Snow falls in Hokkaido as cold spring continues across Japan

Embarrassing setback for Cool Biz and Global Warming Campaigners !

I wonder how the blossoms are coming along.

they changed global warming into climate change folks...the thing is climate is always changing so what's the point?

I'll take cold over the coming heat any day.

I agree with smith!

global warming ? .. leads to global cooling.. how else does the earth shift its climate. Although we humans do not live long, therefore, we always call it, FREAK of nature.

and yes, I prefer deep snow, and 5 layers, then zero layers and stifling humidity..

earth tends to run a on a 21-30 year cycle of warm/ dry and cool/wet in it's hemispheres. Northern is swinging back into the cool a little on the late side but we are getting there. Solar output is also lower which may have something to do with it

Iowa just broke a 100 year old record for snow in May--12 inches. My lawn mower is so confused.

so much for the Global warming fanatics ...but of course they have some excuse for this.

TheDevilsAssistantMay. 03, 2013 - 08:52PM JST so much for the Global warming fanatics ...but of course they have some excuse for this.

How about this: Global warming is what is referred to in the media as a "sound byte". It is not the whole theory, it is not a word that serious climatologists use. It is a handy two word label that some reporter who barely passed high school science with a D- attached to the phenomenon. If those two words are all you know then perhaps you should re-evaluate your qualifications to comment on the subject.

Global weather systems are an incredibly complex and inter-related SYSTEM. When one part of a system goes out of balance then other parts of the system are affected, and you end up with the entire system acting in new and interesting ways. For humanity these new and interesting ways will probably suck... a LOT. A good example of these interesting new weather phenomena are the huge "super-storms" we've been seeing more and more of. Animals don't really give a damn, but to humans, with our dependence on modern agriculture, fragile distribution routes feedling millions in cities, and 30 storey skyscrapers they really are bad news.

What boggles my mind is that even with a high school diploma in science people should be able to understand this idea that any system thrown out of balance exhibits extremes of behaviour on both ends of the spectrum. Didn't anyone play on a see-saw as a kid? When one end goes up, the other goes day. That's a simple single-axis system. Now weather has about ten thousand variables, so when one of them goes out of balance you see movement on multiple axes, and extremes in several areas as several, relatively minor, factors gang up and beat the stuffing out of a modern city.

Also it doesn't take a genius to realise that the simple message behind the global warming movement is, "pollution is bad... cut it down m'kay?". Less pollution = Good. More pollution = Bad. Simple enough for you?

Like Ｉsaid, always an excuse for something that doesn't follow the Global Warming criteria.

Everyone gets that no pollution＝bad, however, how that affects climate is questionable. If pollution was a factor, how did earth come out of the Ice Age? Didn't know there were automobiles and factories millions of years ago.

But, of course, there has to be an excuse for that too.

As someone who is in the last stages of pregnancy and sweaty at best, I thank the god of global warming for this.

And hope the unseasonably cool weather continues until november, when it becomes unseasonably warm, until next may.

global warming is a religion and people come here to worship...

TheDevilsAssistantMay. 03, 2013 - 10:16PM JST Everyone gets that no pollution＝bad, however, how that affects climate is questionable. If pollution was a factor, how did earth come out of the Ice Age? Didn't know there were automobiles and factories millions of years ago. But, of course, there has to be an excuse for that too.

Umm... actually I'd count a huge cloud of dust caused by an extinction level meteor hitting the earth in the broad category of "pollution". That's one of the things that triggered at least one of the major ice ages. Of course you don't need to even get that dramatic. This simplistic idea that "nature=non-polluting" is up there with "natural=good for you". Hemlock is natural, but eat a plateful and you'll die. Likewise bovines are natural, but methane from cows is a major pollutant (or to be more accurate, the bacteria in bovines' stomachs that allow them to digest plant matter are natural, but produce methane as a byproduct). The concept of "natural" pollution should be familiar to anyone who's ever accidently stepped in a pile of dog poo.

Imbalances in nature tend to correct themselves, but there have been instances where they haven't, and those have resulted in massive ecosystem failures and drumroll changes in local weather patterns. Just taking the last century we've seen how the introduction of something like rabbits to Australia resulted in the desertification of areas of Australia, which had a ripple effect on climate, such as rainfall and wind patterns. This is on a micro scale with a well documented example of how something as small as a rabbit can cause climate changes.

Sure we don't know the exact reasons for ice ages that happened 2 million years ago, but since most people can't remember what they had for breakfast yesterday it is not a fair or reasonable position to point to those events millions of years ago and say, "Oh, you can't produce conclusive evidence for what happened then, so clearly you don't know what's happening now.". That's just a ridiculous position. In all likelihood the remains of the evil rabbit empire that ruled the earth at that time have entirely disappeared....

mikihouse: global warming is a proven fact even if this is an inconvenient truth for your selfish way of thinking.

