Japan winter 2012-2013 weather forecast (provisional)

[pie-eater 207]

I have been thinking very seriously about this some more, and can now confidently add to my initial forecast.

 

Anyway, here's my update:

 

This coming season will be the Absolutely Best Ever Season in both Hakuba and Niseko. Dreams will, undoubtedly, Come True as you Live The Dream. (Rooms going fast - book your hotel now to avoid disappointment!).

[Slippery Jim 65]

Decent-sized volcano eruption overnight in Guatemala, could raise price of quality coffee and with any luck add a couple of cm to the season's snowfall.

[Go Native 70]

I have been thinking very seriously about this some more, and can now confidently add to my initial forecast.

 

Anyway, here's my update:

 

This coming season will be the Absolutely Best Ever Season in both Hakuba and Niseko. Dreams will, undoubtedly, Come True as you Live The Dream. (Rooms going fast - book your hotel now to avoid disappointment!).

 

I've already seen advertised by one notorious Niseko operator that Australian bookings for this coming winter are already the highest ever!

[hellyer 216]

Pie eaters forecast is also uncannilly similar to the usual Perisher and Thredbo forcasts which is way,way more outlandish

[pie-eater 207]

Of course, my finely tuned forecasts only come after a massive amount of painstaking research, very thoughtful thought over a span of literally many minutes - comparing charts, using sophisticated computer models, anaylsing past data and forecasting from that, etc (and more!), snowjunky.

 

[Mike Pow 52]

Really and what would you know about it Mike? The vast bulk of people get their science from the popular media and to be frank there's not many in the popular media who know a damned thing about science. And if you get your information from any of the Murdoch media well we all know his bias on this subject.

The silly thing is if snowdude was claiming for instance that smoking didn't cause cancer pretty much everyone on here would deride him for being an idiot. There's just as much scientific concensus on the effects of CO2 on our climate as there is on the effects of smoking on health. And yet people seem to give more credence to the rubbish science of climate change denialists than they ever would to the rubbish science of those who claim smoking isn't that bad for you. It's a ridiculous double standard.

 

Pull your neck in mate.

 

There was a very high profile incident last year, maybe the year before, where results were falsified to 'prove' an hypothesis.

 

The climate is changing. It always has and it always will.

 

Some of that change is human driven. Some the jury is still out.

 

Some countries are benefitting from this change. Most aren't.

 

World population is a far bigger problem in my opinion.

[Go Native 70]

High profile incident? In climate science? Care to share what it was? Read that in the Murdoch media?

World population is a far bigger problem for what? I don't care less about the impact on humans it's the impact on snowfall that matters!! I would have thought you of all people would see that Mike! Average snowfall throughout much of the world has declined. The average snowline has increased. Many resorts that used to do just fine can now barely survive without man made snow. If ever there was something out there that should galvanise the skiing community it should be global warming.

[Chriselle 158]

Thank god...for Yeti Snowtown and it's man made snow......whew....

[Mike Pow 52]

Wow, 2009. That flew by

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

 

Although this was later found to be unsubstantiated the doubt placed in the minds of the general public was very damaging. Much like the science of nutrition that's presented to the public.

 

And after all, for things to change there has to be buy in from the general public.

 

Speaking only from personal experience the annual snowfall in the part of Hokkaido we know and love hasn't changed dramatically in the short 6 years I've been watching.

 

And Wales has had the wettest, coldest and snowiest weather in over a generation the past 3 years.

[Mike Pow 52]

I don't care less about the impact on humans it's the impact on snowfall that matters!! I would have thought you of all people would see that Mike!

 

Not 'on' humans, 'of' humans.

 

I was under the impression that the scientists advocating that global warming and climate change are real and taking place today are very much of the opinion that humans are the primary cause.

 

Am I incorrect in concluding that world population growth - especially in developing countries - is a problem and a major contributory factor in all things climate, including the impact on snowfall?

[Go Native 70]

Population would have minimal impact (well significantly less impact) on climate Mike if we just moved away from using fossil fuels for our energy needs. The primary cause of global warming currently is the rapid increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. We already have the technology to do this but there's trillions of dollars in the fossil fuel industry. They aren't going down without a fight. And much of the manufactured doubt about the science originates from conservative thinktanks funded by this industry. Greed is winning out over common sense.

[JA2340 16]

Mike,

I think GN missed a comma in there somewhere.

 

What he said was ... "I don't care less about the impact on humans it's the impact on snowfall that matters!!" What I believe was meant was "I don't care less about the impact on humans, it's the impact on snowfall that matters!!"

 

That comma after "humans" changes the whole meaning ...

[Go Native 70]

Grammar was never my forte JA.

You're right, I'm not overly concerned about the impact on the human population. I'm very concerned though about the impact on snowfall. Plus I'm very partial to glaciers and they've been retreating rather rapidly in the last century. Still if Mike is concerned about over population rapid global warming will probably help out there a bit. .

[Mike Pow 52]

Population would have minimal impact (well significantly less impact) on climate Mike if we just moved away from using fossil fuels for our energy needs. The primary cause of global warming currently is the rapid increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. We already have the technology to do this but there's trillions of dollars in the fossil fuel industry. They aren't going down without a fight. And much of the manufactured doubt about the science originates from conservative thinktanks funded by this industry. Greed is winning out over common sense.

 

But isn't that an unrealistic goal in the developing world?

 

I'm lead to believe - possibly from biased sources - that alternative energy sources are not a viable alternative to fossil fuels in areas experiencing unchecked population growth and rapid industrialisation.

 

Surely it's a simple equation,

 

more people = more usage = more emmissions

 

That's not to say that the developed Western world is free of blame.

[snowdude 44]

Mike GN is a warmist, you can argue with him until you are blue in the face!

The other day when I stated that ice sheets break up during summer because of winds that blow and break up the ice, GN clearly stated that I am talking crap, only to come back a little later to say in actual fact I was correct.

Strange as he thinks he knows everything and I don't.

Now back to the Co2, biggest load of bollocks ever. Co2 levels were higher in the past than they are now, well before humans had any influence. Oh don't worry GN I have data on that.

Anyway I will soon be putting up a very detailed report which will clearly show where the earth is heading and what a bunch of uneducated idiots the warmists really are.

Unfortunately I have other things to do, so this will take a few days before it is all ready as I have a mountain of data and graphs that I need to shorten otherwise it will take me a month of Sundays to complete.

 

Of course I do agree about alternative energy sources, as we are certainly putting a large dent in our resources and a healthier earth is a good thing if it is actually truly viable.

But to think that using greener energy will help stop global warming is just complete delusional rubbish.

 

Interesting that Australia have had some of the heaviest snow fall in many years this year with some of the best skiing in a long time! Must be the global warming LOL LOL!

[Go Native 70]

Population would have minimal impact (well significantly less impact) on climate Mike if we just moved away from using fossil fuels for our energy needs. The primary cause of global warming currently is the rapid increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. We already have the technology to do this but there's trillions of dollars in the fossil fuel industry. They aren't going down without a fight. And much of the manufactured doubt about the science originates from conservative thinktanks funded by this industry. Greed is winning out over common sense.

 

But isn't that an unrealistic goal in the developing world?

 

I'm lead to believe - possibly from biased sources - that alternative energy sources are not a viable alternative to fossil fuels in areas experiencing unchecked population growth and rapid industrialisation.

 

Surely it's a simple equation,

 

more people = more usage = more emmissions

 

That's not to say that the developed Western world is free of blame.

 

It is possible. There is the technology to do it. And if produced on a massive scale the costs would decrease enormously. Already the cost of solar has decreased so much it's starting to become more economical than burning coal. The fossil fuel industry already receives many billions of dollars in subsidies worldwide to keep it viable and profitable. Regardless of what happens with the climate we'll end up moving to this technology anyway. With the most informed climate scientists in the world advising us of reasonably catastrophic global warming by the end of this century because of the rapid rise in the greenhouse gas CO2 we'd be mad not to move towards reducing our reliance on fossil fuels as soon as possible wouldn't we?

[Chriselle 158]

That's never going to happen though.

 

[Go Native 70]

Mike GN is a warmist, you can argue with him until you are blue in the face!

The other day when I stated that ice sheets break up during summer because of winds that blow and break up the ice, GN clearly stated that I am talking crap, only to come back a little later to say in actual fact I was correct.

Strange as he thinks he knows everything and I don't.

Now back to the Co2, biggest load of bollocks ever. Co2 levels were higher in the past than they are now, well before humans had any influence. Oh don't worry GN I have data on that.

Anyway I will soon be putting up a very detailed report which will clearly show where the earth is heading and what a bunch of uneducated idiots the warmists really are.

Unfortunately I have other things to do, so this will take a few days before it is all ready as I have a mountain of data and graphs that I need to shorten otherwise it will take me a month of Sundays to complete.

 

Of course I do agree about alternative energy sources, as we are certainly putting a large dent in our resources and a healthier earth is a good thing if it is actually truly viable.

But to think that using greener energy will help stop global warming is just complete delusional rubbish.

 

Interesting that Australia have had some of the heaviest snow fall in many years this year with some of the best skiing in a long time! Must be the global warming LOL LOL!

 

The funny thing is snowdude is that you talk about CO2 levels in the past as though they give you some incredible insight into climate change that the world's most credentialed climate scientists have somehow totally missed. That you and your ex architect have somehow got some insight into the science that these scientists just fail to see. Calling me a 'warmist' as though I'm on the fringe is just so ridiculous! I unlike you accept that there are experts in the field of climate science. People who have spent lifetimes of study and research on the topic. And they have been warning us of the effect of increasing CO2 since the middle of last century. And guess what? It has warmed significantly. Practically nothing you believe in is based on peer reviewed or published science. There's a reason for that and it's not because of your conspiracy theories. It's because it's not credible science. You're no different to a flat Earther or someone who denies smoking is harmful or one of those who believes the Earth was created by a god around 6,000 years ago. Regardless of the scientific evidence you'll never accept it. Your beliefs aren't based on reason, logic and science so reasoned, logical science won't ever sway your opinion.

