50% Increase In Eurasian Autumn Snow Cover Since 1979

Fifteen years ago, British climate experts said “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is

2015-11-13-02-14-28

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.

BepTksDCMAEkCHw (1)

IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change 2001 – Complete online versions | GRID-Arendal – Publications – Other

Bdi6xZUCEAAYLXL

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Eurasian autumn snow cover has increased 50% since 1979, the exact opposite of what the experts predicted.

2015-11-13-02-08-20

Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab

Autumn snow extent for the entire Northern Hemisphere has also been increasing, and set an all-time record last year.

nhland_season4 (1)

Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab

As always, the experts are clueless hacks, and have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to 50% Increase In Eurasian Autumn Snow Cover Since 1979

  1. Martin Smith says:

    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]

    • Andy DC says:

      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.

      • Martin Smith says:

        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?]

        • Martin Smith says:

          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?]

        • AndyG55 says:

          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.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Actually RAH, I think Martin the Troll comes in second place. Hope for Brains still hold first.

    • pinroot says:

      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?

      • Martin Smith says:

        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.

        • PeterK says:

          You mean beyond your capability to explain it rationally!

        • AndyG55 says:

          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.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Perhaps Martin can find that one illusive paper that actually proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.

        • AndyG55 says:

          AGW is a hypothesis.. Martin need to find proof of that hypothesis.

    • Justa Joe says:

      “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.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “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.

  2. AndyG55 says:

    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. !

    • Martin Smith says:

      You have misquoted David Viner.

      [SG : It is an exact quote. Do you have trouble clicking links?]

      • pinroot says:

        Then what is the correct quote? Maybe we’ll never know, since the site has been scrubbed lol. Oh the embarrassment.

      • rah says:

        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?

        • Gail Combs says:

          A bit off topic but an interesting find though difficult to read..

          …..Overall, MIS 5 was mostly mild with warmest or peak interglacial conditions at the very start during MIS 5e. MIS 4–2 was mostly cold with most extreme or peak glacial conditions in the closing phase during MIS 2. This points to a subdivision of the last climate cycle into an early, overall mild interglacial half and a late, overall cold glacial half, each with duration of ca 50 ka. This review also shows that the climate variability in central and northern Europe during the LI–G cycle was mostly in degrees of continentality with major shifts in winter temperature and precipitation values; summer temperatures, on the other hand, remained largely unchanged.…..
          The Last Interglacial–Glacial cycle (MIS 5–2) re-examined based on long proxy records from central and northern Europe

          For reference from another paper “The Eemian sea-level highstand” [aka warmest or peak interglacial conditions at the very start during MIS 5e] and “persisted from ca 130 until 124 ka BP in the eastern Baltic.” The Holocene is 11,718 years old or it started ~12 ka BP. So this paper seems to be looking at the weather during the Eemain and Wisconsin Ice Age in Europe.

          It finds:
          **************************************
          “… the climate variability in central and northern Europe during the LI–G cycle [Last Interglacial–Glacial cycle] was mostly in degrees of continentality with major shifts in winter temperature and precipitation values; summer temperatures, on the other hand, remained largely unchanged….
          **************************************

          **continentality = “the degree to which the climate of a region typifies that of the interior of a large landmass.”

          The reference to ‘precipitation’ MIS 4–2 (ca 70–15 ka BP) would be the time during the Wisconsin Ice Age leading up to the Holocene.

          …The time interval encompassing MIS 4–2 shows open vegetation. It is characterized by two glacial maxima (MIS 4 and 2) with sub-continental scale glaciation over northern Europe and dry conditions in strongly continental eastern European settings….

          The time period covered graph from NOAA

      • catweazle666 says:

        “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.

  3. AndyG55 says:

    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.

    • Martin Smith says:

      And that statement is correct. Heavy winter snowstorms will decrease.

