I can only comment on the graphs which they themselves chose to plot in 2009. Snowfall was not one of those graphs (whereas it was in 2006).
Interesting. I wonder why they're no longer plotting some trends. Maybe because it's too hard to fit them into their preferred narrative.
Or moving from conspiracy land, big budget cuts to climate research starting in 2009 might have something to do with it.
P.S. Since you started this sub-thread and are clearly still following it, are you going to retract your claims that CRU predicted "no more snow in Britain" or that Hansen predicted Manhattan would be underwater by now? Or are you just going to re-introduce those snippets in a future conversation, and hope no-one checks?
so I simply referred to the closest proxies which are plotted.
Seems like a bad proxy to me. Is snowfall really that hard a metric to find...?
other parts of the report refer to decadal smoothing
If the window is a decade back then the '90s will still be affecting the '00s since it only goes up to 2007.
I can't see any evidence that the decline in the 80s was somehow factored into the plot in the 2000s.
I think it may depend on how exactly the smoothing was being done. If it's a smoothing like a LOESS then I'd expect the '00s raw data to be pulled up to the somewhat higher '90s data; but if the regression best-fit line is involved then I'd expect the other direction.
Seems like a bad proxy to me. Is snowfall really that hard a metric to find...?
Presumably not, though since I'm not making up Met Office evidence (and don't have time to do my own analysis) I can only comment on the graphs which they themselves chose to plot in 2009. Snowfall was not one of those graphs (whereas it was in 2006).
However, the graphs of mean winter temperature, maximum winter temperature, and minimum winter temperature all point to the same trend as the air frost and heating-degree-day graphs. It would be surprising if numbers of days of snowfall were moving against that trend.
Got it - so the semantics of "a few years" is what you are basing the "failed prediction" claim on. Fair enough.
No, that's just one of the failed predictions I am pointing out, which you are weirdly carping on because it didn't come with an exact number despite it being perfectly clear in ordinary language & every context that we are well past anything that could be called 'a few years'.
Which as far as my family is concerned has been true. Again in an imprecise and qualitative way.
Maybe your family should look at those Met charts you provided about 'air frost' and note how small the decline has been in the relevant period.
Also, climate scientists do tend to think over a longer term, so a "few years" to a climate scientist could easily mean a few decades.
And '20 years' could be 200 years, because y'know, they think on such a long horizon. And maybe the 'days' in Genesis were actually billions of years and it's an accurate description of the Big Bang!
And you're right, no further 5 year period would make snow "a thing of the past"
So we are agreed that the 20 year prediction is going to be false just like the others and there was no point discussing how there's still a chance.
I'm sorry, but you are still making inaccurate claims about what CRU predicted and over what timescales.
The 20 year prediction referred specifically to heavy snow becoming unexpected and causing chaos when it happens. I see no reason at all to believe that will be false, or that it will have only a slim chance of being true.
The vague "few year" claim referred to snow becoming "rare and exciting". But arguably, that was already true in 2000 at the time of the article (which was indeed kind of the point of the article). So it's not necessary to argue about whether snow became even rarer later in the 2000s (or is becoming rarer slower than it used to), when there's really too little data to know over such a short period.
There was a totally undated claim referring to future children not seeing snow first-hand. You are clearly assuming that the "few year" time horizon also attached to that strong claim (and is therefore baloney); however, the article doesn't actually say that, and I rather doubt if CRU themselves ever said that. It does seem very unlikely to me that a climate scientist would ever make such a claim attached to a timescale of less than decades. (Though if they'd really meant hundreds of years, or billions of years, they'd presumably have said that: these guys really aren't like creationists).
Finally, the Independent put all of this under a truly lousy and misleading headline, when it is clear from what CRU actually said that snows were not and would not become a thing of the past (just rarer).
The general problem is that much of the newspaper article includes indirect speech, with only a few direct quotes, and the direct quotes aren't bound to a timescale (except the specific 20-year quote mentioned above). So it's hard to know exactly what CRU said.
The only dated prediction in the entire article related to 20 years, not 14 years, and the claim for 20 years was that snow would "probably" cause chaos then.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize 'within a few years' was so vague in English that it could easily embrace decades and I'm being tendentious in thinking that after 14 years we can safely call that prediction failed.
