At least, that’s what Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia said in 2000.
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.
Well, it didn’t snow in 2001, but after that in London:
January 2003, Snow brings chaos to London
February, 2007, Heavy snow forces school closures
October, 2008 London has first October snow in over 70 years
February, 2009: Heavy snow disrupts London travel
November 2010: UK snow: first flakes fall on London as Arctic weather spreads
December, 2010: Snow in UK, flights to London cancelled
January, 2011 Snow and sleet make for hazardous return to work
I understand that Dr. Viner has now taken up the more reliable vocation of tea-leaf reading.
Remarkably sad, as I recall explaining during the Ice Storm in 1998 how the climate change hypothesis actually calls for “bigger excursions from the historical average”, not anything as simple as “warming.”
Dynamic systems are like that, add more energy and you get more bouncing around.
The Queensland mess is regrettably right in the predictions – record drought followed by record flood.
At least it’s nice that children in Iqaluit are getting a break from the snow:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2011/01/05/iqaluit-warm-weather-rain.html
Driven on Iqalut roads Warren? Winter is the best season. Snow covers the garbage that never gets picked up. Honey bags stay frozen. Even in the 70’s F-Bay before Global Warming was warmer some winter days than places in the south. Snow doesn’t bother the Inuk.
p/s It only snows once a year up there, the rest of the time it blows from place to place with great energy.
What the first comment, here, seems to be saying (or is it reporting?) is that any weather effect, whatever it is, can be seen as global warming (should that be AGW?). It’s rather heads I win, tails you lose. Certainly, the AGW crowd are onto a winner, by this logic, whatever happens or doesn’t happen. That’s the great thing with being an environmentalist – you just can’t lose! No wonder it’s so appealing.
No, actually, that’s not what I said. And you’ve reversed the logic. Consider any dynamic system with a forcing function x
A = f(x)
regardless of our knowledge of f(), when A exhibits changes outside the historic spectrum, we can fairly conclude that either x or f have changed.
So, in the case of climate change, where the immediate weather is A, the occurence of a whole pile of unusual items (e.g. London has first October snow in 70 years, Queensland with droughts and floods, the Ice Storm in Ontario 1198, the period between “hundred-year storms” being now about five years), there’s evidence that something has changed.
Question – why is climate change even a topic for a religious blog? Surely it’s just science? The Nicean Creed doesn’t mention the climate; one of the Psalms does mention hoarfrost and snow, though, so I guess there’s some connection.
If true, it would also be true of an impending ice-age, explaining Warren’s current preoccupation – balmy Iqualuit.
You appear to be under a misapprehension: this is the irreligious, iconoclastic, anything I feel like posting blog of an unrepentant zoilist, patiently suffering the constant harping stultiloquence of self appointed experts-manqué.
It is pretty obvious that the climate is changing. Rain in Nunavut at this time of year is not normal. What isn’t obvious is what is causing it. We haven’t been keeping reliable weather records for long enough to know.
One can take exception to the climate change hysteria without pretending that the weather isn’t changing.
Not on this blog.
You’re not implying I censor comments, are you!?
No – why would you think so?