Australian snowfields rejoice after ‘Blizzard of Oz’ turns slopes into winter wonderland
It’s been dubbed “the Blizzard of Oz”, and powder hounds could not be happier.
Australia’s ski resorts in the Snowy Mountains, in New South Wales, and Victoria’s Alpine National Park were covered with the white stuff this morning after both reported the best falls of the season at the weekend.
More than 1.15 metres of snow has been dumped at Thredbo from Friday morning to 6:00am today.
BUT, wasn’t ‘snowfall’ meant to be “a very rare and exciting event.” And, that “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” ?
Those expert predictions made back in 2000 by esteemed climatologist Dr David Viner of the UK’s CRU (Climate Research Unit):
From the Independent’s most cited article: “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past” by Charles Onians:
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 Independent has since removed the article! The page used to look like this:
The original article:
Link now boots back to their homepage.
Our friends at WUWT have preserved the entire article as a PDF for posterity:
In fairness, perhaps the good Dr Viner was
colluding consulting with the virtuous partners of climate catastrophe expertise – the UN IPCC who, as well, predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased…
Australia’s “premier” scientific government organisation, the (warmist) CSIRO, jumped on the “end of snow” bandwagon in August 2003:
Simulations of future snow conditions in the Australian alpine regions were prepared for the years 2020 and 2050…
The low impact scenario for 2020 has a minor impact on snow conditions. Average season lengths are reduced by around five days. Reductions in peak depths are usually less than 10%, but can be larger at lower sites (e.g. Mt Baw Baw and Wellington High Plains).
The high impact scenario for 2020 leads to reductions of 30-40 days in average season lengths. At higher sites such as Mt Hotham, this can represent reductions in season duration of about 25%, but at lower sites such as Mt Baw Baw the reduction can be more significant (up to 60%)…
We have very high confidence (at least 95%) that the low impact scenarios will be exceeded and the high impact scenarios will not be exceeded.
(Page Not Found – LOL !)
BACK IN THE REAL WORLD
Winter Northern Hemisphere snow extent is trending upwards, and 2017 was amongst the highest on record, despite rising CO2 emissions and the “Hottest Year Evah” thing:
AND as for the expert predictions of the CSIRO, who assured us of the end of snow by 2020/2030…
Australia’s snowfields have been overdosed by snow over the past decade.
In fact, SH snow extent is increasing as global CO2 rises – the exact opposite of what you were told by all those experts…
2016 – Extended season:
2017 – THE “Blizzard Of Oz” ! :
WHEN will those expert scientists, esteemed government agencies and respected mainstream media outlets who peddle the fake global warming catastrophe, spreading scientific falsehoods with impunity, be held to account? Or at least admit they got it wrong?
That “science” certainly ain’t “settled”.
UPDATE – August 8, 2017
Emergency services warn of avalanches in Victoria’s alpine region
EMERGENCY services have issued an avalanche warning for Victoria’s alpine region as tourists have been urged to avoid skiing, snowboarding, or hiking in remote areas.
Warmer weather and strong wind is expected to increase the risk of avalanches at Mt Bogong, mt feathertop, Mt Buller, Mt Hotham and Falls Creek today.
DO hope SMH’s (Fairfax media) resident global warming catastrophist Peter Hannam has received this alert, if he plans to visit Australia’s ski fields. The one’s that he and those expert scientists say won’t be around much longer thanks to you and your SUV…
Snowy retreat: Climate change puts Australia’s ski industry on a downhill slope
August 5 – Last week’s fake news – Sydney Morning Herald
Australia’s ski resorts face the prospect of a long downhill run as a warming climate reduces snow depth, cover and duration. The industry’s ability to create artificial snow will also be challenged, scientists say.
- EXTREME WEATHER Expert: “World Is Presently In An Era Of Unusually Low Weather Disasters” | Climatism
- The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con | Climatism
- Understanding The “Hottest Year Evah” | Climatism
CSIRO Dud-Predictions Related :
- Why CSIRO and BoM Cannot Be Trusted On Anything “Climate Change” | Climatism
- CSIRO Censoring Their Own Climate Research | Climatism
- Wash-out: Warmist Bureau’s Drought Prediction Fail | Climatism
- The Science is Settled : “Children Just Aren’t Going To Know What Snow Is” | Climatism
- Aussie CSIRO Predicts the End of Wheat Yield Gains | Climatism
- Shock News 1923 : Meteorological Office Exists as a Corrective to Scare Mongering | Climatism
- How they tried to fool you about the rain | Herald Sun
- It’s Time To Declare War On Global Warming Extremists | Climatism
ALEX EPSTEIN, author of the New York Times best-selling book “The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels” brilliantly and succinctly lays out why the much touted “97% of climate scientists agree” meme, amounts to nothing more than clever PR and propaganda used by climate alarmists to promote the Left’s pet environmental/political cause – “man-made
global warming climate change”…
Before you view Alex’s terrific 4:36min presentation, ask yourself how plausible a 97% consensus of any belief or argument really is, without it having been subject to bogus and deceitful manipulation.
