Michael Fish ... Snow Events Less Likely

[WhiteFox]

What is evident from this thread is that people do not distinguish between 'weather' and 'climate'. It is always possible to have 'snowy weather' singularities, but the changes to a warmer climate indicate that these singularities will become less frequent. It's simple maths. Once upon of time it was a more regular thing, now it's an exception.

Indeed. Talking about exceptional snow in London highlights just how uncommon lying snow has become in the capital. Certainly this used to happen much more frequently, but to say it's the heaviest in London (and much of the South East) for 18 years shows how little has fallen in between more than anything else. Synoptically snow will always remain possible so long as the sun fails to shine on the North Pole in winter time; it just seems that the right synoptics have become less common, a debate which we've had hundreds of times before and TWS has even written a dissertation on a related subject...

[Timmytour]

What is evident from this thread is that people do not distinguish between 'weather' and 'climate'. It is always possible to have 'snowy weather' singularities, but the changes to a warmer climate indicate that these singularities will become less frequent. It's simple maths. If the average temperature of winter months at a station is increasing (and it is at most in the UK), then the typical range of temperatures experienced at that station will dictate that there'll be less time for the conditions to be in the marginal 'snow zone', so snow cover will become less frequent. It won't happen overnight, but gradually over a period of years. If you look at days with snow cover at most UK stations you'll see that it's been decreasing steadily over the last century as a trend. It even allows for the snowy winters of 1946/47 and 1962/63. That is the observed evidence. It is not under question. The fact that is has snowed this year in several areas of the world that haven't had snowfall for a long time illustrates this perfectly. Once upon of time it was a more regular thing, now it's an exception.

I daresay that, over other periods of time, the same has been true, and the reverse has been true. Perhaps in the days when the Thames used to freeze people highlighted the fact that it never used to and warned that it meant something weird was going on.....

Edited February 3, 2009 by Timmytour

[Neilsouth]

Indeed. Talking about exceptional snow in London highlights just how uncommon lying snow has become in the capital

Thats because London has become much warmer compared to many years ago , sometimes in the summer London can create its own Storms!. But this does not indicate that the global is warming up , just again local warming

[WhiteFox]

I daresay that, over other periods of time, the same has been true, and the reverse has been true. Perhaps in the days when the Thames used to freeze people highlighted the fact that it never used to and warned that it meant something weird was going on.....

Which is a fair comment. Debate over AGW is fine, but to contend that there is no warming seems to stare in the face of what facts we have.

Thats because London has become much warmer compared to many years ago , sometimes in the summer London can create its own Storms!. But this does not indicate that the global is warming up , just again local warming

Aha! This old chestnut; I love it! So the Earth is not warming except in the areas where there are thermometers? London has somehow warmed to the extent that snow rarely lies, yet the surrounding home counties, where snow also hardly ever lies, have not warmed despite the figures suggesting otherwise? Or the US has only warmed in areas with no thermometers? Or indeed anywhere else in the world where measurements are taken...

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Thats because London has become much warmer compared to many years ago , sometimes in the summer London can create its own Storms!. But this does not indicate that the global is warming up , just again local warming

Neil

I think that AGW is hot air and the 'science' is wrong. However, GW is true BUT my contention is that it is Solar and Lunar driven and we have peaked and are on our way down. Don't confuse them both, the world does warm and cool...that is a given.

BFTP

[LomondSnowstorm]

hard to say

of course these events will happen from time to time but no one really knows how global warming is likely to effect winters in the long term.

it is too easy to just say that the climate is getting warmer so winters will be much less cold with no snow

[Neilsouth]

Aha! This old chestnut; I love it! So the Earth is not warming except in the areas where there are thermometers? London has somehow warmed to the extent that snow rarely lies, yet the surrounding home counties, where snow also hardly ever lies, have not warmed despite the figures suggesting otherwise? Or the US has only warmed in areas with no thermometers? Or indeed anywhere else in the world where measurements are taken...

Why do i detect sarcasm in your post :huh:

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

What is evident from this thread is that people do not distinguish between 'weather' and 'climate'. It is always possible to have 'snowy weather' singularities, but the changes to a warmer climate indicate that these singularities will become less frequent. It's simple maths. If the average temperature of winter months at a station is increasing (and it is at most in the UK), then the typical range of temperatures experienced at that station will dictate that there'll be less time for the conditions to be in the marginal 'snow zone', so snow cover will become less frequent. It won't happen overnight, but gradually over a period of years. If you look at days with snow cover at most UK stations you'll see that it's been decreasing steadily over the last century as a trend. It even allows for the snowy winters of 1946/47 and 1962/63. That is the observed evidence. It is not under question. The fact that is has snowed this year in several areas of the world that haven't had snowfall for a long time illustrates this perfectly. Once upon of time it was a more regular thing, now it's an exception.

