Fifteen years ago, British climate experts said “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past – Environment – The Independent
The IPCC predicted less snow and cold.
Eurasian autumn snow cover has increased 50% since 1979, the exact opposite of what the experts predicted.
Autumn snow extent for the entire Northern Hemisphere has also been increasing, and set an all-time record last year.
As always, the experts are clueless hacks, and have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
Steven snowfall does not disprove global warming: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-record-snowfall-disprove-global-warming.html
And you have again misquoted someone, David Viner in this case, to support your false claims. If you would include everything Viner said, you would see that you have misquoted him, but I doubt you even read the interview your cherry-picked quote comes from. In any case, the link above explains why your implied claim is false, and it contains links to the scientific papers it refers to.
[SG : The quote from Viner is an exact quote. Stop lying Martin]
You are correct, no one season proves or disproves global warming. But when you see such a clear trend of increasing autumn snowfall over nearly 50 years, it does create a reasonable doubt concerning alarmist’s claims of dangerous, catastrophic warming, when the trend for more snow outside of winter clearly shows just the opposite.
You had better believe that if the trend was opposite, the alarmists would be shouting it from the rooftops, about the need for immediate, radical action to fight global warming.
The trend is the opposite, for the northern hemisphere, and yes, we are shouting it from the rooftops.
[SG : There is almost no snow in the southern hemisphere. What on earth are you talking about?]
The northern hemisphere, Steven, I am talking about the northern hemisphere.
[SG : The second graph is clearly labeled as being the Northern Hemisphere. Are you daft?]
Martin the Gore bot is making a total embarrassment of himself.
Can’t read a simple graph
Can’t back up any one of his childish comments
Refuses to accept REAL DATA when its right in front of him.
He’s probably the dumbest most ignorant troll we have ever seen..
…. and that’s saying something.
Actually RAH, I think Martin the Troll comes in second place. Hope for Brains still hold first.
Martin says: “snowfall does not disprove global warming”.
So here’s a question: Is there ANYTHING that would disprove ‘global warming’? After all:
More rain = ‘global warming’
Less rain = ‘global warming’
Heat waves = ‘global warming’
Record cold = ‘global warming’
No snow = ‘global warming’
Record snow = ‘global warming’
Receding ice (Arctic) = ‘global warming’
Record ice extent (Antarctic) = ‘global warming’
Is there nothing it can’t do?
I have answered your question elsewhere in this discussion. More than once. The short answer is yes, but given what you wrote, the nature of the task is clearly beyond your understanding.
You mean beyond your capability to explain it rationally!
They sure had the hose on maximum when they brain-washed you.
Took all the grey matter with it. Left behind a fetid oozing mush.
You are the stupidest, most ignorant troll that has ever graced these hallowed walls of reality.
Perhaps Martin can find that one illusive paper that actually proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.
AGW is a hypothesis.. Martin need to find proof of that hypothesis.
“snowfall does not disprove global warming: ” – MS
Lack of snow wouldn’t prove global warming either, but you should take that up with David :the loser” Viner.
“snowfall does not disprove global warming:”
Where does SG say that it does.
Man you are paranoid !!!
We all know that there is NOTHING that can disprove an unproven hypothesis that morphs to cover everything that can happen….
…. even if nothing is happening.
Nothing untoward or unprecedented has happened to the climate over the last 10,000 or years. The natural ups and down continue. We are in fact, only just a small bump above the coldest period in those last 10,000 years.
The next climate disruption will be at the end of the current interglacial… hopefully still a fair time away.
But we know you will NEVER let facts get in the way of another meaningless empty rant, will you little Gore bot.
Let’s repeat that because Martin is so hard of comprehension;”
“According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.”
And again the reliance on the cartoonist site.. so funny.
Martin, we already KNOW you are ignorant, no need to keep rubbing it in. !
You have misquoted David Viner.
[SG : It is an exact quote. Do you have trouble clicking links?]
Then what is the correct quote? Maybe we’ll never know, since the site has been scrubbed lol. Oh the embarrassment.
Here’s the money quote from the original article in the Independent.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Here is a link to a pdf of the original article kept by Anthony Watts since The Independent has now scrubbed the article from their website: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-the-independent.pdf
Now what were you saying Martin?
