COLDEST TEMPS FOR DEC EVER IN UK! --- yet back in 2002 UK leading GW expert said " end of cold weather in UK forever"

[Guest someguy]

Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain

: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz18XWwaRfH

• Millions begin the big Christmas and New Year getaway early as the AA urged motorists to beware of the ‘worst driving conditions imaginable’
  
• Quarter of train services disrupted, travel warning in Kent
  
• Experts warn of a backlog of up to 4 million of parcels which could remain undelivered this Christmas
• The NHS issues an urgent appeal for blood donors as concerns grow over shortages
• Councils reveal plans to share grit amid fears the cold snap could last until January 14
• Odds shortened even further on a ‘White Christmas’ in some parts of the country next Saturday

Swathes of Britain skidded to a halt today as the big freeze returned - grounding flights, closing rail links and leaving traffic at a standstill.

And tonight the nation was braced for another 10in of snow and yet more sub-zero temperatures - with no let-up in the bitterly cold weather for at least a month, forecasters have warned.

The Arctic conditions are set to last through the Christmas and New Year bank holidays and beyond and as temperatures plummeted to -10c (14f) the Met Office said this December was ‘almost certain’ to become the coldest since records began in 1910.

[Guest someguy]

http://www.independe...ast-724017.html

CRU "Scientist" Prediction In 2000, No More Snow In Winter!

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

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.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.

Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.

Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world - open-air skating".

Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change - into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

"We don't really have wolves

in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

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.

The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".

Not any more, it seems.

[JoMo]

Shocked. No no really.

[LongIslandWx]

For people claiming to be scientists, they should have been smart enough to know you should never claim something will never happen again.....

[kwt]

A few things though that need to be mentioned...

Firstly, for whatever reason the UKMO seem to only care about since 1910, thats when they start the records...however we have overt 250 years of very good datas in the CET zone and there have been several December's that were colder then the coldest December in the 1910-2009 which was 1981, which was 0.3C

Its also worth noting IF the 00z ECMWF was right we probably would NOT even beat 1981. Still a little bit to go but even if we miss out on beating 1981, its going to be up there as one of our coldest December's and an exceptional month.

The region around London now upto 18-24 inches of snow this season. W.Wales likely upto 25-30 inches...NW England upto about 10-15 inches generally.

NE England/E.Scotland getting hit by a very pretty Polar low which had a solid eye feature on radar for a little bit. As for snowfall totals up there, gosh I've not got a clue. If its anything below 40-50 inches I'd be amazed and I would be shocked if a few places aren't far from a 100...I know that a few places were upto 95cms by the end of the November/early December cold spell and we've had alot more snow since then...

[Alpha5]

Fail

[DMADKAT]

Fail

We are sitting in the middle of the deepest solar minimum since at least the Dalton and our averages are even under cutting that ! We are indeed headed back to the little ice age conditions of maybe even the Maunder minimum. ITS THE SUN BABY! ITS THE SUN! Watch the cold ,snow records fall like flies for the next several decades.

[iceicebyebye]

interesting...wasn't aware that climate change topics have move to the weather discussion forum. the first post seems appropriately placed, and then it becomes an alarmist cooling chat.

must we rehash the notion that weather at any given moment, in on location, is not necessarily indicative of the global means picture. perhaps we should trot out a load of stats to the counter in what has been either the warmest or amongst the warmest years on record across the various measurement vehicles.

[Redmorninglight]

Never say never!

[SBUWX23]

interesting...wasn't aware that climate change topics have move to the weather discussion forum. the first post seems appropriately placed, and then it becomes an alarmist cooling chat.

must we rehash the notion that weather at any given moment, in on location, is not necessarily indicative of the global means picture. perhaps we should trot out a load of stats to the counter in what has been either the warmest or amongst the warmest years on record across the various measurement vehicles.

Or how about he is just trying to prove a point that some of the warming alarmists were spewing out some bogus ideas that children will not see snow or not know what snow is... but yet they are seeing record snows in the UK

[Guest someguy]

you are missing the point -- most AGW folks do.

we all KNOW it is wrong for the deniers-- often egged on by the science ignoramouses of Rush and FOX news -- to say " ah this cold wave that has last 7 days is proof GW is bs".

granted.

Dude CRU is the UK is NOT Fox news.

they should know better. THEY are the educated ones... right?

so why are making such dumb as crap predictions?????

moreover what is going on in the UK is is NOT a 1 week cold snap... come on.

interesting...wasn't aware that climate change topics have move to the weather discussion forum. the first post seems appropriately placed, and then it becomes an alarmist cooling chat.

must we rehash the notion that weather at any given moment, in on location, is not necessarily indicative of the global means picture. perhaps we should trot out a load of stats to the counter in what has been either the warmest or amongst the warmest years on record across the various measurement vehicles.

[Guest someguy]

I rate this little better than the old witch test:

if you float you are guilty and if you sink and drown you are innocent.

There's no room in the AGW belief system that something might be wrong with their ideas and theories because of the Politics

[LehighValleyDad]

I rate this little better than the old witch test:

if you float you are guilty and if you sink and drown you are innocent.

