Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


A short climate/weather observation

No measurable snow fell in Toronto today; this is the first time in 162 years, according to the Toronto meteorologists, that no measurable snowfall fell in the city of Toronto (during the entire month of November) . With isolated exceptions, that is pretty much also the case for the rest of Southern/Southwestern Ontario. If the opposite scenario had happened -  where the province/city of Toronto  had the most snow in November in 162 years -  you can bet the skeptics of climate change would be all over the place having a field day in the media about how global warming/climate change wasn’t real; this was proof etc.

Now, I’m not saying that a new mark for lack of snow in the month of November in over a century and a half proves the theory of climate change/global warming is happening, but you’ll probably notice almost nothing in the media about that aspect/angle of things, as opposed to the shrillness that would have occurred had the opposite scenario happened.


10 comments to A short climate/weather observation

  • MoS

    Now I know you’re talking Toronto but you have to look well out to the eastern Pacific to understand what’s going on. We like to call it El Nino Modoki, Modoki being the Japanese word for “same but different.” It influences winter temperatures worldwide, to Europe even. All those deluges that have hit the island lately are typical of El Nino. Your warm winter is too. It operates in conjunction with, not to the exclusion of, global warming. Wait, there’s a lot more coming in 10-20 years from now, a lot more. Then those annoying denialists will finally crawl back into their holes.

    We see it out here already. They see it in the north already. Pacific and Indian ocean islanders know exactly what’s happening. Turdblossoms in the prairies and inland regions don’t get it – but they will. In fact it’ll be far more debilitating ecologically for them than in those regions moderated by sea coasts.

    • @MoS, “those annoying denialists will finally crawl back into their holes.”

      No, they’ll just blame the scientists for not being ‘good enough.’

      Besides, by then the propaganda mills (CEI, Cato Institute, Heartland Institute, Fraser Institute…) which are really behind the denialism drive, will just argue that we have to adapt and live with the changes. “Too expensive otherwise,” they will say.

      I’d love to see several years of their emails. Want to talk about real conspiracies?

      • @Mark Francis, …will just argue that we have to adapt and live with the changes.

        Along those lines, Harper committed an impressive $10 billion Cdn dollars at the Commonwealth conference. Not one cent of the $10,000,000,000 is earmarked for CO2 reduction. The $10 billion is all to go towards helping poor countries deal with the “inevitable” effects of AGW.

        Just like the detainee issue. First, deny. Then, when denial becomes absurd, accept the truth but claim there was no alternative except to increase CO2 output (or hand over prisoners for probable torture.) Toss in a heaping dollop of blame the other guys and you have the Con’s recipe for dealing with serious issues.

  • I applaud you for bringing this to our attention. Though I assume when we get our catastrophic ice age in 20 years, there will be plenty of snow covering the Northern Hemisphere!

    Harper must go!

  • sharonapple

    It’s depressing to have a November without snow.

    If you’re looking for raw data…. you can find stuff like that in the science journals. You can probably get your hands on some at a university library, or if your local library has a subscription. I’d advise getting a good textbook (get a recommendation from a librarian, or if you can find out what the professors are recommending at the campus bookstore) so that you can figure out the fundamentals behind the work.

    As for looking at ten years… why not a 100?

  • Prairie Kid

    I completely agree about the media. It seems that they’ve invested so much news space to climate change that they’re not ready to admit that it might not be all that it’s cracked up to be.

    I know CBC and several other outlets have yet to really air anything substantial about the leaked emails.

    I just wish that all the raw data that was collected would have been shared by ALL scientists rather than the current cult of scientists who have everything to gain by crying “the sky is falling”.

    • @Prairie Kid, There isn’t too much substantial about them — yes, I’ve been reading them. First, they change nothing. Data independent of the NRU’s has duplicated what the NRU data says many times. As for data availability, well, almost all of it has been available online for years. For some reasons, Global Warming denialists haven’t used it to create their own models. I wonder why? The remainder should come out soon, as long as certain third parties (not Mann et al) give permission.

      Second, talk about pushing minority interpretations! It’s ridiculous.

      Excuse me for a sec, I have to hunt down my kids — Oops! Now I’m a serial killer!

      It’s sad that these standards and efforts have not been applied to the frauds like Singer and Mckitrick and Monckton… They aren’t hard to take down.

      If people really want to make news about this, they’d best produce some quality peer review material and get it published. 10,000 monkeys banging on a keyboard won’t do anything.

      Also, the community knows that the Mann Hockey Stick is not important. Denialists have attacked it for years, and keep saying that it’s some sort of cornerstone to the science, but it simply isn’t. That’s just all PR narrative.

      As for some interesting stuff about the emails, here’s some “damning” details in the emails the denialists seem to have missed: The scientists talking about scientific fraud! And then they conspire!

      Well, actually, they talk about a fraud denialist paper, and systematically chop it to bits. What’s interesting is they don’t invoke some illuminati-like influence. They sit down and systematically tear apart the science arguments used.

      Anyway, PK, here’s your climate data, long available on the Internet, now collected into one place for those not too handy with Google:

      Get to work!

  • Prairie Kid

    Check the average temperatures for the last 10 years NOT the last day and you’ll see a trend. It seems to me you’re grasping at straws in light of all these emails coming out.

    • @Prairie Kid,

      Actually, I don’t think that he is. As Scott said “I’m not saying that a new mark for lack of snow in the month of November in over a century and a half proves the theory of climate change/global warming is happening”. What Scott is saying, as far as I can tell, is that those who deny that climate change is happening tend to overblow relatively localized changes in weather patterns rather than looking at longer-term trends. In other words, he is accusing climate change deniers of doing the same that that you are accusing Scott of doing.

      He is pointing out, I think correctly, the that media would probably make huge deal about the death of climate change theory if we were having an unseasonably cold late autumn, rather than an unseasonably warm one. Yet, given the opposite set of circumstances, there isn’t much being made of the unusually warm autumn.

    • @Prairie Kid, Check temperatures for the last ten years? How about 9? or 11? Any reason why you picked ten? Oh, right it’s the hottest year on record. That one’s getting very tired.

      In the same way that weather can give us a Nov 30 without snow for the first time in over century, weather can give us a year which stands out above all others. 1998 was an El Nino year.

      Climate is weather over about 30 years. Not ten.

      If we measure from 1997 we get world temperatures moving up almost half a degree since 1997.

      If we go back 30 years it’s much more.

      The leaked emails, I deal with below.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.