It's official, despite previous reports that China's snow storms are due to global warming,
Dong Wenjie the National Climate Centre says that
"This is mainly related to abnormal atmospheric circulation and the La Nina event"
What a relief. it's not due to climate change! But then he says:
"With climate warming, extreme weather events are clearly increasing in frequency and intensity."
Gasp! So it is related to climate change?
Australian climate scientist Penny Whetton says
"Those conditions are things that occur naturally and so every few years, few decades, everything just comes together right to produce an extreme event,"
Ahh Phew! Not due to climate change. What a relief!
"My guess is this is a natural event without any particular reason to link it to climate change. The climate change models are not predicting increases in snow events like this," Whetton told Reuters on Thursday.
Thank God for the Climate Models! Beats checking the data hey?
"Cold extremes are generally not predicted to become more intense and frequent because we have a warming climate," she said.
More good news. More good news.
But as China warms, its cold northern regions might experience more intense snow storms as moisture levels in the atmosphere rise, creating similar conditions to those that have caused the snow storms now in southern China.
Say what? The very next paragraph says that it is related to global warming. Noooo!
"Snow will hang around for less but you will probably get more heavy snow events in winter," said David Jones, head of climate analysis at Australia's National Climate Centre.
Damn it! It's related. I thought the previous paragraph said it wasn't. Someone need to make up their mind.
Jones also said China's snow storms could not be directly linked to climate change,
Ohh thank God! It's not related. Wow, this is stressful. Who knows how it will end.
But never fear, someone has actually done some data analysis:
The average number of severe snowstorms over the first 32 years of the study period was 3.2 per year, while the average over the 20-year period of 1981 through 2000 was notably less at 2.7 per year
Phew! Reading the one report I was convinced and not convinced at least 5 times each that china's snow storms were related to global warming.
20 comments:
On the subject of climate predictions, the BoM's cyclone forecast for NW Australia (from Nov 2007)looks like being way off the mark.
Significant risk of at least one severe tropical cyclone coastal impact during the season.
Likelihood of around two coastal impacts.
Possibility of a pre-Christmas cyclone. Should one form before Christmas; there is a risk of a coastal crossing, most likely in the Kimberley or Eighty-mile Beach area. However all North West communities need to prepare early to mitigate against the risk.
Total number of cyclones in the northwest region is expected to be greater than last season, with a likely return to near average numbers (the average number of cyclones is 5).
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/
media_releases/wa/20071015.shtml
So far the cyclone season has been a complete dud - quietest cyclone season I can remember.
Somewhere recenly, it may it may have been in New China Daily I came across a comment on the current weather that refered to "since records began in 195...." Hardly a huge data set
yeah yeah I now see your next item but I fist saw it somewhwhere else - true
Well done Jonathon, you have now published two contradictory stories on your blog in succession. I guess people can infer the level of editorial quality for themselves. So we shouldn't believe anything here? Is that correct?
maybe anonymous, you should, as you say, think for yourself, and work out why I published two contradictory stories. In fact the quoted webpage, including the experts comments are contradictory in every paragraph.
And you cited them. Your editorial skills would do justice to a UFO conspiracy theory or holocaust denial web site. Lots of info there!
lots of info? Bad editor? Typical charges against someone who cannot argue against the science on this website.
Please feel free to argue against the science as shown here, otherwise, leave your comments to yourself.
OK Johnathon, independent thought check. More snow means:
A: Colder temperatures?
B: Warmer temperatures?
Compare your answer with Andrew Bolt's.
thats the problem with many climate change followers, that when they compare climate change skeptics to holocaust deniers it is because they can't argue against the science, so instead they try to discredit the author.
Science is not about believing or denying, it is about proving or disproving, and until you can either prove or disprove the science on this webpage as shown here, your comments are worthless, and i have no time to get in a verbal and character assassination slinging war with you.
A: Colder temperatures?
B: Warmer temperatures?
Lots of people want to know what you think Jonathon. Do you really know what you are talking about?
Jonathan, the problem is that the warming side of the debate has been so corrupted by the ignorant and clueless, like anonymous here (and of course the politically motivated) that it's almost impossible to find fact-based coherent arguments for AGW.
A?
B?
Is the question too difficult? I guess I assumed you guys knew this stuff.
Beam me up Scotty. No sign of intelligent life here.
Most unusual weather in Perth, which even the BoM a couple of hours ahead failed to forecast.
Continous rain for the last 10 hours and afternoon temps below 20C.
I doubt anyone alive today can remember a mid-summer day like it. I know I can't.
Jonathan, a couple of months back you posted a graph of Oz temp anomalies (I think) with a curved trend superimposed. It showed a downward trend begining a couple of years ago.
In light of the recent falls in global temps that graph was precient. You should repost it with a statistical justification for the curve.
regards,
It would be interesting if someone did data analysis for certain phrases used in the media when reporting weather events. On the graph, we might see "global warming" rise for a while, then level off or even decline, as "climate change" takes hold. My prediction is that "tipping point" will continue its unprecedented rise - until the next big watchword appears, that is.
Hi Jonathon,
Thought it might be worthwhile pointing you to this statisticians website:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/
His last post is very interesting:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/09/how-to-look-at-the-rss-satellite-derived-temperature-data/
Cheers,
Proteus
Jonathan, whats happening?
Climate and weather hots up as topic, as the climate cools down.
Huge negative temp anomalies in Kalgoorlie the last couple of days (-17C) as clouds and rain come in.
NOAA says NH land temps fell by 2.4C from jan 2007 to jan 2008, That is 300 times faster cooling than the claimed unprecedented 20th century warming of 0.8C over a 100 years.
I know crazy world we live in. Been busy lately, but new post on the site now, more to come soon.
"...that it's almost impossible to find fact-based coherent arguments for AGW."
Indeed, and that's why you find articles on AGW in the leading peer reviewed journals like Nature and Science. I mean these journals only publish proven nonsense while for the scientific truth you must read the climate skeptic blogs :)
Post a Comment