Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bob Loblaw

Snow In Britain Is Now A Thing Of The Past

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Its global warming innit

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mind you, if this was about buying a house...they have been correct....up till now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term 'Global Warming' fooled a lot of people.

Ten years ago we didn't know what we do now. Global warming means climate change. It maybe 5C hotter around the polar regions than a few decades ago, but it can mean cold air gets dumped around the temperate zone and massive increases in tropical rainfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term 'Global Warming' fooled a lot of people.

Ten years ago we didn't know what we do now. Global warming means climate change. It maybe 5C hotter around the polar regions than a few decades ago, but it can mean cold air gets dumped around the temperate zone and massive increases in tropical rainfall.

Ah right I see. Like a catch-all where anything and everything can be used to prove that the climate scientists are correct. So when it is cold, hot, rainy, dry, snowy, foggy or windy its climate change in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah right I see. Like a catch-all where anything and everything can be used to prove that the climate scientists are correct. So when it is cold, hot, rainy, dry, snowy, foggy or windy its climate change in action.

They are referring to the average temp of the planet as a whole, trending upwards over a period of decades. Not individual snow falls in Bognor, or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are referring to the average temp of the planet as a whole, trending upwards over a period of decades. Not individual snow falls in Bognor, or whatever.

Depending on who you believe, the planet might actually be cooling .....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8211948/Its-the-hottest-year-on-record-as-long-as-you-dont-take-its-temperature.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When interviewed by the BBC Professor Phil Jones from the CRU went on record and stated that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last ten years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are referring to the average temp of the planet as a whole, trending upwards over a period of decades. Not individual snow falls in Bognor, or whatever.

Link please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term 'Global Warming' fooled a lot of people.

Ten years ago we didn't know what we do now. Global warming means climate change. It maybe 5C hotter around the polar regions than a few decades ago, but it can mean cold air gets dumped around the temperate zone and massive increases in tropical rainfall.

yes, the AGW is the most flexible scientific theory ever made ....

rule a/ whatever weather condition you see it is always caused by AGW ....

rule b/ if it is not caused by AGW go to the rule a/

rule c/ it is global, go to the rule a/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

we are pumping CO2 to the air for last 150 years and we can see that globally really nothing happens ....

on the other side 20 000 years ago the half of Spain was covered by the 1km of ice and in 20 000 years it will happen again ....

AGW and the Carbon Taliban will not make any difference !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they got it spot on to me

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favourite was the tornado that hit Kensal Green in London earlier this decade, the BBC interviewed some knob in the street who said 'it's global warming, on our doorstep!'

Why the BBC would show that moronic comment god knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are referring to the average temp of the planet as a whole, trending upwards over a period of decades. Not individual snow falls in Bognor, or whatever.

Don't waste your typing fingers.

Whenever we get some snow, you'll get a denialist monkey starting a "Global warming? My a***!" thread.

Whenever we get a heat wave, you'll get a doomonger starting a "we're all screwed! Close the factories!" thread.

This whole debate is overrun by people who - for example - don't understand the difference between local and global temperatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't waste your typing fingers.

Whenever we get some snow, you'll get a denialist monkey starting a "Global warming? My a***!" thread.

Whenever we get a heat wave, you'll get a doomonger starting a "we're all screwed! Close the factories!" thread.

This whole debate is overrun by people who - for example - don't understand the difference between local and global temperatures.

These people include scientists, who in the past have tried to used local heatwaves/hurricanes/floods/other bad things to prove AGW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a terrific theory. Past predictions are ignored (like Hansen's prediction that CO2 would overwhelm all other sources of warming by 2000). Unpredicted phenomena (like snow in Britain) are incorporated into new improved theories and predictions. The stats of calculating global average temp remain constantly dodgy (like the single GISS thermometer covering the Arctic showing big warming recently in contradiction to the other datasets). The phenomenon is called different things when predictions fail to materialise (global warming, climate change, climate disruption). And the usual suspects who have been constantly wrong the last two decades are the only ones who have the ear of governments and the media

A bugaboo indeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link please

Actually it's what I think of as 'knowledge'.