But its less about what has happened, its more about the assumption being made that it will continue ad infinitum. And I persist with the argument that the expectations about what is and isn't possible to occur wrt to cold temps and snow are overstated and goalposts are set in stone as a marker for this on which I far it hard to see how these can be guaranteed to be met. There is far too much confidence placed by some in what is, in climate terms, a short term trend that is presented far too conclusively as a cut and dried permanent state of affairs. And moreover the causes behind it, which suggest it as interminable, are even more dubious IMO

No one is doubting that recent years have shown a drought of colder and snowier spells, but my beef is that current and future expectations are being way overcooked and judgement clouded as a result.

I would again suggest that cyclical factors are being downplayed at the expense of the obsession with human influences. And those who subscribe to the human factor are allowing it to cloud judgement and make premature predictions about something that is not anything like as clear cut as they make out.

Edited February 3, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Methuselah]

Thats because London has become much warmer compared to many years ago , sometimes in the summer London can create its own Storms!. But this does not indicate that the global is warming up , just again local warming

I do remember a cracking London-grown storm; it was sometime in the mid to late sixties...But does that prove that AGW is a myth, any more than does Australia's recent record-breaking heat prove AGW to be a fact?

But its less about what has happened, its more about the assumption being made that it will continue ad infinitum.

Who's assumption is that?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Neil

I think that AGW is hot air and the 'science' is wrong. However, GW is true BUT my contention is that it is Solar and Lunar driven and we have peaked and are on our way down. Don't confuse them both, the world does warm and cool...that is a given.

BFTP

This is in effect exactly what I believe too and am trying to illustrate in a different way here

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Who's assumption is that?

Pete is you read my post, it should be clear - that AGW proponents suggest that the recent warming (cycle!) will continue unchecked. Global warming itself, is a cycle of warmer and cooler periods and has very different repercussions for the longer term, nay even the present, which is where I would start from. Lets not put the cart before the horse.

[Stratos Ferric]

It only needs a small rise in temperature and that could move the average position of the Polar front northwards by maybe 200 miles. That will make the difference of reducing the average no of days when synoptics over the UK are likely to give snowfall. Add this up over several decades and you see a change of climate. That is what is happening in the UK and other areas of the world.

Some people don't seem to understand that you can have a short term downturn on a data series whilst the longer term trend is still upward. The fact that this winter is colder than the last 10 years is insignificant. If the last ten years had been colder than the previous ten then maybe that would be worth taking notice of, but it has been exactly the opposite. We are in fact warming at a rate that is unprecidentedly rapid in modern times, at a rate that IS significant (several times over).

What we don't know for certain is what comes next. Professor Hubert Lamb showed the ocean currents of the world have several steady states and when 'forced' they tend to flip from one steady state to another. This will fundamentally affect the local climates involved, even making some of them paradoxically colder. We could end up with a climate much colder than we have now in the UK. The forcing involved can be volcanic, solar or from astronomical sources, but the flip is indiscriminate of the source. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is introducing a further source of forcing. How do we know how much extra forcing would be required to produce the next flip? Would it nor be prudent to try to reduce that forcing so as not to induce changes that could be potentially catastrophic for humans?

Excellent points all. There will always be fluctuation about the mean, and statistically, the longer the period you're willing to wait, the larger that fluctuation will be. One thing that will not change, however, is the frrezing point of water at standard pressure. With a rising mean the circumstances for snowfall will, on average, become less and less frequent. The "problem" with winters like this one is that they offer delusion to the ill-informed that there is nothing wrong, just as drinking off a hangover persuades a drunk that he doesn't have a problem after all.

I really don't understand why there's any debate on this thread, unless you're a reader holding out that either the climate will not continue to warm, or you're in that group who desperately cannot conceive of a UK without snow and therefore stubbornly refuses to accept the possibility.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

If the overall trend at the moment is warming (which it is), whether anthropological or not, why do you think it a good idea to add to it? If your house was on fire, would you add water or petrol?

Firstly I would suggest that the overall trend is not warming and has not been for the greater part of the last decade. And secondly I am not sure that I have suggested adding polutants to the atmosphere and being casual about emissions etc is a good thing, or have I? Being environmentally friendly should happen despite GW not simply because of it.