A bit off topic but an interesting find though difficult to read..
“You have misquoted David Viner.”
No, he has done nothing of the sort.
Why do you keep lying, is it pathological?
Have you considered seeking psychiatric help – urgently?
You really ought to.
And lets also repeat the words from IPCC working group II
“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms”
Now look at the REAL DATA, Martin. something you seem to have a really big issue with.
And that statement is correct. Heavy winter snowstorms will decrease.
Martin Smith says “…Heavy winter snowstorms will decrease.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RIGHTTttttt that is certainly why Italy broke the 24 consecutive hour total accumulation World Snowfall Record not once but TWICE last winter and the Greek islands in the Mediterranean got buried under 6½ ft (2 m) of snow.
Martin has certainly not been paying attention. Viners comment was in 2000. Just looking at the last five years since the start of Solar cycle 24.
2010
Gail, here is the explanation you appear to not understand: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-record-snowfall-disprove-global-warming.html
Martin WHY would I believe a site by a CARTOONIST who calls us DENIERS and tries to show we are crazy?
I refuse to visit his site (and up his traffic) especially after they “investigated me” and showed they were completely inept in logic. (That post at SS has since been removed after I highlighted it and showed how scientifically inept they were.)
Great post Gail! I’ve learnt so much from your posts and especially your links to articles, papers and web pages. Thanks and do continue doing what you do.
Here’s some more of that “decrease” Martin was talking about.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/storm-abigail/
From the comic book page Martin linked to:
“Snowstorms can occur if temperatures are in the range of -10°C to 0°C. Global warming decreases the likeliness of snowstorm conditions in warmer, southern regions. However, in northern, colder regions, temperatures are often too cold for very heavy snow so warming can bring more favourable snowstorm conditions (Kunkel 2008). This is borne out in observations. Over the last century, there has been a downward trend in snowstorms across the lower Midwest, South and West Coast. Conversely, there’s been an increase in snowstorms in the upper Midwest East, and Northeast with the overall national trend also upwards (Changnon 2006).”
That’s an entire paragraph, uncut. If you believe that’s cherry picking, your complaint is with the cartoonist who wrote it, not me.
The subject is plainly the VOLUME of snowfall. Tony’s comments are about the EXTENT of snowfall. Greater extent means greater area near or below freezing. Your own source plainly states that snowfall extent should DECREASE, not increase.
“And that statement is correct. Heavy winter snowstorms will decrease.”
But they haven’t.
IPCC were wrong.. as they nearly always are
END OF STORY.
More utter bollocks.
Why do you insist on making a total fool of yourself?
The really odd thing is that he thinks he is proving things by linking to SkS.
Its some dumb and juvenile and anti-science that I can’t believe Martin actually functions as an adult.
So far he has yet to make a coherent case for ANYTHING he has said.
For someone who claims to be a “technical writer”, you have the comprehension skills of a 2 year old.
No worries though as he will have plenty of time each winter to brush up on his skills when he is snowed in.
You just can’t make people see what they refuse to see nor understand what they refuse to understand with words and graphs, and data alone. If he’s lucky, one day perhaps Martin will have an epiphany and look back and be amazed and embarrassed by how blinded he was.
Winter snow, be it from heavy storms and/or flurries, has all has increased in Eurasia Martin and that is counter to what the IPCC predicted. And according to most of the weather models, Western Europe and the British Isles are in for a very big winter. And British Children, even those in the lowlands and coastal areas in the south, already know what snow is because they’ve seen it first hand.
No, rah, it isn’t counter to what the IPCC predicted. I have provided the explanation: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-record-snowfall-disprove-global-warming.html
Is there ANYTHING you people claim will disprove global-warming/Anthropological Climate Change? I’ve about come to the conclusion that if glaciers were creeping down the great lakes or Niagra Falls were frozen for 10 months out of a year you people would still be saying it was caused by or does not disprove “global warming”.
