Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
Indeed. Let me ask you this: If it’s so simple and obvious that increased global surface temperatures will result in more snow, surely this point would have been made repeatedly in the IPCC reports. Agreed?
That’s an odd claim from someone who doesn’t even understand FXMastermind’s position and doesn’t know what issues are actually in dispute.
Do you still think that criticizing the Hockey Stick Graph is equivalent to disputing that temperatures have risen over the last 100 years?
Do you still think that anyone in this thread disputes that temperatures have risen over the last 100 years?
Funny how you left off this part:
brazil, do you have a link handy to the UK snowfall history since 2000?
As an interesting aside, one of the most strident climate change deniers has just been revealed to have been taking huge amounts of funding from oil companies and Koch brothers and neglecting to disclose that fact on papers he published.
His data kind of sucks, too.
So you agree with Dr. Viner’s predictions then?
No I do not.
Do you agree with Askthepizzaguy’s apparent claim that increased global surface temperatures clearly and obviously means more snow?
Allow me to translate the good doctor: “Increased global surface temperatures will result in more snow per storm but fewer storms overall.”
You were saying?
And do you agree with that?
Also does that mean more snow overall or less snow overall?
Since you seem intent on remaining ignorant about Dr Viner, allow me to provide some very small degree of education.
From the meteorological office of the UK govt, typical snowfall in the part of England containing East Anglia:
In short, there’s fuck all for snowfall that accumulates in East Anglia. The guy is not talking about Boston, fercryinoutloud. From your own link, which apparently you did not read (note that this article is from 2000 - I have no clue what’s happened in the 15 years since regarding snowfall, and I’ve expended all the energy I intend to on this topic):
Yes, please educate me.
So are you saying that (1) East Anglia and nearby areas are an exception to the general principle announced by Askthepizzaguy that increased global surface temperatures means more snow; and (2) Dr. Viner’s predictions are extremely limited geographically?
At a minimum, I read enough to observe an apparent contradiction between the predictions of Askthepizzaguy and the predictions of the researcher mentioned in the article.
Do you agree that there is a contradiction?
That’s a shame; it would be really interesting to see if snowfall has in fact decreased in East Anglia, or in the UK as a whole, over the past 15 years.
I don’t know. Why do you ask?
In other climate change news…we are shocked, shocked that a denier scientist was on the take.
On the other hand, it means more money in the Koch propaganda budget for non-scientist Internet shills, so things are looking up for FX!
Posted that up thread. As the climate change-deniers say “follow the money”. Ok!
Damn, you’re right, sorry, I missed that.
With such a poorly written article, that’s difficult to say.
No, I think you read what you wanted to read into a poorly written article and stopped reading when you realized that it might not back you up after all.
I’m glad you posted it- definitely worth people noticing.
No I do not agree. Askthepizzaguy’s point is that increased global surface temperatures mean more precipitation. Whether it’s snow or not depends on the temperature. In a place like Boston where it is often below freezing in February this will mean more snow, and so when Boston is the topic of conversation one might phrase this simply as increased temperatures lead to more snow. In a place like southeast England where, when it snows at all, it’s usually only just barely cold enough to be snow rather than rain, then one might point out that increased precipitation and a marginal increase in temperature might mean less snow (and more rain).
That you need this explained, and by instinct merely conflate statements in one 15-year-old news article about weather in England with different, off-hand statements made on a message board about weather in Massachusetts merely indicates that you aren’t interested in understanding the subject and instead merely want to cherrypick statements from here and there which on their surface seem contradictory.
Obviously he was speaking to his assumption, so that decades later, when there was the rare heavy snow, nobody would be ready for it. Of course by 2006 heavy snow was already an issue once again in England. It’s a shame Dr Richard J. Wild stopped publishing data in 2007, or we could simply use his page to check.
Dr Richard Wild - Heavy Snow, Blizzards, Snowstorms and Snowfall Site
Of course by 2009, the matter was ridiculous in the extreme.
If only such vital data was easy to access. Can you imagine? A world where weather data isn’t a state secret? That would be awesome.
I’m sure you know the problem with asking direct questions everyone can understand. It requires somebody to stand behind something, and that is certainly not how climate predictions work. Because if you actually state something is true, you can later be found to be wrong. Best to keep it obtuse or vague, and include lots of weasel words.
I have no problem answering questions, especially ones like that. It’s an idiot claim, not backed by any science at all. So no, it’s such a terrible claim it’s not even possible to be right.
Which does not match what we have observed at all. In fact, just as the entire history of meteorology shows, snow is directly connected to cold, not warmer temperatures. Viner did not, and would not predict less snow because it was getting colder in England.
Thank God for that.
Of course there is. I don’t know what idiot school of thought is spreading this insane concept that warmer means less snow, and obviously they don’t think. According to their idiot world view, colder would mean less snow, warmer more snow. In what fuckhead Universe do they live? Seriously?
Good lard yes, wouldn’t that be fucking amazing? If only we had satellites that record snow and temperature and all that complicated weather stuff? Or at least some weather stations in England. I’m sure they will eventually put some in, and put the data online. Someday.
I thought that was old news. From 2013, Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort
Does anyone disagree that vested interest will do almost anything to protect their power? Profits? I mean, if you were trying to sell the idea that nobody is doing anything at all to influence policy and legislation, that would be hard to believe.
I’m just astounded that with all that money and power, the evil fuel companies do such a bad job of it. The few papers about the cooling NH winter trends all seem to be some mystery to most people. And of course they all are about laying blame for the winter weather directly on global warming.
With all those billions just being handed out, why no concerted effort to point out that the global warming theory is just wrong at this point? Based on the official data alone, it’s obvious.
Dude, your scorn and sarcasm are so deeply layered, I honestly can’t tell when–if ever–you’re being serious.
Do you have a link to UK snowfall over the past 15 years handy?