      • Gail Combs says:

        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

        “UP to 20 million farm animals may die in Mongolia before spring as the fiercest winter in living memory grips the country, International Aid Agencies warned today.” (half of Mongolia’s entire herd—may perish, a quarter of a million animals and livestock died each week… — http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/million-farm-animals-freeze-to-death/story-e6frfku0-1225827780294#ixzz0tW2MH0HM

        It happened again in Tibet in 2013: http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=33100&t=1
        South America and even the USA has been having the problem of livestock freezing to death in Martin’s nonexistent storms.

        2009/12/13 – The USA had snow in all fifty states, Lots of new cold and snow records in the USA this past week

        Snow in Florida. Deep freeze in the deep south: “Wintry weather sweeping across the Northern Hemisphere has slowed coal deliveries in parts of the U.S. South, where Texas is braced for record electrical demand and Florida eased truck rules to help farmers move their crops. “

        February 2010 Scotland has suffered some of the coldest winter months in almost 100 years, the Met Office has confirmed.

        Temperatures were glacial across Europe over the weekend, kills 22 across Europe
        Freak snow falls in Spain strands 6000. March 9, 2010. A freak snowstorm dumped more than a metre of snow on the Pyrenees mountains. Spanish snow leaves 250000 without power

        BBC News – Big freeze tightens its grip on England: major snow storm – bitterly cold united kingdom

        Heavy snow claims over 30 lives in north China

        A major snowstorm has battered Russia’s Pacific island of Sakhalin since New Year’s Eve, stranding almost 60 cars on the main highway… Snowfall in St. Petersburg breaks 130-year record… Heavy snow covers Moscow

        Near record cold and snow in South Dakota — No End Of Snow In Sight

        AccuWeather Inc. is on record as saying this could be the coldest winter in 25 years in the United States.

        Coldest winter for 200 years!

        Jan. breaks record for consecutive days below freezing

        Parts of Europe, Asia report record cold, snow this winter
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
        As the rest here know I have similiar info on more recent winters.

        For example Scotland was under a glacier during the Wisconsin Ice age. This is what happened just to Scotland up to Aug, 2014 and the rest of the world

        2014-2015 winter was even worse
        Iran – Snow and blizzards began in early November and still continue
        Turkey – Heavy snowfall knocks out power for 4 days – and still counting
        Russia – Minus 32 degrees and Heavy Snow in Tomsk
        One meter of snow in eastern Turkey
        Buffalo – 30 major roof collapses, 100 minor collapses (SEVEN FEET of snow in one storm)
        Ice on the Mississippi River in Iowa (Nov 20)
        Canberra’s coldest winter in 15 years
        Bogota, Colombia, covered in 24 inches of snow
        Record snow in Abruzzo, Italy (elevation 36 ft) for about 24 consecutive hours it snowed persistently recording a total accumulation of 1 meter and a half.
        World Record Snowfall in Capracotta, Italy Previous record Silver Lake, Colorado, USA with 75.8 inches
        Greek islands in the Mediterranean buried under 6½ ft (2 m) of snow
        Heavy snowfall causes road closures in Mexico
        A very unusual snowing forced the closure of the Mexico City – Puebla City 150-D highway
        Norway – Forced to remove excessive snow from ski slopes – “During the last two days we’ve got more snow than we had in the last two years together,” says Vegar Sårheim. “I had never believed we would experience this.”

        Of course Martin the Troll knows storms are increasing because I just pointed that outYESTERDAY!

        • Martin Smith says:

          Gail, here is the explanation you appear to not understand: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-record-snowfall-disprove-global-warming.html

        • Gail Combs says:

          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.)

        • PeterK says:

          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.

        • rah says:

          Here’s some more of that “decrease” Martin was talking about.

          https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/storm-abigail/

        • Ted says:

          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.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “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.

      • catweazle666 says:

        More utter bollocks.

        Why do you insist on making a total fool of yourself?

        • AndyG55 says:

          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.

  4. AndyG55 says:

    For someone who claims to be a “technical writer”, you have the comprehension skills of a 2 year old.

