Michael Fish ... Snow Events Less Likely

[Nick H]

Events like yesterday [although pretty impressive for central London in any era] would not have been enough to close my school back then...no such luck.

BFTP

I heard many people moaning yesterday about what they perceived as unnecessary school closures. I think some have rose-tinted spectacles on. In 1963, my school was closed for three weeks. I'm sure I remember my daughter's school being closed in Feb 86 or Jan 87. SF recalls Jan 87 as being relatively smooth in London but I beg to differ. I can remember severe delays out of central London termini back then, especially from southern stations like Waterloo, Victoria, Charing Cross, and London Bridge. And of course Feb 1991 saw the "wrong type of snow". In fact, having worked in London for the last 30 years, the system usually fouls up whenever there is severe weather and that was as true in 1978-9 as it is today. So the notion that we used to cope with snow so much better in bygone eras is somewhat far-fetched imo. Another point I'd make is that people tend to live further away from both schools and workplaces nowadays, so the commute is longer and that inevitably causes more disruption when we have these "snowfall events". Do not forget also the increase in population, even in the last 20 years. 8 million people live in London and perhaps another 8 million commute from within 40 miles of Central London. What I would question is why there were no London buses running yesterday.

Article re Jan 1987

However it was in the south-east that conditions were most seriously felt for the railways. On 12th no trains ran to or from Southend Victoria, it was not until towards the end of the week that any semblance of a service was instituted out of Liverpool Street to Shenfield & Ipswich. Elsewhere out of Liverpool Street stock formations became very jumbled with allsorts of combinations operating. On the non-electrified lines things were equally as interesting, a Cambridge service on 14th was formed of a parcels DMU attached to a mail working whilst the 16th's 16.05 to Cambridge was a Class 31 and three coaches. On 16th a Reading based Class 117 worked turns on the Sudbury branch, until it failed on 21st! The relaying of information was not helped by the train indicator boards being out of service at Liverpool Street on 12th & 13th due to their relocation. The sidings on the former site of Ipswich MPD soon became a resting place for many failed, frozen up diesels.

Out of Kings Cross the snow of the 12th quickly reduced the long distance HST workings to chaos. a heavily overcrowded 17.03 KX - Peterborough took over two hours to complete its journey, whilst the 12th's 14.00 Aberdeen - KX reached the capital at 4.00am on 13th

Edited February 3, 2009 by Nick H

[Thundery wintry showers]

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.

I've been at the Climatic Research Unit and Hadley Centre and can actually confirm that there is a lot of debate going on about AGW, and although there is indeed a consensus that humans are probably at least partly to blame, the science, indeed, is not as settled as various media sources would have us believe (one way or the other!)

I think doing things to prevent global warming is selfish. What about those impoverished parts of the world whose climate will change to the extent they can grow stuff, feed themselves and make money exporting stuff?

Why do we always think of it in terms of "we must protect the staus quo" instead of "hey...it's good those guys will get a chance for a change while we suffer what they've always been through" ?

The problem lies in the inherent assumption that doing things to prevent global warming means stunting the economies of the developing world while continuing to pollute ourselves, or something along those lines. Not so. We can take steps towards cleaner, more efficient economies in the developed world, use more alternative energy sources where possible, and pass that technology over to the developing world, instead of them going through the same phases of development as us in the process (i.e. a phase of very inefficient, pollutive energy generation).

AGW or no, the current rate of consumerism and consumption in the developed world is a long way from being sustainable, and if we just stay as we are, and let developing countries join us, we'll soon find that we no longer have the resources to sustain such consumption. Result- all countries suffer, but especially the developing countries.

And then there's the issue that AGW, if it's as bad as the climate mdodels predict, may tip marginal climates over the edge esp. in developing countries- think coastal flooding, droughts, killer heatwaves etc.

[weather eater]

I heard many people moaning yesterday about what they perceived as unnecessary school closures. I think some have rose-tinted spectacles on. In 1963, my school was closed for three weeks. I'm sure I remember my daughter's school being closed in Feb 86 or Jan 87. SF recalls Jan 87 as being relatively smooth in London but I beg to differ. I can remember severe delays out of central London termini back then, especially from southern stations like Waterloo, Victoria, Charing Cross, and London Bridge. In fact, having worked in London for the last 30 years, the system usually fouls up whenever there is severe weather and that was as true in 1978-9 as it is today. Another point I'd make is that people tend to live further away from both schools and workplaces nowadays, so the commute is longer and that inevitably causes more disruption when we have these "snowfall events". Do not forget also the increase in population, even in the last 20 years. 8 million people live in London and perhaps another 8 million commute from within 40 miles of Central London. What I would question is why there were no London buses running yesterday.

Sorry Nick I love you dearly but that’s just not the case, I lived in rural Norfolk in the 60s and 70s, I cannot remember having days off school, pupils and teachers came in from the all the local villages and if they couldn’t get in others covered for them, so the idea that people have to commute further is a red herring, besides less people had their own transport and car technology has improved for adverse weather conditions , Another factor is that most parents nowadays go out to work, so frequently it’s a case of sending children home to an unsupervised environment, because the parent/parents are out at work or the parent then has to miss a day of work to look after the kids. While the snow was bad in the SE it was not extreme in the manner of 62/62, 1947, 78/79, or 87. As I say none of our clients here has failed to get to work, and that includes Mike who lives on an untreated road but has managed to get to his school on the other side of Manchester, 15 to 20 miles away. The description of a moderately heavy snowfall as extreme is just plain stupid, almost as much as the labelling of nobodies as celebrities, in my opinion. Its not just the schools, we have no refuse collection either, what happens if we get a month of snowy weather are we just going to leave the rubbish in the streets to rot, you have to ask yourself are we a modern industrial nation or a third world backwater, its nor even that the snow came as a surprise.

[Nick H]

Sorry Nick I love you dearly but that’s just not the case, I lived in rural Norfolk in the 60s and 70s, I cannot remember having days off school, pupils and teachers came in from the all the local villages and if they couldn’t get in others covered for them, so the idea that people have to commute further is a red herring, besides less people had their own transport and car technology has improved for adverse weather conditions .

I'll give you car technology but people walked to school because they lived closer. I have to strongly disagree with you that commuting distance is a red herring, it's not. Many teachers (I'm not going to use that ghastly phrase "key workers") now live 15, 20, 25 even 30 miles from their school because of high house prices and although you may have had one or two coming in from such distances 45 years ago it is certainly nothing like the numbers now, where the teachers more than likely would have lived in the village.

I may be getting on but my long term memory is not failing just yet....we definitely had 3 weeks off school in 1963!! Although I admit it may have been more to do with the oil freezing rather than kids being unable to walk 200 yards.

Edited February 3, 2009 by Nick H

[Interitus]

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.

I've been at the Climatic Research Unit and Hadley Centre and can actually confirm that there is a lot of debate going on about AGW, and although there is indeed a consensus that humans are probably at least partly to blame, the science, indeed, is not as settled as various media sources would have us believe (one way or the other!)

The question of perception is an interesting one, as highlighted recently on wunderground.

Polls in the US showed that 42% of Americans believe that - "there is a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about whether human activities are a major cause" of global warming".

When the question was asked of the weather underground community, a group like here which one might expect to be more aware of the issues and have a fair share of 'meteo geeks', the percentage was higher at 56%.

However, 82% of all scientists questioned, and fully 97% of the climate scientists who regularly publish on climate change agreed with the statement, "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMaste...l?entrynum=1184

Thus it appears La Bise has a fair point and the most vociferous and possibly entrenched and ill-informed arguments are taking place on forums such as this.

[VillagePlank]

Well, if anyone has a subscription to this it might settle the argument.

