UK Independent: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past- Oh wait that was 2000

[editec]

Who is Charles Onians and why should we care about an editorial he wrote ten years ago about snow in England?

I don't recall any person here quoting him in evidence of Global Warming, do you?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Who is Charles Onians and why should we care about an editorial he wrote ten years ago about snow in England?

I don't recall any person here quoting him in evidence of Global Warming, do you?

read the article might help



He quoted:

" 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". "

You have heard of Viner and the CRU- right?

 

[Old Rocks]

I have also heard of climatologists that have predicted that areas would have colder winters because of the shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns. Predicting the results of the warming for a given area is not only dicey, it is futile. Too many unknowns. And we have seen areas have a extremely warm winter one year, as other parts of the globe were colder, only to have a very cold winter the next year as other parts were warmer.

The most accurate prediction is " Global warming will result in wider and wilder swings in weather, with an overall warming trend." And that is exactly what we are seeing.

 

[Old Rocks]

In 2000 they were saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity would cause much less snow. In fact, they said snow would be rare, children wouldn't know what it is.

NOW they're saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity causes colder winters and MUCH MORE SNOW.

The first "Earth Day" was all about "global cooling" and the "new ice age." Now it's "global warming."


How many times does politically polluted conjectural "science" have to be wrong, before some healthy skepticism starts?

Did you just get caught telling a "lie"? Are you quoting the sentence where "could" was used and you changed it to "would"? Changing quotes into a lie is against the rules. Do I have to go back and read the entire article again?

OK, I went back and read it. You escaped telling an outright lie.

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".

In 2000 they were saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity would cause much less snow. In fact, they said snow would be rare, children wouldn't know what it is.

NOW they're saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity causes colder winters and MUCH MORE SNOW.

The first "Earth Day" was all about "global cooling" and the "new ice age." Now it's "global warming."


How many times does politically polluted conjectural "science" have to be wrong, before some healthy skepticism starts?

Hi Midnight. Still spreading the BS, I see.

No, it never was impending ice age. That was a media fabrication.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I'm guess a thread on "Global Climate Change" includes the "entire globe". But I could be wrong.

There's plenty of such threads. This isn't one of those. THIS thread is about the 2000 prediction that "snowfalls will be rare."

You won't address that at all, instead you merely try to deflect, reflexively defending your sad, failing religion.

We have had ten years of study since 2000. People understand things better all the time. Computers now have models that didn't exist 10 years ago.

Or as likely -- they CHANGE THEIR STORY all the time, especially when their predictions come to naught.

This is why Republicans don't do well with science. They don't study, they don't learn. For many of them, the only book they read was written by primitives living in the middle east thousands of years ago. Their God believed in slavery. These days, in this country, slavery is illegal. See how things have changed?

You do realize that the Republican party was founded because of and for the anti-slave movement. Right?

 

[editec]

Who is Charles Onians and why should we care about an editorial he wrote ten years ago about snow in England?

I don't recall any person here quoting him in evidence of Global Warming, do you?

read the article might help



He quoted:

" 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". "

You have heard of Viner and the CRU- right?

No, I haven't.

And my guess is neither had you.

 

[Oddball]

A vidio showing just a small cross section of all the things being blamed on gullible warming.

BAD BEER!?!?!???...Something must be done about this!!!

The Warm List | Global Warming Cause

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Did you just get caught telling a "lie"? Are you quoting the sentence where "could" was used and you changed it to "would"? Changing quotes into a lie is against the rules. Do I have to go back and read the entire article again?

OK, I went back and read it. You escaped telling an outright lie.

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".

In 2000 they were saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity would cause much less snow. In fact, they said snow would be rare, children wouldn't know what it is.

NOW they're saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity causes colder winters and MUCH MORE SNOW.

The first "Earth Day" was all about "global cooling" and the "new ice age." Now it's "global warming."