But energy wasting IS a US religion! This is a proven fact too!

The same thing happened last year... golden week arrived in Hokkaido and the weather was crap and it was still butt cold. Hokkaido has some precious beautiful days, but the majority of the time it is grey, dismal and cold. Enjoy your cold dismal golden week if you are in Hokkaido, and if you're not, well I hope you were smart enough to leave the country or else enjoy the crowds wherever you go.

I love this temperature--keeps the mosquitoes at bay.

My friend on Hokkaido sent pictures of the recent snow. At first, I didn't realize they taken just the other day! We've had some of that here in the U.S. too, but no closer than Missouri, as far as I know.

openminded...global warming does happen, its a cycle. Did you know that almost the whole US continent was covered with ice and then it receded giving us the present US today? California was under snow for many thousand years until the ice started melting. The earth has been warming for the last thousand years and still is, but we humans like to amplify our existence. Truth is we can't do nothing about it.

Why do you think US don't believe global warming? Its because they have the most accurate records of the earth temperature for the last century and it proved there is no global warming at all.

An Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore and all the followers of his Global Warming Religion. There has been no Global Warming since 1997, instead, we are in an extended period of Global Cooling, thanks to the lack of sunspot activity. The cold weather in Hokkaido and throughout the Northern Hemisphere is just typical climate change, which has been happening for millenia, and has nothing to do with the activities of human beings.

mikihouse said it best. Global Warming is a religion.

Lets take into fact that if rabbits, cows, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbon trioxide, carbon octoxide, watever you global warming fanatics think is causing global warming. What is used for an accurate baseline of comparison? How do you know if the world is going through a cycle or not? Fanatics say that the earth has been warming in the last 100 years...in relation to what? What is the proven driver of this increase? Everything if have read so far points to pollution. Thats why I dispute this theory. There were no modern day pollutants when the earth came out of the Ice Age. And I suppose the increase of temperature than was extremely more than in the last 100 years of the modern world.

The results that have come out of all this is good, I have no qualms about saving electricity, going green, being less dependant on fossil fuels, etc. But I disagree with the meaningless rationale of the Global Warming fanatics that tried to brainwash the population when Japan and other countries still have weather that debunks thier “proven theories”

TheDevilsAssistantMay. 04, 2013 - 12:26PM JST Lets take into fact that if rabbits, cows, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbon trioxide, carbon octoxide, watever you global warming fanatics think is causing global warming. What is used for an accurate baseline of comparison?

Historical records. You know, paper... that stuff that comes in books. Although scientists haven't limited themselves to just the last thousand years or so when paper records existed. They're also gone up to the Poles and taken ice cores that give a reasonably accurate (to within a couple of thousand years) picture of what the atmosphere was like tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago. They've also explored other areas, like cystalline deposits and other sources. I'd really say that scientists have done their homework well here and have a MASSIVE amount of data to make baseline comparisons from. This data has been gathered by literally hundreds of thousands of scientists, and often the data comes from scientists working on unrelated issues, so there's no question of the data having being deliberately distorted to fit the scientists' pet theory,

Honestly, even posing this as a serious question just shows a complete lack of knowledge about the field.

How do you know if the world is going through a cycle or not?

We know there have been previous ice ages. These ice ages occurred at irregular intervals, and were definitely NOT part of a regular cycle. In several cases scientists have been able to get some pretty good evidence together pointing to increased volcanic activity, or meteor strikes, or some similar natural pollutant. In other cases they haven't. This doesn't mean that scientists are idiots or that their theory if incorrect, it just means the investigating and coming to conclusive answers about something that happened 2 million years ago is pretty near impossible. It is unlikely that the meteor's great-great-great-etc grandchildren will step forward with a signed confession saying, "Yup, great-great-great-etc grandpappy Ralph did it, he was a wiley old fella!".

Fanatics say that the earth has been warming in the last 100 years...in relation to what?

Umm... data from the last thousand years... data from the last hundred thousand years? Tons and tons of data put into computers and analysed.

What is the proven driver of this increase? Everything if have read so far points to pollution. Thats why I dispute this theory. There were no modern day pollutants when the earth came out of the Ice Age

The modern crisis is being caused by man-made pollutants. Evidence points to previous crises having been caused by natural pollutants. In effect the argument being posed is nonsense, it presupposes that something naturally occuring, like CO2, can only cause a crisis if it comes from a modern source.

Asked and answered. It is one thing to play Devil's advocate... it is another to ignore the answer when it is given and continue asking the same question, that is just bad manners.

Ummm...no. You cant honestly tell me you believe in comparisons of today toyesteryears when the environment was complely different. What you read, the same things I have read, is nothing different than a Bible that you choose to worship. I refuse to believe in any THEORIES until someone comes up with something that explains all the whys and hows.