[Solar Cycles]

I've been at the Climatic Research Unit and Hadley Centre and can actually confirm that there is a lot of debate going on about AGW, and although there is indeed a consensus that humans are probably at least partly to blame, the science, indeed, is not as settled as various media sources would have us believe (one way or the other!)

The problem lies in the inherent assumption that doing things to prevent global warming means stunting the economies of the developing world while continuing to pollute ourselves, or something along those lines. Not so. We can take steps towards cleaner, more efficient economies in the developed world, use more alternative energy sources where possible, and pass that technology over to the developing world, instead of them going through the same phases of development as us in the process (i.e. a phase of very inefficient, pollutive energy generation).

AGW or no, the current rate of consumerism and consumption in the developed world is a long way from being sustainable, and if we just stay as we are, and let developing countries join us, we'll soon find that we no longer have the resources to sustain such consumption. Result- all countries suffer, but especially the developing countries.

And then there's the issue that AGW, if it's as bad as the climate mdodels predict, may tip marginal climates over the edge esp. in developing countries- think coastal flooding, droughts, killer heatwaves etc.

Would love to attend one of those meetings TWS, just to see what is being debated!

I've been at the Climatic Research Unit and Hadley Centre and can actually confirm that there is a lot of debate going on about AGW, and although there is indeed a consensus that humans are probably at least partly to blame, the science, indeed, is not as settled as various media sources would have us believe (one way or the other!)

The question of perception is an interesting one, as highlighted recently on wunderground.

Polls in the US showed that 42% of Americans believe that - "there is a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about whether human activities are a major cause" of global warming".

When the question was asked of the weather underground community, a group like here which one might expect to be more aware of the issues and have a fair share of 'meteo geeks', the percentage was higher at 56%.

However, 82% of all scientists questioned, and fully 97% of the climate scientists who regularly publish on climate change agreed with the statement, "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMaste...l?entrynum=1184

Thus it appears La Bise has a fair point and the most vociferous and possibly entrenched and ill-informed arguments are taking place on forums such as this.

82% of all scientist questioned! But what number of scientist where questioned? Sorry I can't get the link to work!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

It is continually stated by AGW supporters that one off events that produce cold weather and some snow are likely to continue against an inexorable trend of ever rising temperatures. But how long can they keep having their cake and eating it? At what point does it become impossible and not excusable to keep having inconvenient reminders that things haven't changed as much as the warmers emphasise as a foregone conclusion.

The incessant boundary minimums that keep being placed on min temperature expectations, the categorically defined statements regarding winters overall not being colder than 95/96 ever again etc etc is just speculation dressed up as fact. I think what really gets the goat of many of those of us who are far more open minded and don't look through a narrow warm biased lense, is the expectation that EVERYONE should believe what they say to be true and anyone who doesn't is 'stupid' or whimsically 'keeping the faith' etc etc.

How long can this continue to wash, when this decade clearly isn't meeting the IPCC expectations, why should we take a period of twenty something years, which is a veritable dot in the ocean in real climatic terms, as hard long term climatic evidence? Why should we just pass off continually deferred forecasts that the real warming is just delayed after an inconvenient blip, and how long can every heavy snowfall, every month that goes below 30-40 yr average means be passed off as 'isolated variations' in an ever interminably warming world. Frankly this is just an excuse to keep the AGW bandwagon alive, and to 'tut tut' at the rest of us who don't tow the party line.

That type of expectation, condescention and attitude is hardly going to endear people to consider a point of view that dresses up a theory as cast iron fact.

Edited February 3, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Iceni]

I'll give you car technology but people walked to school because they lived closer. I have to strongly disagree with you that commuting distance is a red herring, it's not. Many teachers (I'm not going to use that ghastly phrase "key workers") now live 15, 20, 25 even 30 miles from their school because of high house prices and although you may have had one or two coming in from such distances 45 years ago it is certainly nothing like the numbers now, where the teachers more than likely would have lived in the village.