How many times does politically polluted conjectural "science" have to be wrong, before some healthy skepticism starts?

Hi Midnight. Still spreading the BS, I see.

No, it never was impending ice age. That was a media fabrication.

Some remedial reading for your stupid ass:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3112372-post59.html <--- From this very thread

Fire and Ice

The media wasn't "fabricating" they were REPORTING -- actually mindlessly regurgitating -- what the scientific community was spoonfeeding them. Much like it dies today.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Who is Charles Onians and why should we care about an editorial he wrote ten years ago about snow in England?

I don't recall any person here quoting him in evidence of Global Warming, do you?

read the article might help



He quoted:

" 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". "

You have heard of Viner and the CRU- right?

No, I haven't.

And my guess is neither had you.

Let me help you.

Anyone who is even slightly following the topic of anthropomorphic global warming knows this guy, since he was at the center of the "climategate" issue, had the infamous "hide the decline" formula he shared via email with his colleagues. Said he couldn't explain the cooling of the planet, so he used an algorithm to fudge the data to get the desired result. Turned out, it was actually a "al gore rhythm."

 

[Midnight Marauder]

 

[Oddball]

 

[rdean]

There's plenty of such threads. This isn't one of those. THIS thread is about the 2000 prediction that "snowfalls will be rare."

You won't address that at all, instead you merely try to deflect, reflexively defending your sad, failing religion.

We have had ten years of study since 2000. People understand things better all the time. Computers now have models that didn't exist 10 years ago.
This is why Republicans don't do well with science. They don't study, they don't learn. For many of them, the only book they read was written by primitives living in the middle east thousands of years ago. Their God believed in slavery. These days, in this country, slavery is illegal. See how things have changed?

Yes, the computer models now are no better than they were then. They still can't accurately tell you what has allready happened. This is a link to a peer reviewed study that shows just how bad the climate models are.

A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data - Hydrological Sciences Journal

Keith Briffa has publicly admitted he could not reproduce his own work. Do you have a clue just how bad that is for a scientist to admit that? About his own work?

So you are suggesting we should stop trying to learn? Like you?

 

[rdean]

Did you just get caught telling a "lie"? Are you quoting the sentence where "could" was used and you changed it to "would"? Changing quotes into a lie is against the rules. Do I have to go back and read the entire article again?

OK, I went back and read it. You escaped telling an outright lie.

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".

In 2000 they were saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity would cause much less snow. In fact, they said snow would be rare, children wouldn't know what it is.

NOW they're saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity causes colder winters and MUCH MORE SNOW.

The first "Earth Day" was all about "global cooling" and the "new ice age." Now it's "global warming."


How many times does politically polluted conjectural "science" have to be wrong, before some healthy skepticism starts?

Hi Midnight. Still spreading the BS, I see.

No, it never was impending ice age. That was a media fabrication.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

That means half of Republican scientists don't believe it.

 

[westwall]

I have also heard of climatologists that have predicted that areas would have colder winters because of the shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns. Predicting the results of the warming for a given area is not only dicey, it is futile. Too many unknowns. And we have seen areas have a extremely warm winter one year, as other parts of the globe were colder, only to have a very cold winter the next year as other parts were warmer.

The most accurate prediction is " Global warming will result in wider and wilder swings in weather, with an overall warming trend." And that is exactly what we are seeing.

It's pretty easy to be "accurate" when your prediction encompasses all possible behaviours now isn't it? I challenge you to do a review of weather "events" for any year you choose.
Show me one of those that doesn't conform to the alarmists "prediction". You clowns are a farce.

 

[westwall]

We have had ten years of study since 2000. People understand things better all the time. Computers now have models that didn't exist 10 years ago.
This is why Republicans don't do well with science. They don't study, they don't learn. For many of them, the only book they read was written by primitives living in the middle east thousands of years ago. Their God believed in slavery. These days, in this country, slavery is illegal. See how things have changed?