There's no room in the AGW belief system that something might be wrong with their ideas and theories because of the Politics

Well said DT. If one questions any AGW belief, they immediately lump you into the "denier" group without responding to the merits of the questions being asked.

[Mallow]

Alright, now that it's obvious this is a climate change topic, can it please be moved to the climate change forum?

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

There's no room in the AGW belief system that something might be wrong with their ideas and theories because of the Politics

I don't want to get into a political discussion so much, but one could quite legitimately argue that those in positions of power with the opposite belief do exactly the same, and possibly even moreso (a'la during the Bush years?).

Now I agree, some of the comments made in that article are outlandish (children never knowing what snow will look like again, etc.). And I don't deny that there are some who are as politically motivated on either side. But honestly, the vast majority of climate scientists agree about global warming or climate change, or whatever one chooses to call it. I defer to the experts in that field; this should not be a political issue either way. That record-breaking cold and/or snow occurs does not discount a warming trend overall. After last winter's record snows here, there were several guffawing comments about "so how's that global warming thing look?". The whole idea of trotting out various extreme cold/snow events in an area as being "proof" against global warming/climate change is disingenouous at the least. I'll refrain from directly saying which political philosophies tend to do that more than others, but one can probably figure out my opinion on that based on what I've written here.

On a related topic, and not being political at all here. But isn't there some theory, even advocated by those who think the overall climate is warming, that melting polar ice could result in a cold pool of water "shutting off" the Gulf stream, thereby (ironically) resulting in a temporary cold period in the relative short term over much of the northern hemisphere? Maybe not another mini-ice age, but something like that.

[Southland Wx]

Good stuff. I think the "take home" message from this is that it's absolutely absurd to be making declarations like "children won't know about snow." Just as it would be absurd to say that the last couple of snowy/cold winters proves that AGW is a farce. Weather patterns change...they always have and always will, and it's foolish for people to try and link, what are in the grand scheme of things, short term trends to long term forecasts.

It's not going to never snow again. The cold we're currently having does not disprove AGW. The snow (moisture) we're currently seeing does not prove AGW. Weather tends to oscillate. We're on the cold/snowy side of that in Europe right now.

[Guest someguy]

as someone who believes in some of AGW and all of GW inn general I think this is great post and I strongly agree

I don't want to get into a political discussion so much, but one could quite legitimately argue that those in positions of power with the opposite belief do exactly the same, and possibly even moreso (a'la during the Bush years?).

Now I agree, some of the comments made in that article are outlandish (children never knowing what snow will look like again, etc.). And I don't deny that there are some who are as politically motivated on either side. But honestly, the vast majority of climate scientists agree about global warming or climate change, or whatever one chooses to call it. I defer to the experts in that field; this should not be a political issue either way. That record-breaking cold and/or snow occurs does not discount a warming trend overall. After last winter's record snows here, there were several guffawing comments about "so how's that global warming thing look?". The whole idea of trotting out various extreme cold/snow events in an area as being "proof" against global warming/climate change is disingenouous at the least. I'll refrain from directly saying which political philosophies tend to do that more than others, but one can probably figure out my opinion on that based on what I've written here.

On a related topic, and not being political at all here. But isn't there some theory, even advocated by those who think the overall climate is warming, that melting polar ice could result in a cold pool of water "shutting off" the Gulf stream, thereby (ironically) resulting in a temporary cold period in the relative short term over much of the northern hemisphere? Maybe not another mini-ice age, but something like that.

YES

[Guest someguy]

THAT IS THE BIG POINT.....

the reason why the AGW is losing the debate is b/c of statements like this that should not be made

there is a big difference between these two statements.

The first one should never have be made while second is valid

"Children may never see snow again"

or

" over time severe winters may increase as the climate becomes more unstable and when it isnt a severe winter it will be almost as if no winter at all ..."

Good stuff. I think the "take home" message from this is that it's absolutely absurd to be making declarations like "children won't know about snow." Just as it would be absurd to say that the last couple of snowy/cold winters proves that AGW is a farce. Weather patterns change...they always have and always will, and it's foolish for people to try and link, what are in the grand scheme of things, short term trends to long term forecasts.

It's not going to never snow again. The cold we're currently having does not disprove AGW. The snow (moisture) we're currently seeing does not prove AGW. Weather tends to oscillate. We're on the cold/snowy side of that in Europe right now.

[Carvers Gap]

http://www.independe...ast-724017.html

CRU "Scientist" Prediction In 2000, No More Snow In Winter!

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

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.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.

Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.

Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world - open-air skating".

Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change - into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

"We don't really have wolves

in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

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.

The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".

