , even the 80's they didn't have hard snow events every year

As MF is no longer a MetO forecaster he can speak his 'Global Warming' mind. You will find that the MetO team do not get involved in and with the Global Warming saga.

[J10]

Whatever the merits of GW, IMO it's not the best idea to mention it on a day with heavy snow, reinforcing in the middle of summer heatwave, seems a much better idea.

As MF is no longer a MetO forecaster he can speak his 'Global Warming' mind. You will find that the MetO team do not get involved in and with the Global Warming saga.

Darren Bett did last week.

[Neilsouth]

What Michael Fish said is entirely in line with current predictions from climate models,

Thats all they are PREDICTIONS not FACT , human programmed climate change data models are used to predict global warming and nothing else. Furthermore you are more likely to get scientific funding for global warming than you if against it.

They have PREDICTED hotter and drier summers , this has not happened. They use Climate models to forecast the weather for the week ahead and even then it's usually wrong as such so can future predictions of global warming.

[Mondy]

Thats all they are PREDICTIONS not FACT , human programmed climate change data models are used to predict global warming and nothing else. Furthermore you are more likely to get scientific funding for global warming than you if against it.

They have PREDICTED hotter and drier summers , this has not happened. They use Climate models to forecast the weather for the week ahead and even then it's usually wrong as such so can future predictions of global warming.

Here, here Neil

Climate models - Hot air in, hot air out

[Stratos Ferric]

There we go again with computer models TWS, you know my opinion on them!

Solar, I really don't see why you started this thread - you've made your mind up as to the answer already. If you want a debate, have a discussion, but if all you're going to do is post "that's rubbish / that's wrong" type responses to anyone who does bother to reply then you'll pretty soon find that people, certainly the ones on here worth listening to (and TWS is definitely one of those) will just ognore you.

Perhaps you might take half an hour to go find some FACTS to buttress your arguments.

You might go seek Bonanica (sp?), although not particularly thorough, and certainly nowehere near as exhaustive of the Hydrological series that the UKMO used to maintain, it does attempt to map the snowiness of UK winters.

[Solar Cycles]

Solar, I really don't see why you started this thread - you've made your mind up as to the answer already. If you want a debate, have a discussion, but if all you're going to do is post "that's rubbish / that's wrong" type responses to anyone who does bother to reply then you'll pretty soon find that people, certainly the ones on here worth listening to (and TWS is definitely one of those) will just ognore you.

Perhaps you might take half an hour to go find some FACTS to buttress your arguments.

You might go seek Bonanica (sp?), although not particularly thorough, and certainly nowehere near as exhaustive of the Hydrological series that the UKMO used to maintain, it does attempt to map the snowiness of UK winters.

Two things, first I didn't start the thread, and secondly, if you care to read my past posts then you will find that I have done the above. So maybe next time you might want to check your facts first, before jumping to conclusions!

[The PIT]

It made me laugh when someone on the TV described this today as a "one in 20 year event" when there is something similar showing as soon as Thursday/Friday.

This winter is shaping up to be the coldest and snowiest for many years, so global warming not having much impact here. Hopefully this is just the beginning of a harsh run of very cold and snowy weather. :lol:

Actually it's the heaviest snow since the nighties here so not quite twenty years but still a long period. Michael Fish is firmly in the global warming camp by the way. He gave an interesting talk with Paul Hudson and Rob M at Sheffield Hallam a few years back.

Even so it's not a large fall of Snow when you compare it to the eighties. However by morning it maybe different.

[Stratos Ferric]

Here, here Neil

Climate models - Hot air in, hot air out

I think you mean "hear, hear". WHy might anyone accept the thin view on the robustness of models of someone whose command of English is limited? Sauce for the goose and all that...

You don't have to use models to see that the climate in the UK is nowhere near as snowy - in either frequency, average extent, quantity or persistence, as it used to be.

Days like today will distract the stupid, just as the chronic gambler is teased by the occasional win from realising that it is the bookie, not he, who is banking most of the money, but an event that would not have been extraordinary through most of my chilhood (60s - 80s) is being widely hailed on the news as the biggest snowfall in around 20 years.

[weather eater]

Yes, well as you work backwards from the premise that AGW is a myth and fit evidence around it, of course you're going to say that.

What Michael Fish said is entirely in line with current predictions from climate models, namely that this part of the world is highly likely to get warmer over the coming decades, and therefore, such snow events will probably continue to become less common.

The current snow event does not disprove AGW (or GW, as some members seem to be making out!), the globe is still warmer than the long-term average, but we happen to have had very favourable synoptics for snow today. Think about it logically: if it snowed widely at temperatures of -3 to -5C in January 1987 and February 1991, a warming of 3C, all other things being equal, would make no difference other than that the snow would be less powdery.