Still if you really want the statistics again, then the very latest published Met Office set runs up to 2009 if you really want to check, and the downward trend lines still continue all the way to the end of that data. See for instance this summary figures 2.32 and 2.35.
So first, that's 'air frost' ("usually defined as the air temperature being below freezing point of water at a height of at least one metre above the ground"), which is not what was in question. Second, looking at 2.32, the decline 2000-2007 (when the graph ends, so fully half the period in question when warming seems to have stopped) is far from impressive. Third, what's with it being 'filtered'? some sort of linear smoothing borrowing from the steeper-looking decline 1984-2000?
So if you want to claim that the trend in snow has recently stopped/reversed, then you are looking at a very short period (some cold winters in 2010-14).
No, I'm fine with your chosen smoothed graphs indicating only a shallow decline at best 2000-2007. No need to look just at 2010-2014, although certainly more recent data would probably help here.
And over periods that short, it's entirely possible we'll have another shift and be back onto the historic trend for the next five year period. So "catch up in six years" doesn't sound so implausible after all.
That sounds like wishful thinking. In those graphs, is there any 5-year period which if repeated would abruptly vindicate the confident predictions from 2000 that snow would soon be a thing of the past in England?
P.S. On the more technical points, the 2009 reports do not appear to plot the number of days of snow cover or cold spells (unlike the 2006 report) so I simply referred to the closest proxies which are plotted.
The "filtering" is indeed a form of local smoothing transform (other parts of the report refer to decadal smoothing) and this would explains why the graphs stop in 2007, rather than 2009: you really need a few years either side of the plotted year to do the smoothing. I can't see any evidence that the decline in the 80s was somehow factored into the plot in the 2000s.
The only dated prediction in the entire article related to 20 years, not 14 years, and the claim for 20 years was that snow would "probably" cause chaos then.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize 'within a few years' was so vague in English that it could easily embrace decades and I'm being tendentious in thinking that after 14 years we can safely call that prediction failed.
Still if you really want the statistics again, then the very latest published Met Office set runs up to 2009 if you really want to check, and the downward trend lines still continue all the way to the end of that data. See for instance this summary figures 2.32 and 2.35.
So first, that's 'air frost' ("usually defined as the air temperature being below freezing point of water at a height of at least one metre above the ground"), which is not what was in question. Second, looking at 2.32, the decline 2000-2007 (when the graph ends, so fully half the period in question when warming seems to have stopped) is far from impressive. Third, what's with it being 'filtered'? some sort of linear smoothing borrowing from the steeper-looking decline 1984-2000?
So if you want to claim that the trend in snow has recently stopped/reversed, then you are looking at a very short period (some cold winters in 2010-14).
No, I'm fine with your chosen smoothed graphs indicating only a shallow decline at best 2000-2007. No need to look just at 2010-2014, although certainly more recent data would probably help here.
And over periods that short, it's entirely possible we'll have another shift and be back onto the historic trend for the next five year period. So "catch up in six years" doesn't sound so implausible after all.
That sounds like wishful thinking. In those graphs, is there any 5-year period which if repeated would abruptly vindicate the confident predictions from 2000 that snow would soon be a thing of the past in England?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize 'within a few years' was so vague in English that it could easily embrace decades and I'm being tendentious in thinking that after 14 years we can safely call that prediction failed.
Got it - so the semantics of "a few years" is what you are basing the "failed prediction" claim on. Fair enough.
I have to say though that I read the "few years" part as an imprecise period relating to an imprecise qualitative prediction (that snow would become "rare and exciting"). Which as far as my family is concerned has been true. Again in an imprecise and qualitative way. Also, climate scientists do tend to think over a longer term, so a "few years" to a climate scientist could easily mean a few decades.
And you're right, no further 5 year period would make snow "a thing of the past" but we already agreed that was the Independent's headline, and not CRU's actual prediction. Rare snow in the 2020s is different from no snow in the 2020s.
What's the date?
Well, all the quotes I gave were drawn from http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html which was 14 years ago. That sounds like it'd cover 'within a few years'. And as for the exact 20 year forecast of 2010, well, that's just 6 years away. Not a lot of time to catch up.
A) Heavy snow does indeed already cause chaos in England when it happens (just google the last few years)
Yes, looks like the usual chaos you could find in the '80s and '90s to which the predicted 'chaos' was being compared as being greater.