Just because I am very sceptical about man made effects on climate doesn't mean in any way I support waste and pollution.

[WhiteFox]

If the overall trend at the moment is warming (which it is), whether anthropological or not, why do you think it a good idea to add to it? If your house was on fire, would you add water or petrol?

Exactly. Whether you believe in AGW or not, and I'm quite ambivalent as it happens, reducing pollution is a good thing regardless.

in that group who desperately cannot conceive of a UK without snow and therefore stubbornly refuses to accept the possibility.

I would count myself as part of that group purely for the fact that I cannot see how it would be impossible for there to be snow in the UK however remote the actual probability. If it required a direct Northerly for five days in early January, the probability will always exist so long as the pole freezes during winter which I'm sure it will do, certainly during my lifetime...

[Methuselah]

AGW proponents suggest that the recent warming (cycle!) will continue unchecked. Global warming itself, is a cycle of warmer and cooler periods...

No they don't. They suggest that our adding more and more pollutants into the atmosphere unchecked will force whatever the part of present warming is anthropogenic to continue...

And as for 'GW itself' being a cycle - that is as assumptive as is any claim made by rampant warmists? :huh:

Just because I am very sceptical about man made effects on climate doesn't mean in any way I support waste and pollution.

But if man made pollution has no detrimental effect, why bother to curtail it?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I don't think they do. AGW proponents suggest that recent warming may continue up to a point, but may result in unknown changes where nature tries to compensate for the extra forcing. That may result in climate flips, where a new steady state of climates is reached, but during the changeover wild swings in the weather experienced on earth could result. This may last a couple of hundred years as climates stabilise again. In short, we don't know what will happen, but most AGWP are realistic enough to warn that "something's got to give" if the warming goes on and we don't know what it is. We don't know how far the present system can be pushed before nature takes it's own course, like it has in the past. Why accelerate things by adding to the forcing?

But the something 'has got to give' bit is making the assumption that the warming effects are largely if not entirely man made and dismisses the effects of natural factors. It also makes quick assumptions that positive feedbacks that enhance warming exist as a stand alone (if they do exist to the same degree as stated in the first places which is also still questionable) and doesn't make a rigourous costing of negative feedbacks,.The effects of clouds and the existence of negative feedbacks wrt Co2 rather than soley the positive one's which AGW'ers only focus on is a very good example.

Are any of these AGW assumptions being realistic, or are they selective instead and part of not doing a full 'costing'?

Anyway - all of this is debated constantly in the climate threads and so is being duplicated here. As part of a circular debate that isn't going make 'converts' from one 'side' of it to the other.

[LadyPakal]

(it is after all the reason why the Earth's atmosphere is as warm as it is to start with) will actually do just that?

One of the reasons. CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas you know. Water has a far bigger effect.

[nej1965]

Wasn't Michael Fish the one who said there wasn't going to be a hurricane in 1987 ?????!!!

:huh:

[Timmytour]

But if man made pollution has no detrimental effect, why bother to curtail it?

The 124th Law of Common Sense....

Has no detrimental effect on GW <> Has no detrimental effect whatsoever

Was it right to do something about the old Smog that used to sit over London....

The rate of Global Warming seems to have intensified rather than decreased since it was done.... but it was still a good thing to do. Like getting rid of lead out of petrol....the benefits can be ones of health without consideration of the effect on the climate.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

No they don't. They suggest that our adding more and more pollutants into the atmosphere unchecked will force whatever the part of present warming is anthropogenic to continue...

And as for 'GW itself' being a cycle - that is as assumptive as is any claim made by rampant warmists? :huh:

But if man made pollution has no detrimental effect, why bother to curtail it?

Man made pollution has much more credible and immediate effects on the environment directly than is alleged on our climate IMO. I am far more concerned for eg, in wildlife conservation in terms of what we dump in our countryside, rivers and seas. Far more interested in not dumping pollutants on land that are a hazard to crops, animals and ourselves in terms of health etc. Also the obvious economies of recyling waste etc etc etc

The list is endless, not exhaustive, but far more apparent and convincing than any overwhelming effect on climate.In my own opinion.

[Timmytour]

Wasn't Michael Fish the one who said there wasn't going to be a hurricane in 1987 ?????!!!

:huh:

Yes but he was referring to a specific hurricane and he was right...that one didn't hit us. Anyway...it was all that nasty Bill Giles' fault!

:lol:

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

It is well known that there are more positive feedbacks than negative ones. Clouds are a positive feedback as increased cloudiness increases minima, resulting in higher means. A hug positive feedback is a decrease in albedo due to less snow cover. What negative feedbacks can you actually give us?