It is entirely feasible that we could go into a period of snowier winters, as part of the "snow drought" in the past couple of decades has been down to unfavourable synoptics, and global temperatures have stalled since 1998- so a change to more favourable winter synoptics would, in the short term, mean more snow. But even that isn't certain to happen- the last two winters were very mild.

Spot on TWS, I would have thought the fact that this has been the most snow the SE has seen for 18 years suggests that these events are becoming rarer which is in line with AGW theory, in other words rarer but not impossible. Of course I hope that BLAST is right it would give me great pleasure to tell him so, however it would take a few years of consistent lowering of global temperatures to prove it. This year has been great especially the last couple of days, but so far it is not anything like those winters of my youth or those of the cherries of the 40s and 50s. For those who think its all a government plot, hogwash I'm afraid, I'm sure it would suit the government and their cronies in big business far more to say that everything is in fact, hunky dory, as the Republicans have done in the states. Even if you believe the case was unproven, which would be a fair place to stand, would you take the chance of doing nothing given the enormous implications of being wrong. Personally for me the risk is too great. If it turns out that the science has been wrong and that its all been a natural cycle then it will have still have been useful if it has helped us to lessen our impact on the environment, we are not the only creatures whose home this planet is.

Edited February 2, 2009 by weather eater

[Stratos Ferric]

Two things, first I didn't start the thread, and secondly, if you care to read my past posts then you will find that I have done the above. So maybe next time you might want to check your facts first, before jumping to conclusions!

Apologies Solar, I lost track of who was replying to who there in my incandesence about the futility of the quality of some of the argument on here.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

>>Hale Winter

interesting BFTP.. looks like you called it back in August too

Hale Winter?

Hi Snooz

Thanks for that. Yes it seems to have come to fruition and I am a big believer in solar and lunar cycles and the controlling affect they have on the climate of Earth. This has definitely been a HALE winter.

By the way some have said that synoptics and teleconnections need to be perfect, they don't as this winter has proved...we just need the jet to track south....which incidently is the longterm trend within the solar and lunar cycles.

The other flip side of this is that IF the partyline of AGW is wrong and the models are wrong then a cooling effect bringing more wintry setups as just seen would be just as dangerous as doing nothing and the warming potential consequences? We as a nation would not in modern society, as seen by today, cope with regualr freezes until investment was made into necessary equipment to deal with snow and ice in abundance.

The facts are the globe has warmed 'slightly' but the facts are that the warming has stopped for 10 years and there are signs of cooling [albeit slight and from the high point] BUT the 10 year trend is down...and no model has predicted that. 10 years is a decent chunk and it is growing.

BFTP

Edited February 2, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Mondy]

I think you mean "hear, hear". WHy might anyone accept the thin view on the robustness of models of someone whose command of English is limited? Sauce for the goose and all that...

You don't have to use models to see that the climate in the UK is nowhere near as snowy - in either frequency, average extent, quantity or persistence, as it used to be.

Days like today will distract the stupid, just as the chronic gambler is teased by the occasional win from realising that it is the bookie, not he, who is banking most of the money, but an event that would not have been extraordinary through most of my chilhood (60s - 80s) is being widely hailed on the news as the biggest snowfall in around 20 years.

Whilst you disect my written English, perhaps you'd like to show some proof. I mean hard, peer reviewed proof which I can read, digest and then get back to you.

It's the same old story with the AGW mob - as soon as a cold spell crops up, out they come dishing out morbid tales of impending doom and gloom, breathing negativity all over, bemoaning others who do not agree with their stance.

I note the climate change threads have been quieter than usual today. Perhaps the enviro-Taleban have been enjoying the snowfall too?

I trust the above is written in perfect English for you?

Edited February 2, 2009 by Delta X-Ray

[Bad2thebone79]

Global warming is just something our government likes to use as an excuse for higher taxes (green taxes).

All that happens weather and climate-wise is completely natural. Trees in the rainforests could be replanted. Rising water levels from the ice caps (allegedly) melting? The sea water could be pumped inland to combat disasters like the bush fires in Australia...

[leaskovski]

You lot are so wrong. They renamed it from global warming to climate change years ago! :lol:

[Solar Cycles]

Apologies Solar, I lost track of who was replying to who there in my incandesence about the futility of the quality of some of the argument on here.

Apology excepted Stratos, sometimes things get a little heated regarding AGW!

[Mondy]

Several Hundred Attend Global Warming Protest :lol:

[Thundery wintry showers]

I never said it was certain to get warmer over north-west Europe over the coming decades, I said it is highly likely to. Indeed, the climate models aren't perfect, hence the continued research into improving them to make them closer to perfection. However, as far as predictions of future climate go, they're the best tools that we currently have.

By "highly likely" it means that there is still a chance that north-west Europe might not warm significantly over the next few decades, and I hope it doesn't for various reasons. However, I think the balance of evidence is not in my favour on that one.

