[Misc] The Award-winning official "More Snow Tomorrow?" Thread [2024-25 Season]

[larus]

There are a lot of berries on a holly tree near my house. It's going to be a long cold winter.

Back in the real world - too early to say.

With the El Nino underway, this can often have an impact on NH winters making them colder. Also, this is coinciding with diminished solar activity as the current solar cycle is very weak, and, worryingly, the projections for the next one are that it will be even weaker.

This will be very interesting in the next 5 odd years or so, as the 'Pause' will extend much further and real global temperatures (not the ones constantly undergoing historical adjustments to make the past seem colder) are likely to start dropping. The Solar Activity was very high at the end of the last century, and guess what, global temperatures rose. Wow, who'd have though it eh!!

I realise that many are still firmly bedded to the idea that the increase of CO2 from about 3/10,000 to 4/10,000 (yes, a whole increase of 1 part per 10,000) will cause catastrophic climate change. Anyway, that is a totally separate subject

 

[Man of Harveys]

They've had a proper big dump of snow in parts of Germany overnight and not just in the Alps either - all seems a bit strong for October.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

They've had a proper big dump of snow in parts of Germany overnight and not just in the Alps either - all seems a bit strong for October.

Poland had an early snowfall as well, as I'm sure many parts of Eastern Europe. We're close to a perfect mid-winter setup at the moment, with High Pressure to the north / NE and low to the south. For us, it's too early and the air reaching us is too modified and warm for snow, but further east, away from the warm oceans / seas, with the air coming from Northern Scandinavia it's easily cold enough.

to answer the earlier question there ARE some indicators for a cold winter here:

1. El Nino - there is a weak correlation between El Nino events, and a colder second half to winter, so February and March.
2. Sea Surface temps - there is a large pool of colder sea water in the Atlantic to our west. This can decrease the modification of air coming to us from the SW / W / NW - making these airflows cooler / colder - making showers more likely to be wintry, mainly in the NW / N though.
3. Solar output - as [MENTION=240]larus[/MENTION] mentioned above, we are in a prolonged 'solar minimum' - and quite a low one, in terms of solar output. There is a decent correlation between the colder periods historically in NW europe and similar solar minima - such as the Maunder Minimum that occurred during the little Ice Age.
4. Early N Hemisphere snow fall - there is a theory as well that early and persistent Northern European and Asian snowfall can increase the chances of High pressure building to our NE, which is often a driver of truly cold weather here. So, we would need the snow that's already fallen to remain.

Having said all of this, there is no certainty, and all it would take is an active Atlantic and a blocking high in the wrong place to give us months of mild sh*t, like last winter.

 

[Trufflehound]

Bring on the mild sh*t, I say.

#feckinghatecoldweather

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Jet stream split going N & S, blocking high pressure, torrential for Shetland & Portugal, nasty NE for 5 days for us, 0c overnight, according to BBC

 

[Seagull27]

With the El Nino underway, this can often have an impact on NH winters making them colder. Also, this is coinciding with diminished solar activity as the current solar cycle is very weak, and, worryingly, the projections for the next one are that it will be even weaker.

This will be very interesting in the next 5 odd years or so, as the 'Pause' will extend much further and real global temperatures (not the ones constantly undergoing historical adjustments to make the past seem colder) are likely to start dropping. The Solar Activity was very high at the end of the last century, and guess what, global temperatures rose. Wow, who'd have though it eh!!

I realise that many are still firmly bedded to the idea that the increase of CO2 from about 3/10,000 to 4/10,000 (yes, a whole increase of 1 part per 10,000) will cause catastrophic climate change. Anyway, that is a totally separate subject

Regardless of what you believe about climate change, basing your conclusions that it can't possibly be because of an increase in CO2 because it's such a small amount, shows a distinct misunderstanding of how a large number of chemical processes work.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

With the El Nino underway, this can often have an impact on NH winters making them colder. Also, this is coinciding with diminished solar activity as the current solar cycle is very weak, and, worryingly, the projections for the next one are that it will be even weaker.

This will be very interesting in the next 5 odd years or so, as the 'Pause' will extend much further and real global temperatures (not the ones constantly undergoing historical adjustments to make the past seem colder) are likely to start dropping. The Solar Activity was very high at the end of the last century, and guess what, global temperatures rose. Wow, who'd have though it eh!!