And no, your explanation does not address the FACT presented by Steve concerning the IPCC claim about heavy snow which has been proven false.
rah, Steven is quoting from the 3rd IPCC report, which was released in 2001. We are now on the fifth IPCC report, which says this about heavy precipitation events:
11.3.2.5.2 Heavy precipitation events
For the 21st century, the AR4 and the SREX concluded that heavy precipitation
events were likely to increase in many areas of the globe
(IPCC, 2007). Since AR4, a larger number of additional studies have
been published using global and regional climate models (Fowler et al.,
2007; Gutowski et al., 2007; Sun et al., 2007; Im et al., 2008; O’Gorman
and Schneider, 2009; Xu et al., 2009; Hanel and Buishand, 2011; Heinrich
and Gobiet, 2011; Meehl et al., 2012b). For the near term, CMIP5
global projections (Figure 11.17c) confirm a clear tendency for increases
in heavy precipitation events in the global mean, but there are significant
variations across regions (Sillmann et al., 2013). Past observations
have also shown that interannual and decadal variability in mean
and heavy precipitation are large, and are in addition strongly affected
by internal variability (e.g., El Niño), volcanic forcing and anthropogenic
aerosol loads (see Section 2.3.1). In general models have difficulties
in representing these variations, particularly in the tropics (see Section
9.5.4.2). Thus the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events
will likely increase over many land areas in the near term, but this trend
will not be apparent in all regions, because of natural variability and
possible influences of anthropogenic aerosols.
Simulations with regional climate models demonstrate that the
response in terms of heavy precipitation events to anthropogenic climate
change may become evident in some but not all regions in the
near term. For instance, ENSEMBLES projections for Europe (see Figure
11.18e–h) confirm the previous IPCC results that changes in mean
precipitation as well as heavy precipitation events are characterized
by a pronounced north–south gradient in the extratropics, especially
in the winter season, with precipitation increases in the higher latitudes
and decreases in the subtropics. Although this pattern starts to
emerge in the near term, the projected changes are statistically significant
only in a fraction of the domain. The results are affected by both
changes in water vapour content as induced by large-scale warming
and large-scale circulation changes. Figure 11.18e–h also shows that
mid- and high-latitude projections for changes in DJF extremes and
means are qualitatively similar in the near term, at least for the event
size considered.
Previous work reviewed in AR4 has established that extreme
precipitation events may increase substantially stronger than mean
precipitation amounts. More specifically, extreme events may increase
with the atmospheric water vapour content, that is, up to the rate
of the Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) relationship (e.g., Allen and Ingram,
2002). More recent work suggests that increases beyond this threshold
may occur for short-term events associated with thunderstorms (Lenderink
and Van Meijgaard, 2008; Lenderink and Meijgaard, 2010) and
tropical convection (O’Gorman, 2012). A number of studies showed
strong dependencies on location and season, but confirm the existence
of significant deviations from the CC scaling (e.g., Lenderink et
al., 2011; Mishra et al., 2012; Berg et al., 2013). Studies with cloud-resolving
models generally support the existence of temperature-precipitation
relations that are close to or above (up to about twice) the CC
relation (Muller et al., 2011; Singleton and Toumi, 2012).
And it says this about snow cover in the cryosphere:
11.3.4.2 Snow Cover
Decreases of snow cover extent (SCE, defined over ice-free land areas)
are strongly connected to a shortening of seasonal snow cover duration
(Brown and Mote, 2009) and are related to both precipitation and
temperature changes (see Section 12.4.6.2). This has implications for
snow on sea ice where loss of sea ice area in autumn delays snowfall
accumulation, with CMIP5 multi-model mean values of snow depth in
April north of 70°N reduced from about 28 cm to roughly 18 cm for
the 2031–2050 period compared to the 1981–2000 average (Hezel et
al., 2012). The snow accumulation season by mid-century in one model
is projected to begin later in autumn, with the melt season initiated
earlier in the spring (Lawrence and Slater, 2010). As discussed in greater
detail in Section 12.4.6.2, projected increases in snowfall across
much of the northern high latitudes act to increase snow amounts,
but warming reduces the fraction of precipitation that falls as snow.