[Mr Maunder]

I really do not think anyone absolutely knows whether Global warming is taking place or not. There is a debate going on.

However, that does not stop individuals from asserting that it is or it isn't with absolute certainty. That is what gets right up most peoples collective noses.

Oh, and politicians jumping on the "pro" side as a means to raise taxes (not to finance "green" projects- at least that would show they really thought that action was worthwhile - no, they use it just to cynically justify higher taxes).

Oh and whilst I am on my hobby horse the fact that the BBC almost cannot cover any story without mentioning climate change without "doing" the science, either way!! The things that climate change is responsible for are endless.

What do I think? I think CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It appears there is more of it than there used to be so I would expect this to be responsible for some warming. How much? I do not know, but I expect to learn more each year and that will help me reach a conclusion as to whether CO2 is the smoking gun or whether other cyclical or external factors are in play. At this stage I suspect that external factors do play a part and I am particularly interested in the solar angle. Just my view.

I do, however, tire of being told that the science is settled. To my mind it isn't - I do have that bias and I do like the cold. That does not mean I do not support sensible green measures to conserve the resources of the world. I, like many others, do.

But please, save us from the politicians lackeys, lickspittles and manipulators. They just score own goals for the "pro" case - and turn this in to an entrenched argument, not a debate.

MM

[Mondy]

I am assuming Stratos Ferric doesn't want to play bat and ball with me?

Peer reviewed, honest facts, without spin, political agendas and eye-opening proof to Global Warming is what I'm looking for, SF.

I understand if you don't want to play.

[weather eater]

Whilst you disect my written English, perhaps you'd like to show some proof. I mean hard, peer reviewed proof which I can read, digest and then get back to you.

It's the same old story with the AGW mob - as soon as a cold spell crops up, out they come dishing out morbid tales of impending doom and gloom, breathing negativity all over, bemoaning others who do not agree with their stance.

I note the climate change threads have been quieter than usual today. Perhaps the enviro-Taleban have been enjoying the snowfall too?

I trust the above is written in perfect English for you?

I think your post emphasises why it is impossible to have an intelligent debate about this subject on this forum, you accuse the, as you call it AGW mob, of certain negative techniques which you then mirror. Fact is most of us are cold weather funs, I am, TWS and SF to the best of my knowledge are, but we are concerned that it is likely that human activity is taking that pleasure away from us, no its not set in stone and I hope to god we are wrong, but I doubt it. They have talked about this being the heaviest snow in 18 years I would put that at 22 years, 87 was the last memorable winter spell I can remember, and I think this year needs to get better than it has been so far to measure up to that. As I said earlier it really has been great today, special in the manner that it has effected a large part of the country but not a spectacular snowfall IMO.

I really do not think anyone absolutely knows whether Global warming is taking place or not. There is a debate going on.

However, that does not stop individuals from asserting that it is or it isn't with absolute certainty. That is what gets right up most peoples collective noses.

Oh, and politicians jumping on the "pro" side as a means to raise taxes (not to finance "green" projects- at least that would show they really thought that action was worthwhile - no, they use it just to cynically justify higher taxes).

Oh and whilst I am on my hobby horse the fact that the BBC almost cannot cover any story without mentioning climate change without "doing" the science, either way!! The things that climate change is responsible for are endless.

What do I think? I think CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It appears there is more of it than there used to be so I would expect this to be responsible for some warming. How much? I do not know, but I expect to learn more each year and that will help me reach a conclusion as to whether CO2 is the smoking gun or whether other cyclical or external factors are in play. At this stage I suspect that external factors do play a part and I am particularly interested in the solar angle. Just my view.

I do, however, tire of being told that the science is settled. To my mind it isn't - I do have that bias and I do like the cold. That does not mean I do not support sensible green measures to conserve the resources of the world. I, like many others, do.

But please, save us from the politicians lackeys, lickspittles and manipulators. They just score own goals for the "pro" case - and turn this in to an entrenched argument, not a debate.

MM

Good post, I'm afraid we are stuck with the politicians, but I sympathize with your point and I too loathe the way that the rather ambiguous phrase of climate change, is trotted out every time a news worthy weather event takes place. Whatever the truth of GW is, I for one have seen no measurable increase in severe weather events because of it, that seems to be a complete red herring.

[La Bise]

The only debate taking place re AGW is between meteo geeks on forums like these and loudmouth journalists, otherwise there is about as much debate in the scientific community about it as there is about evolution or the link between HIV and AIDS.

Anyhow, it's snowing in the UK, it must mean AGW is a myth, sometimes you just have to smile at the insularity of it all eh...

[Jayces]

I guess if we live for another 100 years, the planet gets warmer and we have snow events in 30 years and then again in 50 years then we can all come back here and say he was right. Well, maybe bookmark this thread and ask our grand kids to do it.

[paul tall]

"The Climate Change Industry".