I realise that many are still firmly bedded to the idea that the increase of CO2 from about 3/10,000 to 4/10,000 (yes, a whole increase of 1 part per 10,000) will cause catastrophic climate change. Anyway, that is a totally separate subject

Yours is a much better explanation as to why we will get a colder winter and makes sense.

 

[larus]

Regardless of what you believe about climate change, basing your conclusions that it can't possibly be because of an increase in CO2 because it's such a small amount, shows a distinct misunderstanding of how a large number of chemical processes work.

Actually, I've done a lot of reading on the subject away from the propaganda sites like BBC.

Why has it changed from Global Warming to Climate Change?
The physics behind CO2 trapping additional heat in the atmosphere is flawed.
Why were the University Of East Anglia trying to 'hide the pause'?
Michael Mann (the famous Hockey Stick graph) has been discredited as his methods for creating were flawed.
The 97% of scientists agree with global warming is a lie. This 'statistic' was obtained by determining how many papers reference global warming. So, if a paper was sceptical, it would still have been counted in the 97%. Unbelievable.
The use of extreme language. Polluting the atmosphere in relation to CO2. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, and is beneficial for plant growth. The more there is, the GREENER the planet is as plants grow faster with less water.
Sea ice around Antarctica is at it's highest level ever recorded (based on out limited years of satellite photographs).
Global temperatures have never been static and will never be static.
The planet goes though changes in it's orbit which affect our exposure to the sun, e.g. Milankovitch cycle.[h=3]Yet, they can say with CERTAINTY, that a 1 part in 10,000 increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of everything.[/h]
Maybe you need to read some of the sceptical arguments and then form an opinion.

 

[Seagull27]

Actually, I've done a lot of reading on the subject away from the propaganda sites like BBC.

Why has it changed from Global Warming to Climate Change?
The physics behind CO2 trapping additional heat in the atmosphere is flawed.
Why were the University Of East Anglia trying to 'hide the pause'?
Michael Mann (the famous Hockey Stick graph) has been discredited as his methods for creating were flawed.
The 97% of scientists agree with global warming is a lie. This 'statistic' was obtained by determining how many papers reference global warming. So, if a paper was sceptical, it would still have been counted in the 97%. Unbelievable.
The use of extreme language. Polluting the atmosphere in relation to CO2. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, and is beneficial for plant growth. The more there is, the GREENER the planet is as plants grow faster with less water.
Sea ice around Antarctica is at it's highest level ever recorded (based on out limited years of satellite photographs).
Global temperatures have never been static and will never be static.
The planet goes though changes in it's orbit which affect our exposure to the sun, e.g. Milankovitch cycle.[h=3]Yet, they can say with CERTAINTY, that a 1 part in 10,000 increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of everything.[/h]
Maybe you need to read some of the sceptical arguments and then form an opinion.

This discussion is for another day and certainly another thread; however, I was merely stating that the assumption that just because the increase of a chemical in a system is only a hundred or so ppm means that it doesn't have a significant effect, is not necessarily correct.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Actually, I've done a lot of reading on the subject away from the propaganda sites like BBC.

Why has it changed from Global Warming to Climate Change?
The physics behind CO2 trapping additional heat in the atmosphere is flawed.
Why were the University Of East Anglia trying to 'hide the pause'?
Michael Mann (the famous Hockey Stick graph) has been discredited as his methods for creating were flawed.
The 97% of scientists agree with global warming is a lie. This 'statistic' was obtained by determining how many papers reference global warming. So, if a paper was sceptical, it would still have been counted in the 97%. Unbelievable.
The use of extreme language. Polluting the atmosphere in relation to CO2. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, and is beneficial for plant growth. The more there is, the GREENER the planet is as plants grow faster with less water.
Sea ice around Antarctica is at it's highest level ever recorded (based on out limited years of satellite photographs).
Global temperatures have never been static and will never be static.
The planet goes though changes in it's orbit which affect our exposure to the sun, e.g. Milankovitch cycle.[h=3]Yet, they can say with CERTAINTY, that a 1 part in 10,000 increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of everything.[/h]
Maybe you need to read some of the sceptical arguments and then form an opinion.