There are scientist out there who say the whole Global Warming thing is a farce. Always two sides of the story...it boils down to who one is to believe. Im not forcing anyone to believe in either theories...but one should look at all angles before believing the masses. If believing that the climate changed many years ago because of natural causes and now is caused by man all of the sudden, okay then. If believing all this data is thrown into computers and that this data is formulated to show that Global Warming is occurring due to humans, then okay. But remember that a computer is only as smart as the humans that program it.

TheDevilsAssistantMay. 04, 2013 - 02:37PM JST Ummm...no. You cant honestly tell me you believe in comparisons of today toyesteryears when the environment was complely different.

Hold on one cotton-picking minute. YOU were the one who set the hare running about previous ice ages. Now you turn around when I answer your question satisfactorily and say that they're irrelevant because "the environment was complely different" (sic.). The rules of thermodynamics have not changed, and so the underlying cause-effect chains that caused those ice ages millions of years ago are likewise unchanged.

What you read, the same things I have read, is nothing different than a Bible that you choose to worship. I refuse to believe in any THEORIES until someone comes up with something that explains all the whys and hows.

Gravity is one of those "THEORIES" you're so contemptuous of, as are themodynamics, hydraulics, and pretty much every bit of science that makes the computer you're using to read this operate. None of those theories explains "all the whys and hows". When we reach the grand unified theory of everything then scientists can hang up their hats and look for a new job. What you're asking for is an unrealistic and unreasonable level of perfection. These theories are constantly being revised and refined. Just a decade ago the theory of gravity underwent some fairly major revisions to account for some errors in earlier calculations. Did you planes fall out of the sky in shock? No. Scientists call things theories not because they're wrong, but simply because they admit the possibility of error and room for improvement. Any scientist who claimed to have found the absolute last word in science would laughed out of the scientific community.

There are scientist out there who say the whole Global Warming thing is a farce.

This is normal. In Einstein's time there were several fairly major and reputable scientists who disagreed with him emphatically. The consensus of scientific opinion though was with Einstein. If there weren't dissenting voices I'd be worried, it is the job of scientists to be skeptical, and to demand proof. That they demand proof and put forward competing theories DOES NOT mean that the other theories are automatically wrong, simply that they are doing their jobs as scientists in challenging the mainstream thinking and making sure no mistakes are made.

Always two sides of the story...it boils down to who one is to believe.

No, it doesn't. Now you're confusing religion and science. In religion it is about faith. In science it is about proof and a lot of very clever people reviewing the proof and arriving at a consensus. The consensus is currently that climate change is real and caused by excessive environmental pollution. Perhaps proof will emerge later that it is just a cyclical change, but until that time the evidence supports only one conclusion and only one course of action.

If believing all this data is thrown into computers and that this data is formulated to show that Global Warming is occurring due to humans, then okay. But remember that a computer is only as smart as the humans that program it.

Yes, computers can make mistakes, however those mistakes are in the order of one in a million or less. You are behaving like it is even odds. It isn't. This isn't a flip a coin, heads climate change, tails cyclical variations. This is a flip a coin a 1000 times, and if it comes up tails all 1000 times then it is cyclical variation. Is it impossible that the overwhelming majority of climatologists are wrong? No. It is staggeringly unlikely? Yes.

Snow is so pretty - as long as you're looking at it from the window of a nice warm house/apaato.

Satisfactory? In your opinion, maybe. One question. Will the earth ever have an Ice Age again?

TheDevilsAssistantMay. 04, 2013 - 08:58PM JST Satisfactory? In your opinion, maybe. One question. Will the earth ever have an Ice Age again?

With a general public who can't even understand the most basic scientific principles... but feel free to criticise people who've studied a phenomenon for decades on the basis of half-under stood misreporting from equally ignorant reporters? ... umm... my money would be on "Yes.". Whether it'll be sooner or later I have complete confidence in the general public's ability to ignore common sense even when evidence is staring then straight in the face.

They should do Golden Week in Hokkaido like they do Oban: a few weeks later than in Honshu. Maybe two years out of the last dozen were not miserable in Hokkaido during GW.

TheDevilsAssistantMay. 03, 2013 - 10:16PM JST

Everyone gets that no pollution＝bad, however, how that affects climate is questionable. If pollution was a factor, how did earth come out of the Ice Age? Didn't know there were automobiles and factories millions of years ago.

But, of course, there has to be an excuse for that too.

Earth came out of previous Ice Ages because of the changing orientation of the Earth in its orbit. These affect how much heat North Pole gets from the Sun. If the heat decreases, we get and Ice Age, and once it increases we come out of the Ice Age. Man-made pollution is not required.

Satisfactory? In your opinion, maybe. One question. Will the earth ever have an Ice Age again?

From past cycles, after a few ten thousand years. However, with the increased warming from human activity, many scientists think it is doubtful we will have an Ice Age for a very long time.