I'll ask again, if your house is on fire would you add water or oil?

Is it? I thought AGW was theory. Another example of trying to present something as fact.

Regarding the clouds issue, I would suggest looking at the climate threads regarding negative feedbacks. I don't have the time, nor the inclination to spend hours on here repeating and posting what has been said on there. Suffice to say the positive feedbacks that the IPCC assume in terms of the warming effects on C02 ride on the positive feedback effects and lack of negative one's. And they account for 75% of their total warming predcitions. There is very good argument regarding cirrus clouds and their negative feedbacks which wipe out the assumed positive effects and allow Co2 to radiate outwards and disperse.

[Timmytour]

Volcanoes

Erupting volcano rains white ash on parts of Tokyo

Alaska’s Mount Redoubt also threatens to blow – US air force takes precautionary measures

Published: 03/02/2009

A VOLCANO erupted near Tokyo yesterday, spewing a plume of smoke over a mile high and raining ash on to parts of the Japanese capital.

Mount Asama erupted at 1.50am local time. Chunks of rock from the explosion were found 3,300ft away from it.

Volcanic ash fell on nearby areas as well as parts of Tokyo, which is 90 miles away. TV reports showed districts sprinkled with white flakes.

An alert level of three, which urges residents to take caution, was kept in place for a 2.5-mile radius. Alert level four advises residents to prepare for evacuation, while level five orders evacuation.

Asama’s last major eruption took place in 2004. With 108 active volcanos, Japan is among the most seismically busy countries in the world. It lies in the Ring of Fire – a series of volcanoes and fault lines ringing the Pacific.

In the US, meanwhile, Alaskan volcano Mount Redoubt produced groaning sounds and steam for yet another day – but showed no dramatic burst of energy.

“It looks like a volcano that wants to erupt, and our general impression is that it’s more likely to erupt than not,” said Tina Neal of the Alaska Volcano Observatory.

Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, about 100 miles north-east of Redoubt, was moving five C-17 cargo planes to the McChord Air Force Base in Washington. “We’re just trying to be proactive and protect our assets,” said First Lieutenant Erin Slaughter.

On Saturday, geologists observed a quickly growing area of steaming at the 7,100ft level of the mountain. A hole in a volcano glacier has doubled in size since Friday, spanning the length of two football fields.

The area is just below a dome that formed the last time Redoubt blew in 1990.

With a few more babies like these going off, global warming will be the last thing that anyone worries about!!

Edited February 3, 2009 by Timmytour

[Nick B]

I don't think they do. AGW proponents suggest that recent warming may continue up to a point, but may result in unknown changes where nature tries to compensate for the extra forcing. That may result in climate flips, where a new steady state of climates is reached, but during the changeover wild swings in the weather experienced on earth could result. This may last a couple of hundred years as climates stabilise again. In short, we don't know what will happen, but most AGWP are realistic enough to warn that "something's got to give" if the warming goes on and we don't know what it is. We don't know how far the present system can be pushed before nature takes it's own course, like it has in the past. Why accelerate things by adding to the forcing?

Governments in the Western world are driven by economics, led by massive corporations in particular. Economies are driven by (over-) consumption and this necessarily includes the use of resources, particularly including fuel.

Poorer economies have generally only just begun to tap into their available resources and there is precious little sign of any slowing, barring recessions etc. in particular, there are many countries continuing to de-forest huge areas, which will of course affect the overall carbon sink (if you see CO2 as being a big driver) as well as local climates in terms of annual precipitation. Maybe this is a generalization but it seems their consumption will rise at an ever faster rate as the developed world's cheaper resources begin to decline.

If this is affecting global climate, other than asking why accelerate it, what can be done? As long as competitive economic behaviour between nations exists, I am concerned that one individual questioning what can be done about the root cause you suggest, which when it boils down to it is plain human greed, is like a fly buzzing in the path of an oncoming windscreen asking what can be done to change the path of the car.

It may or may not have a huge impact on the climate with flips etc. - we can't tell clearly because I don't see there being enough clear objective data - but it surely will have a negative impact on the world and subsequently quality of human and other life forms.

So, what do you suggest?!

[dapick2002]

so who caused global warming last time the planet went hot...apes driving their cars???....and who caused the last ice age??? its just another one of earths changes and like it or not... all we can do is slow the process down but its going to happen one way or the other. its natures way...and lets face it, nobody knows what she has planned next!

Edited February 3, 2009 by dapick2002