Posts Made By: Dave Snope

He leaves them a warning: "This is what happens to trespassers in My neighborhood." The people think it's a gift.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjQr3lRACPI&feature=player_embedded

Here's just a few of the latest email statements from the highest lords of global warming science as they prepare the next load of propaganda to influence public policy. Errr, 2011 IPCC. As always, scientific ethics are thrown out the window in favor of The Cause. Watch how they conspire to lie to the public and hide data that weakens their arguments and disparage scientists who have inconvenient results. These are the leading global warming scientists in the world, acting as they always have.

The only real challenge here is to decide which of these fraudsters is the most corrupt. Phil Jones? Michael Mann? Stephen Trenbeth? That may depend on what bothers you the most: manipulating the science or manipulating public opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.


<1611> Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.


<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]


<4755> Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's included and what is left out.

<3456> Overpeck:

I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about "Subsequent evidence" [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge - more evidence. What is it?

<2009> Briffa:

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!


<2775> Jones:

I too don't see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones certainly will not as we're choosing the periods to show warming.


<1219> Trenberth:

[...] opposing some things said by people like Chris Landsea who has said all the stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. [...] I am leaning toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a Japanese.

<0170> Jones:

Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.


<0714> Jones:

Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital - hence my comment about the tornadoes group.


<3205> Jones:

Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud issue - on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be have to involve him ?)


<4923> Stott/MetO:

My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement ["probably the warmest of the last millennium"] in or whether I should remove it in the anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we'll have withdrawn this statement - Chris Folland at least seems to think this is possible.

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can't overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish.


<0813> Fox/Environment Agency:

if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.


<4716> Adams:

Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.

<3062> Jones:

We don't really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written [...] We'll have to cut out some of his stuff.


<1485> Mann:

the important thing is to make sure they're loosing the PR battle. That's what the site [Real Climate] is about.


<2428> Ashton/co2.org:

Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions - bad politics - to one about the value of a stable climate - much better politics. [...] the most valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as possible


<5111> Pollack:

But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.


<5039> Rahmstorf:

You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10 solar forcing


<5096> Cook:

A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the "Medieval Climate Anomaly" or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.

<0310> Warren:

The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases [...] As it stands we'll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.


<1682> Wils:

[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They'll kill us probably [...]


<2267> Wilson:

Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models, surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs. [...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from the sun alone.


<5289> Hoskins:

If the tropical near surface specific humidity over tropical land has not gone up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected amplification of the warming in the tropics with height has not really been detected.


<5315> Jenkins/MetO:

would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?


<2292> Jones:

[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest that temperatures haven't increased at these levels.


<1788> Jones:

There shouldn't be someone else at UEA with different views [from "recent extreme weather is due to global warming"] - at least not a climatologist.


<4693> Crowley:

I am not convinced that the "truth" is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships


<2967> Briffa:

Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even real?


<2733> Crowley:

Phil, thanks for your thoughts - guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.


<2095> Steig:

He's skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica -- he thinks the "right" answer is more like our detrended results in the supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.


<0953> Jones:

This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with sulphates won't be quite as necessary.


<4944> Haimberger:

It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.


<4262> Klein/LLNL:

Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum (and some negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with significant surface warming do this


<2461> Osborn:

This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise, however, it raises some interesting results [...] the analysis will not likely lie near to the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the reasons behind this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.


<4470> Norwegian Meteorological Institute:

In Norway and Spitsbergen, it is possible to explain most of the warming after the 1960s by changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warming prior to 1940 cannot be explained in this way.

<0896> Jones:

I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can't think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the data that makes by their Figure 3.

<4789> Wigley:

there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets -- we don't want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].

Jones:

The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at all Californian sites.

<1583> Wilson:

any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.


<4165> Jones:

what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.


<3994> Mitchell/MetO

Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no


<4241> Wilson:

I thought I'd play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could 'reconstruct' northern hemisphere temperatures. [...] The reconstructions clearly show a 'hockey-stick' trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.


<3373> Bradley:

I'm sure you agree--the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don't want to be associated with that 2000 year "reconstruction".


<4758> Osborn:

Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we're throwing out all post-1960 data 'cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data 'cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!


<0886> Esper:

Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why don't you want to let the result into science?


<4369> Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.


<5055> Cook:

One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not know where his estimates are coming from.

<4394> Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]

[...] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the Earth [...] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We must pray that they pick up that message.


<0999> Hulme:

My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of God's planet into research and action.


<3653> Hulme:

He [another Met scientist] is a Christian and would talk authoritatively about the state of climate science from the sort of standpoint you are wanting.



<1982> Santer:

there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor tests we've applied.


<0850> Barnett:

[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer


<5066> Hegerl:

[IPCC AR5 models] So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.


<4443> Jones:

Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not got enough middle and low level clouds.


<4085> Jones:

GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be correct.

<3115> Mann:

By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.


<3940> Mann:

They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.


<0810> Mann:

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she think's she's doing, but its not helping the cause


<3594> Berger:

Phil,
Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.


