Latest posts by James H. Rust (see all)
- Global Warming Hoax, Best Document Ever - June 13, 2017
- Trump Advances the U.S. Economy by Canceling Paris Climate Agreement - June 2, 2017
- Drain the Swamp of the Biofuels Waste of Tax Dollars - May 7, 2017
Page A3 of the February 19, 2013, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution featured an article by Associated Press science reporter Seth Borenstein “U. S. sees less snow, but more blizzards.” Surprisingly, the article was not posted on the Internet; but is found on the Huffington Post.
The article explained soon to be published computer modeling shows global warming caused by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide causes less snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. However, there will be an increase in blizzards. This provides cover for explaining serious snow storms taking place for centuries and the last few weeks.
Possibly reporter Borenstein was unaware of a posting February 5, 2013, by The National Snow & Ice Data Center that contained the following information:
“As noted in a previous post, Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent for June 2012 set a record low, continuing a downward trend in springtime snow extent. Satellite data from the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab show that after Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent for December 2012 reached a record high for the month of 46.27 million square kilometers (17.86 million square miles), extent during January increased to a monthly average of 48.64 million square kilometers (18.78 million square miles). This was the sixth-highest January extent in the record, dating back to 1967. Snow cover was higher than average throughout much of the western United States as well as northern Europe and eastern China. Snow cover was lower than normal over the central U.S., and much of southern Asia, including the Tibetan Plateau.”
As shown by this article, over the period from 1967 to February 2013 in which Rutgers University collects snow data, record snow occurred last December and January 2013 snow was sixth highest in 46 years. The record low snow cover for June 2012 amounted to a little over ten percent reduction from the average June snow fall for the 46 years.
Looking at data over the entire range of years shows annual snow cover does not change more than a few million square kilometers from year-to-year in 46 years. When you observe Northern Hemisphere snow cover varies from about 16 million square kilometers to 50 million square kilometers over the 46 years, it is evident annual changes are far less than ten percent year-to-year.
This prophesy of reduced snow fall reported by Mr. Borenstein brings back memory of the prophecy of a senior climate scientist at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit about impending disappearance of snow fall. As reported in the British newspaper The Independent on March 20, 2000:
“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.” Since then the UK has been struck with numerous snowstorms, some of record proportions, including 2013.”
For those with good memories, the Climatic Research Unit was the sources of thousands of e-mails showing collaboration of a few dozen climate scientists across the world to fudge experimental global temperature data, stop publication of research papers showing carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels had negligible effect on global warming, and prevent release of experimental data paid for by taxpayers in governments across the world. This breach of scientific integrity was called “Climategate” and thousand of Internet articles describe what happened. One start is found here at Climategate.com.
Prophecies of catastrophic events due to carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels have been reported for a century. None have come to pass. It appears actual events are not obeying computer modeling. Using computer modeling for establishing energy policy is the height of folly.