In addition, the reduction of Arctic sea ice also provides an increased
moisture source for snowfall (Liu et al., 2012). Whether the average
SCE decreases or increases by mid-century depends on the balance
between these competing factors. The dividing line where models transition
from simulating increasing or decreasing maximum snow water
equivalent roughly coincides with the –20°C isotherm in the mid-20th
century November to March mean surface air temperature (Raisanen,
2008). The projected change of SCE over some regions is inconsistent
with that of extreme snowfall, a major contributor to SCE. For instance,
SCE is projected to decrease over northern China by the mid-21st
century (Shi et al., 2011), while the extreme snowfall events over the
region are projected to increase (Sun et al., 2010).
Time series of projected changes in relative SCE (for NH ice-free land
areas) are shown in Figure 12.32. Multi-model averages from the
CMIP5 archive (Brutel-Vuilmet et al., 2013) show percentage decreases
of NH SCE ± 1 standard deviation for the 2016–2035 time period
for a March to April average using a 15% extent threshold for the four
RCP scenarios as follows: RCP2.6: –5.2% ± 1.9% (21 models); RCP4.5:
–5.3% ± 1.5% (24 models); RCP6.0: –4.5% ± 1.2% (16 models);
RCP8.5: –6.0% ± 2.0% (24 models).
And it says a lot more than that, rah, and it is the latest state of climate science precipitation events and snow cover. But you don’t know that because you are defending Steven’s use of the third IPCC report which has now been obsoleted twice, by IPCC 4, and now by IPCC 5. Use the latest version, please: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
Answer the friggen question Martin. I’ll repeat it:
Is there ANYTHING you people claim will disprove global-warming/Anthropological Climate Change? I’ve about come to the conclusion that if glaciers were creeping down the great lakes or Niagra Falls were frozen for 10 months out of a year you people would still be saying it was caused by or does not disprove “global warming”.
Yes, rah. Of course. Publish a paper showing a natural cause or a set of natural causes that explain all the data as well as AGW.
I assumed your question wasn’t serious, rah, because the way to disprove science is with science, so the way to disprove AGW should be obvious to all of you. Apparently it isn’t.
Now that I think more about this, of course you guys don’t know how to disprove AGW. That is why you are still trying to prove that data adjustments are incorrect by showing pairs of graphs that show data have been adjusted.
Rah, in their own words: the reason they started calling their issue “climate change” is because they one day ‘realized’ that a supposed increase in “freakish” weather, TO INCLUDE abnormally cold weather, is caused by the assumed Global Warming.
So you don’t have to wonder. They’ve already effectively admitted to the position that you’re wondering about (where you say “I’ve about come to the conclusion”).
That’s the intellectual level that Martin Smith is operating at. He and his ilk have already concluded that the climate you describe, if it happened, would INDEED be caused by global warming!
Here’s how bad it is in their brain right now: they are already committed to the position that they’ll still believe the globe is warming, even if we get to the point that every station in the GHCN has to have its trend “adjusted” by 5°C in order to “show” any warming!
For a picture of how bad that is, consider this: if the mean temperature of Western Europe dropped by 5.5°C, that is 9.9°F. That could correspond to a decrease in the mean winter temperature, for that region, of more than 20°F. We could have icebergs off the coast of Miami Beach if that happened! And we’d be having multiple, huge snowstorms across central Florida every winter, with massive snowdrifts. Our climate would be similar to Buffalo’s today, with “Gulf effect” snow dumping across the western half of the peninsula when a major cold front came through.
This is what the Martin Smiths have ALREADY IMPLIED would be caused by global warming, if it happened. They committed to this farcical concept the day that they decided the problem was any kind of “climate change”.
BTW, as I write this, the sun has just risen about 20 minutes ago and we’re having a morning low of 58°F outside my house, at latitude 28°N. Take note, Martin Smith, that is an ACTUAL measured temperature (= datum!), not something that the National Weather Service produces for their schoolmarms in the White House!
Richard, this is how you disprove AGW: Publish a paper showing a natural cause or a set of natural causes that explain all the data as well as AGW.
Thank you for making it abundantly clear there are absolutely no specific indications which your aware of that will disprove the hypothesis of AGW/climate change. That’s all I needed to know. Papers upon papers before and after this AGW scam began have pointed to the fact that what had to be natural forcings which caused climate changes in the past which far exceeding anything that has ever happened in our life times. And the fact that there is massive evidence that not a single thing that is happening in the climate today has not happened in the past before the industrial age. And that CO2 rise in the past has followed increased temperatures and not preceded them.