I may be getting on but my long term memory is not failing just yet....we definitely had 3 weeks off school in 1963!!

Where did you live then? I remember '63 and going back for the spring term in much the same, but much colder conditions as London had yesterday... sure the first week several children and a couple of teachers didn't make it it, but by the start of the second week it was back to normal. I've got vague memories of BR bringing back into service the much heavier steam trains as they gripped down on the track better.

In some ways, it might have been easier, because '63 was so severe, no thaws, so once the snow had been cleared up that was it until the next shower, none of the snow/thaw/re-freeze/ice/snow problems we seem to have (so rarely) nowadays. Also people were far more used to dealing with real wintery weather as it happened nearly every winter, Dad had a set of snow chains for the car. They usually lived closer to their work or school. Most of the village schools have gone now and the children commute miles away into towns.

Certainly buses were running and as we didn't have a front wheel drive car (not many around and usually only farmers had 4X4s – landrovers) we'd to walk up and down our hill to the bus stop at the bottom.

[Solar Cycles]

Would love to attend one of those meetings TWS, just to see what is being debated!

82% of all scientist questioned! But what number of scientist where questioned? Sorry I can't get the link to work!

Found it at last! The problem with that survey is that asking government funded scientist to say if they agree or not is a rather pointless exercise. You don't bite the hand that feeds you!

[Interitus]

82% of all scientist questioned! But what number of scientist where questioned? Sorry I can't get the link to work!

3146 were polled, 30.7% response rate.

Here is the article from the journal, EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

[Solar Cycles]

3146 were polled, 30.7% response rate.

Here is the article from the journal, EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

So 3,146 were polled, but only 30% replied. Hardly conclusive results are they! So what does that tell us, 70% didn't reply for fear of having their grants pulled from underneath them!

[Interitus]

Found it at last! The problem with that survey is that asking government funded scientist to say if they agree or not is a rather pointless exercise. You don't bite the hand that feeds you!

That's a tired and cliched, if not scandalous, get out.

In any case, only 5% were climate scientists, the rest were involved in related physical sciences.

So 3,146 were polled, but only 30% replied. Hardly conclusive results are they! So what does that tell us, 70% didn't reply for fear of having their grants pulled from underneath them!

Thus it appears La Bise has a fair point and the most vociferous and possibly entrenched and ill-informed arguments are taking place on forums such as this.

QED

Edited February 3, 2009 by Interitus

[Iceni]

Found it at last! The problem with that survey is that asking government funded scientist to say if they agree or not is a rather pointless exercise. You don't bite the hand that feeds you!

By that argument, nor do those funded by energy/oil companies?

Next question: who has the most cash and most to lose?

[Nick B]

I heard many people moaning yesterday about what they perceived as unnecessary school closures. I think some have rose-tinted spectacles on. In 1963, my school was closed for three weeks. I'm sure I remember my daughter's school being closed in Feb 86 or Jan 87. SF recalls Jan 87 as being relatively smooth in London but I beg to differ. I can remember severe delays out of central London termini back then, especially from southern stations like Waterloo, Victoria, Charing Cross, and London Bridge. And of course Feb 1991 saw the "wrong type of snow". In fact, having worked in London for the last 30 years, the system usually fouls up whenever there is severe weather and that was as true in 1978-9 as it is today. So the notion that we used to cope with snow so much better in bygone eras is somewhat far-fetched imo. Another point I'd make is that people tend to live further away from both schools and workplaces nowadays, so the commute is longer and that inevitably causes more disruption when we have these "snowfall events". Do not forget also the increase in population, even in the last 20 years. 8 million people live in London and perhaps another 8 million commute from within 40 miles of Central London. What I would question is why there were no London buses running yesterday.