Not any more, it seems.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to hold the media accountable when they make outlandish claims one way or the other. When extreme weather occurs, it's logical to ask, "Why? What is causing this?" When snow was less probable in England, people asked questions. The same questioning is now happening in reverse. It appears to me that climate is a complex creature to tame in terms of our knowledge of it. It also seems that folks draw conclusions on the macro scale too quickly due to micro scale events(ten years of data). In the 70s it was cold. In the 90s it was warm. Conclusions were drawn due to both of them. I can remember an extreme winter in terms of temperature in January 1985. The winters here warmed quickly from then on - like a rubber band snapped. The 90's were on the average much warmer - no denying that. The last ten years have not seen the extremely warm winters here. So, there is a cooling trend. It seems that ocean currents such as the PDO and AMO need to be accounted for in the AGL discussion, volcanic activiy / or lack of, and even solar activity.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

as someone who believes in some of AGW and all of GW inn general I think this is great post and I strongly agree

Well, as someone else who also believes in global warming/climate change, I appreciate the compliment. I do not like seeing those who support the issue making extreme statements like in that article, unless it's obviously meant tongue-in-cheek to make a point (this did not look like one of those situations). I guess the rather long-winded point I was getting at before was that yes, a lot of overblown assertions have been made but I think it's clear over the past many years who makes the large bulk of them. And, unfortunately, a lot of those people have been in positions of power.

[Diego]

We are sitting in the middle of the deepest solar minimum since at least the Dalton and our averages are even under cutting that ! We are indeed headed back to the little ice age conditions of maybe even the Maunder minimum. ITS THE SUN BABY! ITS THE SUN! Watch the cold ,snow records fall like flies for the next several decades.

I wouldn't be convinced unless they start having frost fairs again on the Thames.

http://en.wikipedia....mes_frost_fairs

Alright, now that it's obvious this is a climate change topic, can it please be moved to the climate change forum?

Obviously, you would prefer that this get buried into obscurity there.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

there is a big difference between these two statements.

The first one should never have be made while second is valid

"Children may never see snow again"

or

" over time severe winters may increase as the climate becomes more unstable and when it isnt a severe winter it will be almost as if no winter at all ..."

Yes, exactly this!

In fact, my understanding is that a lot of the theory behind global warming is precisely that we could see "more extremes", with a tendency toward warming.

[A-L-E-X]

Yes, exactly this!

In fact, my understanding is that a lot of the theory behind global warming is precisely that we could see "more extremes", with a tendency toward warming.

The problem is two fold-- 1) the people who make the statements, who should know better 2) the nonscientific public which doesnt understand point number 2 (about the extremes and tendencies)-- they link every anomalous event to GW or anti-GW. The fact is the media stupefies the message to make it easier for them to digest-- but the extremist wing of AGW theorists also get WAY too much publicity.

[ORH_wxman]

I moved this to here...much more relevant in climate change forum

[skierinvermont]

Some pretty outrageous comments by those two scientists. I've never seen any science that would back up such statements, and outlandish statements like that certainly do make them look foolish in the public relations battle.

That said, none of this disproves the very strong evidence that the world is warming and that humans will continue to cause warming.

[iceicebyebye]

Or how about he is just trying to prove a point that some of the warming alarmists were spewing out some bogus ideas that children will not see snow or not know what snow is... but yet they are seeing record snows in the UK

no argument that the statement in question was unwise without deeper qualification, but there is nothing inconsistent in global heating theory with short term regional varibability, including snowfall anomalies

[tacoman25]

interesting...wasn't aware that climate change topics have move to the weather discussion forum. the first post seems appropriately placed, and then it becomes an alarmist cooling chat.

must we rehash the notion that weather at any given moment, in on location, is not necessarily indicative of the global means picture. perhaps we should trot out a load of stats to the counter in what has been either the warmest or amongst the warmest years on record across the various measurement vehicles.

None of this refutes the fact that the climate scientist quoted in the original posts was WRONG. He was assuming that AGW was responsible for the warm winters of the 1990s in the UK, and used that assumption to predict winter snowfall would soon become very rare. Oops.

Again, I think there is a rather obvious lesson to be learned from this. A lot of assumptions have been made about AGW and its effects, and I think many will continue to be proved false or overblown.

[cheetah440]

THAT IS THE BIG POINT.....

the reason why the AGW is losing the debate is b/c of statements like this that should not be made

there is a big difference between these two statements.

The first one should never have be made while second is valid

"Children may never see snow again"

or

" over time severe winters may increase as the climate becomes more unstable and when it isnt a severe winter it will be almost as if no winter at all ..."

They long ago realized that it would take such statements to get public attention. So they make the outrageous statements without realizing that "weather" would actually prove them wrong.

Most of us know that the current conditions don't disprove AGW, but it certainly disproves their alarmism.

[tacoman25]

They long ago realized that it would take such statements to get public attention. So they make the outrageous statements without realizing that "weather" would actually prove them wrong.

That's a pretty serious logical flaw. The guy in 2000 offered no other explanation for the warm winters the UK saw in the 1990s other than AGW...which now just makes him look foolish.

[bobbutts]

Being Pro or Anti AGW should not mean that every you support everything your "side" says or refute everything from the "other side". Both sides are very much guilty of behaving exactly that way though. Manipulation based on misconceptions and straight up lies.