- How many elections are won by a 97% majority?
- 100% of doctors believed passive smoking caused cancer until that theory was quashed.
- 100% of doctors believed cholesterol was deadly until recently.
If 97% of Meteorologists can’t predict the weather next week, why do 97% of climate
expertsalarmists think that they can predict the climate 100 years from now?
Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.
These 30,000+ “scientists” weren’t sucked in by the “97%” climate consensus hoax…
The “97%” Hoax Related :
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | Climatism
- IPCC Insider Says That The 97% Consensus Actually Consists Of “A Few Dozen” | Climatism
- 97 Articles Refuting The ‘97% Consensus’ on global warming | Climatism
- 97% Of Climate “Experts” Promised You The Arctic Would Be Ice-Free By 2014 | Climatism
- The Cook ‘97% consensus’ paper, exposed by new book for the fraud that it really is | Watts Up With That?
- Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims | Forbes
- Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | National Review
- TOP READ: The 99.99% pure climate consensus – how to ignore thousands of skeptical scientists « JoNova
Paul Homewood of NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT recently posted a blog listing ten reasons countering climate “scientist” Katharine Hayhoe’s assertion that some of us don’t believe in global warming because we don’t care!
I don’t know a single person who doesn’t “care” about the planet or their environment. So, it would appear Katharine is using more of that divisive and marginalising language favoured by the totalitarian Left, in preference to facts and reason, in a deliberate effort to force you into a narrow set of beliefs that align with the alarmist orthodoxy.
By extension, these ten points lay out fundamental reasoning as to why increasingly, more and more climate truth-seekers are forming a sceptical view of the hayhoe-hysterical “climate change” debate.
And, they happen to make an excellent resource for your next friendly climate debate!
1) We don’t trust climate scientists.
The Climategate emails revealed just how untrustworthy the climate establishment has become.
We know that literally billions in grants are being shovelled their way, and that these grants would quickly dry up if they dropped their alarmism.
2) We don’t like being misled.
You, Katharine, have form in this respect, as you know.
It was you who claimed, in a magazine article in 2011, that increasing winter temperatures in Texas were a sign of climate change.
You came to this conclusion by starting your analysis in 1965, right at the start of a cold period.
You, of course, must have known that warming since then was just part of a cycle, and that temperatures have actually changed little since the 1920s.
Texas Winter Mean Temperatures
3) It was hotter in the 1930s
We are aware that temperatures across the US were considerable higher in the 1930s than in recent years.
Is it surprising that people are not in the least concerned about current climate?
4) It was warmer in the Middle Ages
Despite various attempts to disappear the MWP, evidence worldwide indicates that the climate was just as warm then as now, and that previous warm periods, such as the Roman and Minoan, were warmer still.
There is nothing unprecedented about current climate, so why should we be concerned?
5) The 19thC was the coldest period since the ice age
Ice cores show that the Little Ice Age was an exceptionally cold time. Why should we be surprised or concerned that there has been a small amount of warming since?
6) Cold kills
There can be no question at all that our current climate is beneficial compared with the cold of the Little Ice Age.
Or maybe you would prefer to return to that age of famine, cold, storms, floods and drought?
7) Extreme weather is not increasing
Despite climate scientists attempts to blame every bit of bad weather on climate change, there is no evidence that extreme weather is getting worse.
Droughts in the US, that were severe and widespread in the 1930s and 50s, have become much less of a problem since.
The US has now gone 11 years without a major hurricane, the longest such period on record.
The USGS can find no evidence that flooding has got worse.
And tornado activity has also diminished significantly since the cold years of the 1970s.
8) We don’t trust your data
Global temperature data has continually been adjusted to show more warming.
Yet the satellite data continues to diverge from surface data, and still shows temperatures have not increased since 1998.
9) Apocalypse never comes
For many years, we have been fed scare stories of apocalypse round the corner. These, of course, never materialise.
If climate scientists were to treat us with a bit of respect, honestly admitted that they have little idea of what is to come, and stopped trying to intimidate us with silly scares, you might find that we returned that respect.
10) Redistribution of wealth
Your attempts to treat us like children and trust the nice scientists ignore the issue.
Regardless of the science, the whole issue of climate change has been hijacked by politicians, the UN and a veritable army of vested interests.
People are not stupid, and know that developed countries have committed to transferring $100bn a year to developing ones, as part of the Paris Agreement.
Christina Figueres herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.