I used to think this way - I then read more on the subject, and now, on balance I think Climate Change in the form of warming by CO2 is real.

 

[BigGully]

I used to think this way - I then read more on the subject, and now, on balance I think Climate Change in the form of warming by CO2 is real.

I tend to be a none believer, firstly by its very nature the Climate does change and I genuinely do not trust the science which again by its very nature becomes obsolete nearly immediately and not all of the science agrees with the other.

There has been so much money and political self interest that I am naturally sceptical.

 

[pb21]

Actually, I've done a lot of reading on the subject away from the propaganda sites like BBC.

Why has it changed from Global Warming to Climate Change?

It hasn't 'changed'; the global average temperature is predicted to increase more than it would otherwise due to anthropogenic sources of green house gases in the atmosphere, along with other changes to the climate. Climate change/Global warming aren't names they are both the same processes, you could call the theory/process anything you like and it would still be the same.

The physics behind CO2 trapping additional heat in the atmosphere is flawed.
Why were the University Of East Anglia trying to 'hide the pause'?
Michael Mann (the famous Hockey Stick graph) has been discredited as his methods for creating were flawed.
The 97% of scientists agree with global warming is a lie. This 'statistic' was obtained by determining how many papers reference global warming. So, if a paper was sceptical, it would still have been counted in the 97%. Unbelievable.
The use of extreme language. Polluting the atmosphere in relation to CO2. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, and is beneficial for plant growth. The more there is, the GREENER the planet is as plants grow faster with less water.
Sea ice around Antarctica is at it's highest level ever recorded (based on out limited years of satellite photographs).
Global temperatures have never been static and will never be static.
The planet goes though changes in it's orbit which affect our exposure to the sun, e.g. Milankovitch cycle. Yet, they can say with CERTAINTY, that a 1 part in 10,000 increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of everything.
Maybe you need to read some of the sceptical arguments and then form an opinion.

I find it weird how people are more accepting of the fact that there is a global conspiracy going on, i.e. climate change isn't real but for some reason we are being told it is, rather than accept the theory of climate change!

You mention the small increase in CO2 within the atmosphere and that it cant have an effect. What on earth are you basing that on? At what point do you consider it would become significant and that's all it really is, it doesnt necessarily take much change to have a subsequently bigger influence? Also 'they' don't say it with certainty!

No doubt the issue is politicised and evolving (like all theory) but that doesn't make it not true or a global conspiracy!

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Please don't let this thread get enbroiled in a climate Change debate - I get enough of this on the weather forums.

You may be reassured to know that there are many vociferous pro and anti AGW proponents on there as well..

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I think we can all be glad the increases are relatively small - just look at the climate on Venus for the results of a large increase.

 

[TottonSeagull]

I just opened the thread to see if we were going to enjoy a tad of snow tomorrow and get bombarded with a climate change debate
I will tune back in in deepest darkest winter!

 

[supaseagull]

I just opened the thread to see if we were going to enjoy a tad of snow tomorrow and get bombarded with a climate change debate
I will tune back in in deepest darkest winter!

Have to agree. Can we keep this as a weather/snow related thread? If you want a discussion about climate change(yes I know the two are interlinked) : start another thread.

 

[BigGully]

I have to say that it would of been easy just to let it roll, those that happened to comment on climate change seemed unlikely to get embroiled in anything, it was just passing comments, nearly as many post from sudden weather moderators commenting on what others should and should not post, so unnecessary intervention in my view.

There have been over 9500+ post on this thread and I am guessing there have been many deviations from will it or wont it snow and rightly so, the weather immediate or longer term have many facets to its outcomes so seemed a reasonable chat.

It hardly took up one page of the 9500 to date, just saying.

 

[chucky1973]

I'm in the "keep the thread about when it's going to start flumping" team
No climate change business on this thread.

 

[dazzer6666]

I'm in the "keep the thread about when it's going to start flumping" team
No climate change business on this thread.

This.

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

On the BBC Breakfast the other day we were promised 'perky' showers. Sounds rather fun in an odd sort of way.