Yes, the computer models now are no better than they were then. They still can't accurately tell you what has allready happened. This is a link to a peer reviewed study that shows just how bad the climate models are.

A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data - Hydrological Sciences Journal

Keith Briffa has publicly admitted he could not reproduce his own work. Do you have a clue just how bad that is for a scientist to admit that? About his own work?

So you are suggesting we should stop trying to learn? Like you?

Wow, where do you come up with such silly notions? No, but don't you think it would be better to actually put the money where it will actually do some good? How many different environmental disasters could be cleaned up with the money that is squandered by these frauds? How much real research could be done to make EV's and other methods of clean power generation?

By your response you clearly don't understand the real meaning of what Briffa said. Let me lay it out for you. By admitting he can't repeat what he did, he has basically said that everything he has said is not true. That means that 20 years of "research" wasn't. He basically played with other peoples money and had a grand time and produced nothing. If he had been a financial institution he would have been indicted for fraud.

That is the reality of the GW science. It is based on fraud. There is no empirical data to support any of their contentions. Take the money away from them and give it to people who do some good with it.

 

[westwall]

In 2000 they were saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity would cause much less snow. In fact, they said snow would be rare, children wouldn't know what it is.

NOW they're saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity causes colder winters and MUCH MORE SNOW.

The first "Earth Day" was all about "global cooling" and the "new ice age." Now it's "global warming."


How many times does politically polluted conjectural "science" have to be wrong, before some healthy skepticism starts?

Hi Midnight. Still spreading the BS, I see.

No, it never was impending ice age. That was a media fabrication.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

That means half of Republican scientists don't believe it.

Instead of being a partisan hack try looking at the evidence presented to you. The New York Times articles are a wonderful example of the short attention span of humans in general and AGW alarmists in particular. Please note the periodicity in the headlines. Please look for yourself and tell the class what the periodicity of the warming/colling trends were (and more importantly are) and how that equates to the current situation we find ourselves in as yet another coolng trend occurs....right on time.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Actually, the farmer's almanac has been far more accurate and for way much more time, than any computer models could ever hope to be. This is documented fact, wonder what explains it?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I know you guys call me names, but I love you. Seriously. You're so predictable and unimaginative.

Imagine this, the sun heats the ocean, the water turns to "water vapor". The vapor "floats" over land. Being winter, the land is "cool". The upper atmosphere is "very cold". So the "water" that evaporated from the "ocean" falls to the ground as "snow".

The reason there is so much "more" snow, is because the heat made more water evaporate than in the past.

Right wingers will call this, "The Theory of Evaporation" and say it's not mentioned in the Bible so they will be skeptical.

The rest of the world will laugh and laugh and laugh. The hilarity will be lost on Republicans.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/147134-can-scientists-be-republicans.html

While no one is arguing the water cycle, and it would be an argument for global warming if we were getting more rail all over the place, but the problem here is not the precipitation, but the fact the precipitation is coming down as snow, and that temperatures all over the place seem to be lower. (Australia being exceptional here, not the rule.)
Portland had its first snowfall in November in my lifetime this year. We had the second snowfall of the year last Sunday.

 

[BlindBoo]

Please read the article linked in the OP, and ask yourself why the scientists quoted didn't seem to know this as lately as 2000. I'll wait to see if you can answer that.

They had a very mild winter in Europe in 2000, so here we are, these scientists using that to claim that snow was a thing of the past, children of the future wouldn't know what snow is, all of that. Did you bother reading the article?

FTA-Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

Yes, I saw his caveat. It seems to run contrary to his earlier mantra, in the same article. But he's still wrong, it's snowed in GB every year since 2000. Children there, still seem to know what snow is.

But, congratulations! You're apparently the only one besides myself who actually read the article.

Can you tell me what you think of the article in general? Was it balanced? Was it promoting an agenda? Was it propaganda? Hyperbole?

I read both. One nearly a year old and the other 10+ years old. But they both have useful information.