B) My kids do indeed find snow a rare and exciting event (in fact there were zero days of snow here last winter, and only a few days the winter before)
And has your region changed much? And is your anecdote very trustworthy compared to the nation-wide changes in snowfall since 2000 (not much) when these predictions were made?
Sigh... The only dated prediction in the entire article related to 20 years, not 14 years, and the claim for 20 years was that snow would "probably" cause chaos then. Which you've just agreed is very likely to be true (based on some recent winters where some unexpected snow did cause chaos), but perhaps not that surprising (the quote did not in fact claim there would be more chaos than in the 1980s and 1990s).
All other claims had no specific dates, except to suggest generational changes (alluding to a coming generation of kids who would not have experienced snow themselves).
Regarding the evidence, I already gave you Met Office statistics, and explained why you can't get reliable trend info on a shorter timescale. You then asked anecdotal questions (is snow "rare and exciting", what would kids say if you asked them?) and I gave you anecdotal answers. But apparently that's not good enough either! Is there any set of evidence that would satisfy you?
Still if you really want the statistics again, then the very latest published Met Office set runs up to 2009 if you really want to check, and the downward trend lines still continue all the way to the end of that data. See for instance this summary figures 2.32 and 2.35.
So if you want to claim that the trend in snow has recently stopped/reversed, then you are looking at a very short period (some cold winters in 2010-14). And over periods that short, it's entirely possible we'll have another shift and be back onto the historic trend for the next five year period. So "catch up in six years" doesn't sound so implausible after all.
C) The only quoted statement with a timeline was for a period of 20 years, and spoke of heavy snow becoming rarer (rather than vanishing)
From the article:
'"We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.'
Does heavy snow cause chaos in England now?
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".
Is snow a 'very rare and exciting event' in England now?
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said...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.
If we asked them, would they not know first-hand what snow is, anymore than they know first-hand what wolves are?
I can't see how that counts as a failed prediction by the CRU (rather than the Independent newspaper).
You can't?
What's the date?
By your reaction, and the selective down votes, I have apparently fallen asleep, it is the 2020s already, and a 20-year prediction is already falsified.
But in answer to your questions:
A) Heavy snow does indeed already cause chaos in England when it happens (just google the last few years)
B) My kids do indeed find snow a rare and exciting event (in fact there were zero days of snow here last winter, and only a few days the winter before)
C) While my kids do have a bit of firsthand knowledge of snow, it is vastly less than my own experience at their age, which in turn was much less than my parents' experience.
If you are a resident of England yourself, and have other experiences, then please let me know...
"Over the 2000s" is certainly too short a period to reach significant conclusions.
I think the first question here is whether we have reached agreement on the forecasts being wrong, not what excuses should be made or conclusions drawn from said wrongness.
However the longer term trends are pretty clear.
Yes, I'm sure they were, and that those were the basis for the mistaken prediction. Your point?
I think we have agreement that:
A) The newspaper headline "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" was incorrect
B) The Climatic Research Unit never actually made such a prediction
C) The only quoted statement with a timeline was for a period of 20 years, and spoke of heavy snow becoming rarer (rather than vanishing)
D) This was an extrapolation of a longer term trend, which continued into the early 2000s (using Met Office data published in 2006, of course after the Independent story)
E) It is impossible to use short periods (~10 years since 2006) to decide whether such a climatic trend has stopped or reversed.
I can't see how that counts as a failed prediction by the CRU (rather than the Independent newspaper). If the CRU had said "there will be less snow in every subsequent year from now, for the next 20 years, in a declining monotonic trend" then that would indeed be a failed prediction. However, the CRU did not make such a prediction... no serious climate researcher would.
Clearly the Climatic Research Unit was not predicting no more snow in Britain by 2014.
Yes, but some googling suggests that average snowfall in England hasn't changed very much over the 2000s, which doesn't seem consistent with the linked article.
"Over the 2000s" is certainly too short a period to reach significant conclusions. However the longer term trends are pretty clear. See this Met Office Report from 2006.
Figure 8 shows a big drop in the length of cold spells since the 1960s. Figure 13 shows the drop in annual days of snow cover. The trend looks consistent across the country.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
I was going from memory, now that I've tracked down the actual links I'd modify the claims what was actually said, i.e., snowfalls becoming exceedingly rare and the West Side Highway being underwater.
Thanks.... Upvoted for honest admission of error.