Global Sea Ice remains within 1 standard deviation of the satellite mean after having set multiple records. Antarctic sea ice remains above the satellite mean after having set multiple records. Arctic sea ice, growing at a record rate right now, is at about the same level it was in 2014 for this day and well above the 2011,12,and 12 levels for this day and is about 1 standard deviation below the satellite era mean. All exactly counter to what the IPCC 5th report claimed with “high confidence” would happen, but you deny or at least fail to note that reality or the reality that over 95% of the climate models the IPCC has based it’s projections upon stink to high heaven.
rah, all of those papers you refer to about past climate changes being larger than the current warming are (a) about changes with known causes that are also known not to be causing the current warming, and (b) about changes that occurred over many thousands of years, even tens and hundreds of thousands of years, while the current AGW explained warming has occurred over 100+ years.
I answered your question, rah. This is how you disprove AGW: Publish a paper showing a natural cause or a set of natural causes that explain all the data as well as AGW. I should also have included that you can publish a paper that disproves the greenhouse theory, and there are other things you can disprove that would disprove AGW, but no one has done that yet. Some have tried claiming it is the sun; some have tried claiming it is cosmic rays; some have tried claiming it is natural cycles. None of these has stood the test of scrutiny.
No you did not answer the question and it clear for all to see that have better comprehension abilities than you, that is the case.
Martin says: “past climate changes being larger than the current warming are (a) about changes with known causes that are also known not to be causing the current warming”
That’s ridiculous. What “known causes” force climate models to run hot?
Maybe Kevin Kevin Trenberth can explain it (in a 10/12/2009 email):
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
That is false, Richard. The terms climate change and global warming both came into use long ago.
What I was suggesting was that the definition of “climate change” has shifted in how it is commonly used. You almost certainly know this to be true.
The definition has not shifted in how it is used. Or maybe I have misunderstood what you wrote. How has the use of climate change changed?
Sorry, I don’t have time to deal with your nonsense right now.
Sure the attempt has been made to change it. Where before the scam began “climate change” was used to describe changes resulting from natural causes, the alarmists adopted it to refer to changes they claim are caused by the activities of humans. They used to like to use the abbreviation AGW but refused to create the abbreviation ACC because they want lay people to believe that all changes in the climate are the result of human activity.
From the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php). or
https://web.archive.org/web/20140913102734/http://unfccc.int/files/documentation/text/html/list_search.php?what=keywords&val=&valan=a&anf=84&id=10
FYI, Britannica defines it as follows:
Climate change,
Grinnell Glacier: changes in Grinnell Glacier, 1918-2006 [Credit: 1938-T.J. Hileman/Glacier National Park Archives, 1981 – Carl Key/USGS, 1998 – Dan Fagre/USGS, 2006 – Karen Holzer/USGS]periodic modification of Earth’s climate brought about as a result of changes in the atmosphere as well as interactions between the atmosphere and various other geologic, chemical, biological, and geographic factors within the Earth system.
Which conflicts with the IPCC “definition”. Terminology is important to Science. The IPCC goal of changing the “Climate Change” definition is to obfuscate. When I hear our fearless leader say something like “we must stop climate change!”, I know he’s either an idiot or a liar.
Rah, of course they refuse to understand. They also have made so many claimed thing caused by global warming, now climate change, trolls like Marty can write anything.
Do not know if you have seen a listing done by Dr. John Brignell at Number Watch, but it is classic.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Total (dead and alive) 883 Last updated 05/03/12
Footnote (September 2015) Why the list stopped growing.
The time it takes to process a new entry increases approximately with the square of the list length, after checking for duplications, spoofs etc. Starting it was based on the naïve assumption that the rate of appearances would decline as opposing evidence accumulated, but the reverse happened. That’s the difference between science and religion. It was taking over my life, which I did not want to end as a garbage collector. There have since been hundreds more claims of an increasingly ludicrous nature.
Steven, BTW, you are referring to the IPCC third assessment report, which is way out of date. We are currently using the IPCC fifth assessment, which can be found here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
When quoting from the IPCC, please use the most recent version.