    • Bob K says:

      No worries though as he will have plenty of time each winter to brush up on his skills when he is snowed in.

    • rah says:

      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.

      • Martin Smith says:

        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

        • rah says:

          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.

        • Martin Smith says:

          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/

        • rah says:

          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”.

        • 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.

        • Martin Smith says:

          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.

        • Martin Smith says:

          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!

        • Martin Smith says:

          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.

        • rah says:

          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.

        • Martin Smith says:

          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.

        • rah says:

          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.

        • pmc47025 says:

          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.”

      • Martin Smith says:

        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.

        • Martin Smith says:

          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.

        • rah says:

          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.

        • Gail Combs says:

          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

          Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

          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:

          The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
          http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

          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

          The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
          http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

          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.

          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.

          **********************************************************

          …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible
          IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

          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)

          “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”

          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!

        • pmc47025 says:

          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.

      • DD More says:

        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.

  5. Martin Smith says:

    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.]

    • Martin Smith says:

      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]

    • oppti says:

      The one with 95% probability and broader climate sensibility You know.

    • Doug says:

      So the IPCC 100 year predictions are out of date in 15 years? Thanks for clearing that up.

    • Justa Joe says:

      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.

  6. Aila says:

    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.

  7. Gail Combs says:

    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:

    Salby’s recent work is so controversial because it questions the key IPCC assumption, that man-made CO2 emissions cause global levels of CO2 to rise…

    Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.

    Salby’s trip to Europe was to present and discuss exactly this point….

    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.

    … hydrological records from the Asia-Australia summer monsoon area, analysed by Professor Hong Yan and his coauthors, show that southward migration of the ITCZ did not occur during the cold Little Ice Age. Instead, the hydrological data support the operation of a new dynamic mechanism named ‘ITCZ/Rainbelt contraction’ in the Western Pacific region during the Little Ice Age.

    Prima facie, a southward migration of the ITCZ should result in less precipitation in the East Asia Summer Monsoon area but more rainfall in Australia Summer Monsoon area. In contrast, the Synthesis of a large set of palaeoclimatological records from across the monsoonal area establishes that the precipitation in both continental East Asia and northern Australia decreased synchronously during the Little Ice Age. The unusual spatial variation in paleoclimate records therefore documents a distinctly different rainfall pattern that violates the former expectation of ITCZ southward migration. Furthermore, comparison of these results with solar records indicates that a relationship exists between the rainfall changes and Total Solar Insolation…..

    To explain these changes, the scientists propose an alternative dynamic scenario which they have tested using process-based climate modeling. Rather than strict north-south migration, the multi-decadal to centennial change for the western Pacific Intertropical Convergence Zone can excitingly be shown to have contracted or expanded in parallel with solar irradiance variations. This new understanding clearly adds to the richness of mechanisms by which the Earth climate system can vary naturally and significantly over periods between a few decades and up to a century in length.….

    [Paper] by Hong Yan of the Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences and an international team of co-authors from the Alfred Wegener Institute (Wei Wei), Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (Willie Soon), Institute of Earth Environment (Zhisheng An, Weijian Zhou and Yuhong Wang), University of Hong Kong (Zhonghui Liu) and Institute of Public Affairs (Robert M. Carter).
    link

    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.

  8. Gail Combs says:

    (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

    Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
    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

    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:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

    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

    The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

    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.

    **********************************************************

    …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and <b.therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible…
    IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

    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)

    “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”

    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!

  9. eliza says:

    BTW MS is a godsend to the skeptic case. Please allow him to keep posting LOL

    • Gail Combs says:

      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.

  10. Ted says:

    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?

    • Gail Combs says:

      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.)

      • Ted says:

        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.

        • Gail Combs says:

          ” 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.

      • catweazle666 says:

        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.

  11. Trollsmith says:

    “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.”

    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

    • Gail Combs says:

      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.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s