But Google is our friend, so a quick search gives: What is global warming? (this is from a broadly sceptical website)

The cold spells in N Europe are discussed on RealClimate if you're really interested: Cold winter in a world of warming? But I'm not going to get bogged down in the usual pointless punch and judy show that climate debates descend to on HPC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't waste your typing fingers.

Whenever we get some snow, you'll get a denialist monkey starting a "Global warming? My a***!" thread.

Whenever we get a heat wave, you'll get a doomonger starting a "we're all screwed! Close the factories!" thread.

This whole debate is overrun by people who - for example - don't understand the difference between local and global temperatures.

Indeed :D!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article was pathetic even at the time it was written:

"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.

Well, there's always been good size populations of wolves in Central/Eastern Europe (Carpathians region) and the numbers keep growing quickly (Poland had 110 wolf packs in 2005, and in 2010 the number grew to over 150).

The number of wolves keeps growning elsewhere, too:

How America is learning to live with wolves again (8.12.2010 Guardian)

vargis-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it's what I think of as 'knowledge'.

But Google is our friend, so a quick search gives: What is global warming? (this is from a broadly sceptical website)

The cold spells in N Europe are discussed on RealClimate if you're really interested: Cold winter in a world of warming? But I'm not going to get bogged down in the usual pointless punch and judy show that climate debates descend to on HPC.

the problem with the AGW team is that they want to prove the AGW. if they are the real scientists they would like to actually tear apart the AGW to prove it holds the watter ...

but they are doing complete opposite ...

fraudulent science ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically there is no scientific evidence either way regarding global warming. There is for climate change which has always been an intrinsic part of the planet. Todays deserts are tomorrows fertile forests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole debate is overrun by people who - for example - don't understand the difference between local and global temperatures.

So-called 'global temperatures' are almost impossible to measure accurately and everyone knows that.

For example, a meteorological station that was build in the 19th century in an open field in the middle of nowhere is now sheltered in the middle of a busy town. Would that influence the readings over the last 100 years?

And there are 10000s of such stations around the world...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically there is no scientific evidence either way regarding global warming. There is for climate change which has always been an intrinsic part of the planet. Todays deserts are tomorrows fertile forests.

+1

A good common sense post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically there is no scientific evidence either way regarding global warming. There is for climate change which has always been an intrinsic part of the planet. Todays deserts are tomorrows fertile forests.

Indeed!

Based on this data we will get to the ice age in next few thousands of years and we should perhaps think how we will survive if the half of South Europe is covered by the 1km of ice ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to the global warming 'experts' now I am reminded of the scientific establishments efforts to convince us of the imminent catastrophe that was global cooling during the glorious summers of the mid 1970s. What with us only having thirty years worth of oil left global cooling was going to be a proper b'stard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What always puzzles me is given the near impossibility of getting accurate weather forecasts more than 5-10 days into the future how people feel they can so accurately predict the climate 100 years into the future.

And before someone comes back with that tired old cliche that 'climate is not weather' I would counter that in accumulation is all it is. Indeed, many of the AGW predictions read exactly like long range weather forecasts (ie it will be drier, wetter, colder etc). Moreover, given that weather forecasting more than 5-10 days into the future is known to be very unreliable because the underlying atmospheric systems are chaotic (ie they follow patterns but those patterns are inherently unpredictable) why do people assume that the climate itself is less chaotic and more predictable. Basically why should we believe climate models are more accurate than the GFS, METO or ECM 10 days forecasts.

On edit - I would also add that I can quite easily believe that human CO2 production could cause the climate to phase shift as could a change to any input to an inherently chaotic system. It is just that I do not think it is predictable. In addition because the climate is chaotic it does not necessarly follow that reducing the input will cause the climate to switch back to its old pattern. Indeed, it is this claim that reducing CO2 productionm will halt Global Warming is where I think that some AGW theorists and their supporters in the political world are being mosy mendacious.

Of course, some cynical people think that the AGW argument has been ramped up by those who have seen the potential impact of human exploitation exhausting the worlds limited supplies of easily retievable fossil fuels (something that is a lot easier to model). What better way to start rationing those finite oil resources than persuading people that it is essential to prevent catastrophic climate change, I dont think it is entirely coincidental that AGW really gained legs as a theory at about the same time as the 1970s Oil crisis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 277 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.