[SG : The most telling evidence of their fraud is how they change their “settled science” every three or four years.]
Thanks again, Steven, for another chance to correct some errors. Can’t wait to see what your big story is about. The zombies are already attacking. Later.
[SG : You are doing a great of showing how dimwitted climate alarmists are]
“The zombies are already attacking.”
Stop punching yourself. !!
Those zombies are all in your mind , Martin.. put there by Al gore and SkS
The one with 95% probability and broader climate sensibility You know.
So the IPCC 100 year predictions are out of date in 15 years? Thanks for clearing that up.
If IPCC report #3 is garbage and should be disregarded why should anyone have faith in their more recent garbage? When it doesn’t pan out you’ll be calling for us to disregard it several years from now.
I am confused, Martin. More snow means global warming? You might think it all makes sense but people laugh out loud when I bring it up.
Martin Smith says: “Yes, rah. Of course. Publish a paper showing a natural cause or a set of natural causes that explain all the data as well as AGW”
That has been done and more than once. What happens? The attack dogs are set loose on the scientist.
**************************************************
The Climate Inquisition in action!
**************************************************
Take for example Murry Salby:
So what happened? Acadamia had a trial in absentia and fired Salby stranding him in Europe!
Story HERE
And before that there was Dr. Z Jaworowski. He completely shot down the FRAUD about CO2 being very low for millions of years and showed the ice cores as now analyzed gave erroneously low values. Again he too was fired and had funding refused.
Stories HERE and HERE
The latest of course was Willie Soon.
His newest paper published this spring in Nature Geoscience entitled ‘Dynamics of the intertropical convergence zone over the western Pacific during the Little Ice Age ’ indicates that both the East Asia Summer Monsoon and the Northern Australia Summer Monsoon retreated synchronously during the recent cold Little Ice Age in response to external forcings such as solar irradiance variation and possibly large volcanic eruptions.
Notice the mention of a model. Well just two months earlier Willie Soon and other co-authors were working on just such a model. That model is HERE: Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model and it got published in the January 2015, issue of Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It is déjà vu. Bush and Kyoto** all over again. We can’t have the Chinese seeing evidence that CAGW is a crock of Feces now can we? So we go after Soon’s reputation hoping the Chinese will discount his work and those two damming papers along with others. (Model plus empirical evidence dealing with critical Chinese rainfall.)
And to add insult to injury in June 2015 Soon published another paper!!! Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century
This man was down right DANGEROUS TO THE CAUSE and at a critical time. With the critical Paris Confab in view he had to be discredited. So for this work and other as a part of TEAMS, Willie Soon was attacked. Of course Soon was already a major target because of the 2003 Soon and Balunias paper that disagreed with the Mann, Bradley and Hughes Hokey Stick. **The paper came to the notice of President Bush and Kyoto was not signed by Bush.
The New York TImes, infamous for covering up Stalin’s murder of millions, lead the attack. Story HERE
These are just three of the scientists that have been attacked by the media or had their funding cut off or have been fired. There have been many many more. That is why this is ALL ABOUT POLITICS and not science.
(Dang, messed up the blockquotes. However I do not claim to be a technical writer and software type like the guy who didn’t bother to get rid of the line end markers above making the post unreadable.)
From the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
CLASSIC PROGRESSIVE manipulation of changing the meaning of a word. So people have been hoodwinked thoroughly. Of course that’s the idea. They can make all sorts of horrendous claims about “climate change” (assuming their definition), which people will assume to apply to, not “climate change”, but to a change of climate (meaning any change, whatever the cause or mechanism). So if they say, “climate change” is 1000 times more than it was 100 years ago, that may be true, but it might still be that the change of climate is negligible.
Do you see now how the hoax is perpetrated?
The IPCC mandate is similar:
So it never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ and this is the change wanted by the Globalists like the UN, the World Bank, and the WTO.
The IPCC’s ROLE
So there it is again. ONLY “human-induced climate change” is of interest and that is why you see very little work done on natural climate change.
<b.Worse it is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with the political summaries. The facts are as follows.
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,
“We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”
This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.