- 15 Questions Why Climate Change Is A Complete Hoax | Climatism
- 7 REASONS Why Activist Orgs Like NatGeo (Sadly) Cannot Be Trusted On Anything “Climate Change” | Climatism
- 22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths On Global Warming | Climatism
- Twelve Reasons Why The Paris Climate Talks Are A Total Waste | Climatism
A beginning to the end of politicized, monopolized and monetized, one-way, CO2-centric climate ‘science’. About time!
Interviewed by Breitbart’s Joel Pollak, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says the American people deserve ‘a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2.’ Pruitt calls for the establishment of a ‘Red Team/Blue Team’ of scientist to examine ‘what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world’.
EPA ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT: “What the American people deserve, I think, is a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2. And, you know there was a great article that was in the Wall Street Journal, about a month or so ago, Joel, called ‘Red Team/Blue Team’ by Steve Koonin, a scientist I believe at NYU. And, he talked about the importance of having a red team of scientist and a blue team of scientists and those scientists get in a room and ask what do we know, what don’t…
View original post 61 more words
More inconvenient climate change (aka global warming) news…
Heavy ice is making it impossible for fishermen from the Twillingate area to get to their crab fishing grounds. It may not open up until mid-May. (Twitter/@jeddore1972) Source: CBC
The title of this post sounds contradictory to most of what the media is saying about Arctic ice being in a tailspin, setting records for low extents, etc. And reports of ice blocking Newfoundland also fly in the face of media claims.
I will let you in on a secret: Arctic Ocean ice is doing fine and well above the decadal average. The only place where ice is below normal is outside the Arctic Ocean, namely Bering and Okhotsk Seas in the Pacific. Claims of disappearing ice pertain not to the Arctic itself, but to marginal Pacific seas that will melt out anyway in September.
I noticed the pattern this April when it became obvious that including Bering and Okhotsk in…
View original post 513 more words
“The gap between observations and models persists. The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 °C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5; ref. 19) ensemble-mean projection1—a gap two to four times the observed trend.
The hiatus therefore continues to challenge climate science.”
– Nature Climate Change (PEER-REVIEWED STUDY)
“This paper published today in Nature Climate Change by Hedemann et al. not only confirms the existence of “the pause” in global temperature, but suggests a cause, saying “…the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance“.
That’s an important sentence, because it demonstrates that despite many claims to the contrary, CO2 induced forcing of the planetary temperature is not the control knob, and natural variability remains in force.”
The “pause/hiatus” in Global Warming is now nearing 20 YEARS. This despite *record* man-made CO2 emitted over the same period.
Don’t be at all surprised if – CNN, BBC, ABC, CNBC, LATimes, NYTimes, WaPo, The Age, SMH and the rest of the “climate change” obsessed sycophant media don’t report this massively inconvenient climate news. – Too many reputations, jobs, govt grants and funding are now at stake.
The “uncertainty monster” strikes again
We’ve been highly critical for some time of the paper in summer 2015 by Karl et al. that claimed “the pause” or hiatus went away once “properly adjusted” ocean surface temperature data was applied to the global surface temperature dataset. Virtually everyone in the climate skeptic community considers Karl et al. little more than a sleight of hand.
No matter, this paper published today in Nature Climate Change by Hedemann et al. not only confirms the existence of “the pause” in global temperature, but suggests a cause, saying “…the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance“.
That’s an important sentence, because it demonstrates that despite many claims to the contrary, CO2 induced forcing of the planetary temperature is not the control knob, and natural variability remains in force.
Also of note, see the offset as designated…
View original post 1,026 more words
“One of the key predicted observations of anthropogenic CO2 climate theory is the existence of an equatorial tropospheric hotspot.
“But nobody has yet managed to unequivocally detect that predicted hotspot.”
IMO, one of the most important pieces of the “global warming” aka “climate change” aka “climate disruption” debate … the missing ‘Hot-Spot’.
Dr David Evans wrote an excellent piece on the missing “hot spot” back in 2008:
“No Smoking Hot Spot”
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein
German garden gnome. By Colibri1968 at English Wikipedia (Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons.) [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsGuest essay by Eric Worrall
One thing which struck me about the recent climate science hearing is how little attention was paid to Dr. John Christy’s demonstration of a flawed climate model prediction – the missing Tropospheric hotspot.
A flawed prediction does not automatically mean the models are totally wrong – but it is a strong indicator that something isn’t right.
Consider the primary observation. The world has warmed since the mid 1850s, and for the sake of argument lets assume that the world has warmed since the mid 1930s.
Given that warming, you could propose a number of different theories for the cause of that warming, for example;
1. Chaotic shifts in ocean currents or solar influences have influenced global temperature.
2. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused global temperature to rise
View original post 872 more words