Article re Jan 1987

Agree with much of that. I suspect the reason for the London buses farce is down to one or possibly two main factors. The first is due to the infrequency of lying snow, slush and ice in the capital, modern drivers as a rule won't know how to drive in it in the same way as those of 30 or 40 years ago could. Not just buses but also cars of course. The insurance companies may have had a hand in the decision? Also, they've got new buses. I'll bet the old ones with the open door at the back managed snow better. I'm just talking rubbish though, because I don't know for sure!

Definitely agree that people have come to rely on cars for longer and longer commutes and this means they can't face the prospect of a long journey in the snow. The idea of breaking down is scary and unpalatable because it means you have to go prepared with extra clothing and blankets which, though they could, most people just don't do. Also, it means having to get out of bed much earlier and setting off much sooner because you just have to drive slower. Younger and less experienced drivers are fairly clueless about anticipating the unexpected in terms of just how slippery ice can be. Many will happily drive in freezing conditions at similar speeds as in the wet, thinking they'll get away with it. No wonder so many crashes happen with the knock-on effect that other people can't get to work.

Of course if you live on a hill it may well be a case of don't even think about it unless you have snow chains or a proper off-roader anyway...

[Solar Cycles]

That's a tired and cliched, if not scandalous, get out.

In any case, only 5% were climate scientists, the rest were involved in related physical sciences.

Thus it appears La Bise has a fair point and the most vociferous and possibly entrenched and ill-informed arguments are taking place on forums such as this.

QED

But a good point!

[stewfox]

It ain't what it were like when I were't lad - A similar situation in the 50's and 60's would've given us a nice powder snow with a max of about -5c.

This time the continent was far too warm for that - By tell 'em that - they won't believe you.

I can see one day in the 1950s when the max temp in Watford was -4c never a -5c

[Interitus]

But a good point!

Not at all - read the article and you will see that percentage response rate is normal - being a scientific journal even this assertion is referenced.

[Solar Cycles]

By that argument, nor do those funded by energy/oil companies?

Next question: who has the most cash and most to lose?

It's not about who loses what, but is the science right!

[Interitus]

It's not about who loses what, but is the science right!

But then what if you don't accept the science? That's the problem.

[Solar Cycles]

But then what if you don't accept the science? That's the problem.

That's why a lot of scientist disagree on this.

[Methuselah]

So 3,146 were polled, but only 30% replied. Hardly conclusive results are they! So what does that tell us, 70% didn't reply for fear of having their grants pulled from underneath them!

Or, maybe they just realize that opinion-canvassing doesn't affect climate change one iota? Hot air notwithstanding of course!

And no. It doesn't tell us what you're saying does. You do...

It's not about who loses what, but is the science right!

That's a relief. For a wee while there, I was thinking it had more to do with who makes the most noise...

[Solar Cycles]

Or, maybe they just realize that opinion-canvassing doesn't affect climate change one iota? Hot air notwithstanding of course!

And no. It doesn't tell us what you're saying does. You do...

That's a relief. For a wee while there, I was thinking it had more to do with who makes the most noise...

That alcolade would go to you Pete!

But then what if you don't accept the science? That's the problem.

But only 45-50% agree with the IPCC!

[WhiteFox]

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

Pfff. Computers. What have they ever done for us? Contributed to climate change (if you believe in it of course).

1987: I can remember widespread disruption across the south albeit under much more severe conditions than over the past two days. The same is true of several winters prior to 1987; school was closed nearly every winter for a couple of days because of the weather.

Re this spell; nothing like 1991 despite the falls of snow. The continent wasn't cold enough in advance; not a classic Easterly is longevity, but it certainly dumped a large quantity on some areas. What we got was a one-off mix of just the right upper-air and ppn; something which used to happen much more regularly (completely anecdotal before anyone jumps on me)...

[Methuselah]

That alcolade would go to you Pete!

And there was me, thinking we talking about right-/left-wing politically-motivated hacks, not each other. We live and learn though???

Edited February 3, 2009 by Pete Tattum