**********************************************************
AND HIDDEN AWAY SO NO ONE SEES THEY TELL THE TRUTH
They have no friggin idea of what the climate is going to do.
**********************************************************
The IPCC itself, has seen the light ,thrown up its hands, and given up on calculating a meaningful climate sensitivity – the AR5 SPM says ( hidden away in a footnote)
But paradoxically they still claim that we can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels. This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be crazy…. OR POLITICS!
BTW MS is a godsend to the skeptic case. Please allow him to keep posting LOL
You are correct Eliza, except for trying to use the cartoonist site — SS (given Cook’s Nazi uniform we should no longer use SkS) and a bit of the highly political IPCC reports, he is incapable of posting anything to do with climate much less science.
I really don’t think he has EVER read a scientific paper from start to finish. That makes him the Duck in a shooting gallery.
Martin-
From IPCC5, AS QUOTED BY YOU:
“Time series of projected changes in relative SCE (for NH ice-free land
areas) are shown in Figure 12.32. Multi-model averages from the
CMIP5 archive (Brutel-Vuilmet et al., 2013) show percentage decreases
of NH SCE ± 1 standard deviation for the 2016–2035 time period
for a March to April average using a 15% extent threshold for the four
RCP scenarios as follows: RCP2.6: –5.2% ± 1.9% (21 models); RCP4.5:
–5.3% ± 1.5% (24 models); RCP6.0: –4.5% ± 1.2% (16 models);
RCP8.5: –6.0% ± 2.0% (24 models). ”
IT PLAINLY PROJECTS A DECREASE IN SNOW COVER EXTENT.
Tony is posting graphs showing increasing snow cover extent. Your own source says you’re wrong. More telling is that you quoted the specific sections proving you’re wrong, in an attempt to defend your stance. That proves you don’t understand the argument.
No one in this post has mentioned snowfall volume, except you. You’re arguing a point that’s not in contention, while supporting Tony’s thesis with your own cites. Do you know the difference between snowfall extent, and snowfall volume?
And the supposed software engineer/technical writer can’t even post it in the correct readable form.
Thanks for actually going to the effort to read that mess.
(At least I acknowledge I am an arthritic Computer-challenged woman with poor eyesight.)
I’m just wondering if Martin read it. And if he did, did he understand it? I keep trying to find someone on his side who’s both willing to discuss the subject, and who can make an argument more substantive than appeal to authority. For 15 years now, I’ve been told the debate is over. Can someone at least point me toward some kind of record of that debate, whenever it was? I have an open mind. I want to read the actual evidence, not the political spin. And I’m willing to admit that the end is nigh, if that’s where the evidence leads. But I can’t have a meaningful discussion with someone who doesn’t understand his own arguments.
” The debate is over” is a shut-up. The IPCC was formed to find the evidence needed to convince people there was a problem so they would agree to hand over their wealth and their freedom. There never was a real debate because there never was a real problem and they KNEW IT.
That is why no matter how much evidence is thrown at CAGW it never goes away. It is a very useful political hobgoblin and not science.
SEE: http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9174
And read between the lines.
Ted: “I’m just wondering if Martin read it. And if he did, did he understand it?”
No and no. Of course not, he doesn’t need to do either.
Martin is not here to add to the debate, here is here to obfuscate and derail it by falsely countering any and every scientifically correct post.
Check out the work of Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’, Martin epitomises it perfectly.
Also. read this excellent piece concerning persistent trolls on Ozboy’s blog from the excellent MemoryVault:
http://libertygibbert.com/2010/08/09/dobson-dykes-and-diverse-disputes/
Once again a perfect description of Martin and his tactics.
OH, that was a wonderful read and an excellent analysis of Trollish behavior.
Trollsmith says:
Well, I don’t blame a warmunist troll for not liking it. They all hate the Viner reference. I mean, wait, what reference?
One of the longest running climate prediction blunders has disappeared from the Internet
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-longest-running-climate-prediction-blunders-has-disappeared-from-the-internet
https://coloradowellington.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/troll-shifty-and-speedy.jpg
AHHHhhh,
But we are now used to the shiftiness and rewriting of history so much critical history is screenshot and saved.
(That is one reason the Trolls hate Steven Goddard and history.)