Thursday, December 12, 2013

Does a snowfall mean more than that it is snowing?

A climate fearmonger called Jared Huffman (D-Calif) who is ironically employed as the U.S. Congressman has said some "audacious" things in the U.S. Parliament:
We've Reached The Point Where Climate Change Deniers Need To Be Reminded That It Snows Every Year (The Huffington Post)
He tried to "remind" his colleagues that "a snowfall in December does not disprove climate change".

Well, the only problem is that it does.

I am not talking about the tautological climate change – the self-evident fact that the climate is changing and has been changing for 4.6 billion years, something that every sensible person is able to see. I am talking about the "climate change" that has been presented by some individuals as a problem. This one *is* disproved by the annual snowfall.

Just open the March 2000 article where the proponents of this "climate change" articulate the predictions of their theory for the snowfall:
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past (The Independent)
The senior representatives of the Britain's key centers of the "climate change" belief system – the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Center – agreed that this "climate change" implies that the snowfall is a matter of the past, children wouldn't know what snow was, they would be emotionally debilitated (among dozens of other brutal consequences that they envisioned), and the frequency of snowfall will drop to 1 event in 20 years which would therefore cause lots of chaos every other decade. These are the predictions of the "climate change" and they have been proven wrong. It's as simple as that.

No significant trend in the snowfall on the Northern Hemisphere has existed since the 1960s.

So Mr Huffman's claim that the annual snowfall – an event that nothing whatsoever seems to be changing about – doesn't disprove the "climate change" is simply a lie. "Climate change" in this narrow sense – a hypothetical problem – has been defined as a collection of predicted phenomena in the near future and they have been falsified, so Mr Huffman's Republican colleagues are right to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. It's really their moral duty.

Mr Huffman's handwaving and chaotic chatter about drought in winter and tons of other things are different hypotheses than what the self-described "scientific consensus" has been calling "climate change" for many years. He should invent a new term for these new conspiracy theories – but new names notwithstanding, be sure that they're as invalid as the "mutations" of the dangerous climate change hypothesis that have already bitten the dust many years ago.

People like Mr Huffman are the deniers of the reality and their environment should make this indisputable fact very clear to them. They may try to mask their previous lies by emitting dozens of new lies and impress their dogs or the Huffington Post readers – but they can't impress intelligent listeners who remember what this crook and similar crooks have been predicting for decades and that well over 99% of this stuff has been proven to be completely wrong.


  1. I wish there was more data. Most likely it correlates with PDO and AMO, but there might be a ~22 year periodicity. Maybe we don't see 11 global average temp signals because the polarity and hemisphere of solar activity matter too.

  2. I don't know where you get these ridiculous statistics, Lubos. As can be plainly seen from this satellite image taken in 2010, due to extreme dryness from the lack of snow, the UK is now covered in a layer of fine, white dust.

  3. Reverse the sign of all bars above the line to cancel the parity anomaly. What greater evidence is required? Social activism maximizes self-esteem to be credible, effectively selecting for the deluded.

  4. John F. HultquistDec 13, 2013, 8:17:00 AM

    The first 4 paragraphs will tell you
    more than you want to know about this man.

  5. Another terrifying sign of global warming:

    Translation: 20 inches of snow just fell in Jerusalem. The crusaders should have been so lucky.


  7. It's prettier, more canonical snow cover than what we have received for several years here! ;-)

    You can see that the people don't have the right tools to shovel the snow and they don't know the right shapes of a snowman. :-)

  8. Lubos, the chart you are showing is February snow cover. The kinda funny thing is that the summer snow cover has been declining, winter increasing, and the annual average suddenly declined in the late eighties and was basically flat afterward:

    This is still inconsistent with the notion that snow will disappear from global warming, but is also kind of an interesting detail.

  9. "Summer snow" cover has been declining? Strange, Cerastium tomentosum has the reputation of as tough as nails: even deer won't eat it ;-)

  10. Well, if you go far north enough, snow cover persists through the entire year.

    Incidentally, there is a latitude at which the relationship between snow *fall* and temperature reverses sign due to decreased moisture in colder air. the problem for anyone wanting to claim more snow in the US is due to warming, is that latitude is up in Canada:

    Basically everywhere in the US, warmer temperatures mean less snowfall. Golly, who'd a thunk it, right? ;)

  11. Heh, now I get the joke.

  12. Hmm, I don't remember that there are any references in the Bible or any of its progenitors of snow much less serious snow. Is that just a limitation of my knowledge or was it so common or so rare that there wasn't anything to notice back then?