 

And once again you confuse weather with climate snowdude. Australia has had a reasonable snow season yes (I've experienced much better many years ago) but good seasons been few and far between over the last couple of decades. And if you look at long term averages it's been a steady decline in average snowfall in Aus over the last century. Just so you know climatologists generally look for around a minimum of 30 years data before talking about trends in climate. One good or bad year here or there doesn't indicate climate change. A cool summer in the UK one year for instance does not indicate long term cooling. Can you ever get your head around this?

[Go Native 70]

That's never going to happen though.

 

And I've never thought we would do what was needed in time to avert catastrophic warming. The fossil fuel industry is just too powerful. I just get incredibly annoyed when people like snowdude, people who have never spent a day in their life studying the science of our climate, claim to know more than those scientists who've spent decades studying and researching the subject because of a blog they've found on the internet. snowdude gets his information about climate change from an ex architect. How ridiculous is that? If you had heart issues would you go see your accountant? If you wanted advice on putting an extension on your home would you call in a biologist? We have experts for a reason. I'm all for being skeptical but people like snowdude show absolutely none of the same skepticism towards the information that supports their view that they do towards the science. At least with science published in credible scientific journals we know there has already been a significant process of peer review to weed out the crap. It's not perfect but it's the best we've got and has worked reasonably well for quite sometime now.

[Chriselle 158]

Ya.....We're on the same page GN. I'm just sitting back and staying out of the fray despite the fact my major was Oceanography. My spidery sense is picking up that Snowdude is just screwing with your buttons. Maybe not.

[snowdude 44]

Actually GN you are so so wrong, all the information I have is from numerous sources, because I most certainly would not rely on just one website and virtually NONE of my information is from iceage now. You will be able to compare it all after, which Im sure you will.

And by the way if you had bothered to read iceage properly you will notice that the author of the site collects information from various sources as well as the general public sending in real time information about weather events in their own back gardens, most of which is never reported by the media.

His site is a blog of information from various sources, lots of good, some maybe not so, but information non the less.

Robert W. Felix is the author of the book Not by fire but by ice as well as this site, which after working as an architecture actually he actually spent 8 full years studying about ice ages and climate changes. He doesn't pretend to be a scientist, rather a collector of lots of information that he makes available to the public.

 

Warmists don't like his site they also don't like Piers Corbyn's site either, because as hard as it may be for them to believe it Piers Corbyn has been correct with so many of his predictions. Yes I have been checking his predictions with the actuality! And yes he does get it wrong sometimes too.

He also knows what is coming in the near future, and it is not what the warmists want to hear.

 

I think your English comprehension must be somewhat limited or something, because no where have I said that scientist have not done their research or indeed spent many years doing it.

Many have spent years researching and trying to prove something about the climate, I don't have a problem with that, what I have a problem with is when facts don't match the reality.

 

I know you will come out with more comments, you love it and just can't help yourself, but this is all I have to say for the moment. I am seriously working on my report that I will put up here for all to see, and it will offer some very interesting reading, then maybe you will understand why I have a serious problem with the science community and the governments.

 

Happy posting!!!

[pie-eater 207]

For those of you who don't know what this iceage is they are referring to:

 

[Metabo Oyaji 71]

For those of you who don't know what this iceage is they are referring to:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsvaFxkXrbg

 

Nice "Bambi meets Godzilla" homage at the end there.

[Go Native 70]

The main issue for me snowdude is that you are totally and completely scientifically illiterate. You've never studied any science, let alone the sciences involved in climate science. Herein lies your biggest problem You have absolutely no ability in determining good from bad science. I keep attempting to point you in the right direction, namely that good science isn't published on internet blogs. It's done through credible, quality scientific journals. Those who post things on their own personal websites and blogs circumvent all the checks and balances that have been put in place over the centuries to weed out shoddy science. And as I've also pointed out you don't hold up any of the informaiton you get from your websites/blogs to the same skepticism you hold up the real science. The problem of course if that I doubt you have ever actually read a real scientific paper. Everything you know about this subject is from a few denialist websites in which there is absolutely no process in place to ensure quality science is being carried out or presented. And you really have no ability to distinguish whether or not it is quality science, you just don't have that skill.

 

All this work you're supposedly going to to present a whole lot of graphs to prove your points is just a waste of time. For every shoddy graph you present from non scientific sources I'm sure I could find a myriad of others from real scientific sources to debunk yours (if I can be bothered). Basically it's a pointless exercise. This really just comes down to the fact that I prefer to get my science from scientific journals and you prefer to get yours from websites/blogs and the media, so from people generally not even involved in science at all. I did a science degree with a major in meteorology and recognise that I've only scratched the surface of the science which is why I defer to the experts. You on the other hand think you're some sort of expert on climate because you can use google and have read a few non scientific website/blogs. You're a joke. As I say you're no better than those who claim the earth is flat or smoking doesn't cause cancer or the planet is only 6,000 years old instead of billions. That's the sort of company you're in.

[yamaski 0]

Had a good read through this today.

 

Great stuff.

 

More please!