Did IPCC climate models predict this need for a UK Snow Supremo ?

‘Snow supremo’ needed to avert winter transport chaos


The UK should appoint a “snow supremo” to try to avoid another winter of chaos at airports, MPs have recommended.

The Transport Select Committee examined the impact of heavy snow last December which shut Heathrow, Gatwick and major train lines, and left roads impassable.

The committee said it wanted airports to be forced to plan more effectively so people had at least basic supplies.

It said a culture change was needed in the rail industry to ensure the welfare of passengers was taken seriously.

The committee said failure to provide information about rail services should cost those firms responsible money.

The MPs also called for a further £10m in funding to enable the Met Office to provide better long-term forecasts.

So say UK MP’s.

I missed the article in May. I wonder where the idea is now.

3 thoughts on “Did IPCC climate models predict this need for a UK Snow Supremo ?”

  1. Seems like all they needed to do was disband the MET and subscribe to Piers Corbyn’s forecasts.

  2. Is it warming, is it cooling ??
    There’s an article in the Australian today by Steve Sherwood and if you haven’t registered for on line access there’s a post on it here
    bit of cut and paste:

    Steve Sherwood admits in The Australian today that climate scientists avoid debate, but attempts to justify that by claiming that it’s impossible to get their position across in a the short time normally allowed in debates.

    Sherwood also claims the science is settled – an interesting juxtaposition of conflicting arguments. On the one hand, the debate’s over, but on the other, there just isn’t time to explain why!

    and some great comments, the best one in my view is this one

    Sean McHugh October 28, 2011 at 10:46 am
    I wrote the following comment to that Australian article – I wouldn’t have been the only one. I hate it when newspapers invite comments and don’t publish any:

    Yes, I imagine it would be difficult to explain why the temperature stopped rising a decade ago, when it wasn’t supposed to, and why many countries have, for several years, been experiencing record snow and cold when all that was declared to have ended. I doubt we would ever be able to understand why all the flooding has occurred in Australia when the dams were no longer supposed to fill. And how could we possibly understand why the Antarctic isn’t melting, when it was supposed to? It must also be hard to explain why all the the sinking islands haven’t sunk and aren’t being evacuated as reported. We would also never grasp why the Medieval and Roman Warming periods have been erased from climate history. We couldn’t possibly understand why thermometer readings need to be adjusted upwards (instead of downwards) when being artificially heated by urban effects. It would be similarly too hard to explain the name changes, from “global warming”, to “climate change” to the latest, “climate weirding”. To the layperson, it just sounds [as] if climate science is looking for somewhere safe to hide. I am sure that it is a difficult subject, Steve. I hear the same of theology and astrology.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *