Autumn snow extent in Eurasia greatest recorded since start of satellite era in 1979


Am I surprised? No not at all. The Global Climate Warming Change Disaster scientists not only have extremely short memories but also very short pockets that need filling with lucre. As the saying goes “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”

Real Science

Autumn snow extent in Eurasia is the greatest recorded since the start of the modern satellite era in 1979, and has increased by 20%.

Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab

Climate experts tell us that declining snow cover over the last 30 years is making global warming even worse

The decreases in Earth’s snow and ice cover over the past 30 years have exacerbated global warming more than models predict they should have, on average, new research from the University of Michigan shows.

University of Michigan News Service | Shrinking snow and ice cover intensify global warming

This exacerbated warming can be plainly seen in the temperature graphs.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

View original post

Advertisements

About PuterMan

A retired programmer.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Autumn snow extent in Eurasia greatest recorded since start of satellite era in 1979

  1. Snow is weather not climate.
    When scientists first started telling us what would happen with the warming global averages, they detailed regional weather extremes that would accompany the warming. This single event isn’t a sign of anything EXCEPT the extreme swings of the weather pendulum that was predicted as a direct effect of global warming.
    We’ve gotten so caught-up in the politics of this that we embellish and exploit weather events as if they’re an indicater of a long-term trend. IF this becomes a trend, it might mean something…but until then, it’s just weather caused by this season’s el nino or la nina trends.

    • PuterMan says:

      You are correct. It is weather, but I would have to take issue with the statement that they detailed regional extremes. They did not, not until the regional extremes appeared and then they changed the models to accommodate the reality.

      When global warming, as it was originally, was first mooted no mention of extremes was made. We were told, as an example, that here in Ireland we would need to start planting Mediterranean plants and shrubs. 2 years ago our hedge was killed by the extreme cold (-19&degC), but whilst rare these days such temperatures are not unheard of. This was not predicted, and of course we were told that our children would not know what snow is. It is all do with the jetstream, which affect the el nino and la nina, and the jetstream is affected by the Sun.

      Climate is controlled by the Sun and not by CO2. Our children will most certainly know what snow is. You probably won’t agree with me but no matter. I may be wrong but wait until 2014. I believe it will get on average considerably colder. Please do feel at liberty to come back here and say either “you were right” or “see you were wrong”.

  2. I don’t agree nor disagree with your conclusions…we won’t know what’s going to happen until after it happens, and we won’t know for sure what caused it for a very long time. Although, you’re right, I do disagree that the sun is the only factor in our climate.
    I remember ‘them’ describing catastrophic swings in weather and I remember them saying that cold regions could become warm, hot become cold, arid become wet…and that the changes might be in such a state of flux that farmers might have to become nomadic to follow the weather/climate for their chosen crops. I remember them saying that critters would migrate to follow their preferred climate, disease would do the same.
    Newsweek recently did a piece on durham wheat farmers. The crop (prized for making good pasta) has to have a very specific ecosystem in which to flourish. They told the story of one farmer who was planting further and further to the northern edge of his property in the chase for suitable weather. He finally reached the point where he could go no further north because the soil would no longer be perfect. He was between the proverbial rock and a hard place and then it got worse…it turns out that he didn’t own the mineral rights on his multi-thousand acre farm and the oil companies comandeered his land because they discovered a profitable oil/gas field under the rich topsoil and started paving and pumping (fracking and pumping) all over his farmland. Long story…sorry!
    Anyway, for all we know, the wild weather swings may be Mother Nature’s way of fixing the climate. I don’t think you’re right or wrong, I just hate to see people pointing at a single event in a single year and shouting, “SEE!!!” because these things really are measured most accurately in tens of decades. IMHO of course : ]
    But I do want to mention how nice it is to share maybes with someone capable of civility…I’ve grown pretty weary of people (on all sides of this issue) who are positive that they have THE One True Answer to a situation with SO many variables.

    • PuterMan says:

      I just hate to see people pointing at a single event in a single year and shouting, “SEE!!!” because these things really are measured most accurately in tens of decades. IMHO of course : ]

      I agree, and of course I was only reporting what was said. As far as other factors go I guess we will all be arguing until the cows come home as to what does and does not affect climate. I would just mention here that if I gave the impression that I thought the only thing was the Sun then I apologise. Volcanoes (Ash/SO2) affect climate and there is an effect from CO2 whether the source is oceanic outgassing or anthropogenic, but at the end of the day CO2 is not, in my opinion, a deciding factor in climate. The increase between 1958 and 2012 in CO2 as a proportion of the atmosphere is just 8 x 1000ths of 1 percent (0.008). I believe the models are flawed in terms of feedback but as you say time will tell.

      The planet, believe it or not, was within a hairs breadth of all plant life shutting down back in the 1800s (if the post linked below is correct). Plants need 150 ppm, below which they die – basically from asphyxiation. Ideally CO2 should be around 1200ppm for plant growth (commercial grower rate) but this would not mean runaway warming. The contribution of CO2 to the essential greenhouse gasses without which the global temperature would be -15 deg C and not 15 deg C is logarithmic.

      But I do want to mention how nice it is to share maybes with someone capable of civility…I’ve grown pretty weary of people (on all sides of this issue) who are positive that they have THE One True Answer to a situation with SO many variables.

      Thank you. Likewise.

Feel free to leave a reply (ALL comments are moderated)

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