As the New Year rapidly approaches Tony Heller is up to his old Arctic tricks yet again. No doubt we’ll get on to many of his hoary old chestnuts in due course, but although I may easily have blinked and missed it he appears to have a new trick up his voluminous sleeve. Providing empirical evidence that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s global warming “predictions” are correct!
Here is a recent extract from “Snow White’s” XTwitter feed:
By way of further elucidation, here is an extract from the IPCC’s Technical Summary of their AR6 Working Group 1 report:
There is high confidence that the global water cycle has intensified since at least 1980 expressed by, for example, increased atmospheric moisture fluxes and amplified precipitation minus evaporation patterns. Global land precipitation has likely increased since 1950, with a faster increase since the 1980s (medium confidence), and a likely human contribution to patterns of change, particularly for increases in high-latitude precipitation over the Northern Hemisphere. Increases in global mean precipitation are determined by a robust response to global surface temperature (very likely 2–3% per °C) that is partly offset by fast atmospheric adjustments to atmospheric heating by greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols…
Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover has decreased since at least 1978 (very high confidence), and there is high confidence that trends in snow cover loss extend back to 1950. It is very likely that human influence contributed to these reductions. Earlier onset of snowmelt has contributed to seasonally dependent changes in streamflow (high confidence). A further decrease of Northern Hemisphere seasonal snow cover extent is virtually certain under further global warming…
There’s also this from the North America section:
Nevertheless, it is very likely that some high latitude regions will experience an increase in winter snow water equivalent due to the effect of increased snowfall prevailing over warming-induced increased snowmelt.
A commenter on Twitter quibbled with my allegedly “cherry picked” Rutgers Global Snow Lab Northern Hemisphere snow cover chart for the month of May. He did however have the decency to come back with this:
Q.E.D? And N.B.
I am forced to conclude that “Steve”/Tony’s voluminous sleeve is almost empty. How else to explain this bizarre brace of recent Xweets from the great man?
Restoring DMI’s volume graph to it’s full glory reveals this:
According to Tony’s source, sea ice volume is currently in a statistical tie with 2020. One of the previous lowest volumes for the date (in the satellite era):
Surely it is not beyond the mathematical prowess of a man with Tony’s vast programming experience to work out that if “sea ice extent is the highest in Greta Thunberg’s lifetime” and sea ice volume is near the bottom of the satellite era range then sea ice thickness cannot conceivably be “the same as 1958”?
Perhaps Mr. Heller was simply in too great a hurry to edit DMI’s image to notice the hard right edge of the chart?
Having evidently learned nothing from our “debate” about the matter at the start of the month “Steve”/Tony is waxing lyrical about Northern Hemisphere snow cover on XTwitter once again.
I’ve tried to put him straight once again, but history suggests that after my latest intervention he will once again fail to come clean with his flock of faithful followers :
Tony is now providing further empirical evidence for global warming by posting Environment and Climate Change Canada’s graph of northern hemisphere snow water equivalent on XTwitter:
Needless to “Snow White” felt compelled to thank him for his sterling efforts:
Watch this space!
Jim, see my comment on X. Apples to Oranges, you’re both right.
Thanks for the heads up Taylor. See also my response on XTwitter.
Even when comparing apples with apples Tony and I both right in this instance. When did that ever happen before?
And the IPCC get Tony’s stamp of approval too!
News services just sell advertising so, in the end, it’s conspiracy that sells adverts… the confabulation(s) of a dedicated few for the purported benefit of the “mediocrity”.