<0121> Jones:

[on temperature data adjustments] Upshot is that their trend will increase


<4184> Jones:

[to Hansen] Keep up the good work! [...] Even though it's been a mild winter in the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish - expected though given the La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!


<5294> Schneider:

Even though I am virtually certain we shall lose on McCain-Lieberman, they are forcing Senators to go on record for for against sensible climate policy

<2440> Jones:

I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process


<2094> Briffa:

UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task.


<2459> Osborn:

Keith and I have just searched through our emails for anything containing "David Holland". Everything we found was cc'd to you and/or Dave Palmer, which you'll already have.


<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:
9
As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)


<1577> Jones:

[FOI, temperature data] Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

...Rapists??

A new study finds that atheists are among society's most distrusted group, comparable even to rapists in certain circumstances.

"People find atheists very suspect," Shariff said. "They don't fear God so we should distrust them; they do not have the same moral obligations of others. This is a common refrain against atheists. People fear them as a group."

http://www.source.ly/10KBX

I don't know, though. Asking 420 college students questions on morality? I don't trustem. And I can remember certain identifiable groups cheating on exams in college. They definitely weren't atheists.

And atheists aren't an organized group, or a philosophy. They are a non-philosophy.

From 60 Minutes interview last week. Yet another glaring example of his NPD.

http://youtu.be/TxvSjDkF7HE

60 Minutes cut that part of the interview before airing the show. The Obamedia always protects their interests.

The Movie

Pastor C.L. Bryant got in big trouble. His church fired him as pastor. The NAACP stripped him of his position as Chapter President. Did he steal funds? Engage in immoral behavior? Run naked down Main Street? Worse! He joined the Tea Party. [...]

Bryant explains, “I was once a black radical. I was sold out to the cause. But my personal faith and convictions caused the NAACP to strip me of my title for reasons you’ll hear in the movie. It was then that my eyes opened to the oppression of our government on the black community, and I became a conservative at home and in the ballot box. My involvement with the Tea Party put my name on a national stage and allowed this project to take flight.” [...]

Bryant interviews politicians and everyday Americans in front of Washington, D.C. monuments and in ghetto alleys. He points out that the Black community has 40 percent of its population on welfare, 72 percent of its children born out of wedlock and a 48 percent abortion rate, and asks “Is this what the black community has to show for its 95% support of the Democratic Party?”

As the Runaway Slave, I have traveled across the nation with my crew to expose the results of progressive policies and the underbelly of this movement that seeks to seize the hopes of America and drag them down this thorn-laden path to destruction. I have interviewed Black conservatives, tea party leaders and journalists who fight for the soul of America through any channel that will hear their calls.

Trailer:
http://youtu.be/XMENf5YFsuk

This guy really handles it well:
http://youtu.be/uub0z8wJfhU

The Bad Astronomer has always shed all credibility when it comes to global warming, throwing all scientific ethics and reason out the door and substituting emotional outbursts and name-calling and logical fallacies galore. William H. Briggs sets him strait this time. Somebody had to. Phil really gets away with too much bad science. He deletes comments on his site that disagree with his AGW beliefs. He's been quite childish. And starting his so-called temperature trend chart in frigid 1973: that's just dishonest. There is so much bad science in Plait's post that it would take 5 articles to do a decent rebuttal. For example, the history of the bad temperature station sitings that (after much massaging by AGW folks) yielded that data.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5138

Remember when I said how you shouldn’t draw straight lines in time series and then speak of the line as if the line was the data itself? About how the starting point made a big difference in the slope of the line, and how not accounting for uncertainty in the starting date translates into over-certainty in the results?

If you can’t recall, refresh your memory: How To Cheat, Or Fool Yourself, With Time Series: Climate Example.

Well, not everybody read those warnings. As an example of somebody who didn’t do his homework, I give you Phil Plait, a fellow who prides himself on exposing bad astronomy and blogs at Discover magazine. Well, Phil, old boy, I am the Statistician to the Stars—get it? get it?1—and I’m here to set you right.

The Wall Street Journal on 27 January 2012 published a letter from sixteen scientists entitled, No Need to Panic About Global Warming, the punchline of which was:


Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

Plait in response to these seemingly ho-hum words took the approach apoplectic, and fretted that “denialists” were reaching lower. Reaching where he never said. He never did say what a “denialist” was, either; but we can guess it is defined as “Whoever disagrees with Phil Plait.”

The WSJ‘s crew said, “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.” This allowed Plait to break out the italics and respond, “What the what?” I would’ve guessed that the scientists’ statement was fairly clear and even true. But Plait said, “That statement, to put it bluntly, is dead wrong.” Was it?

Plait then slipped in a picture, one which he thought was a devastating touché. He was so exercised by his effort that he broke out into triumphal clichés like “crushed to dust” and “scraping the bottom of the barrel.”You know what they say about astronomers. Anyway, here’s the picture:



See that red line? It’s drawn on a time series—wait! No it isn’t. Those dots are not what Plait thinks they are. They are not—they most certainly are not—global temperatures. Each dot instead is an estimate of global temperature: worse, most dots are also different kinds of estimates from each other. That is, the first dot was estimated using data X and method A, and the second dot was estimated using data Y and method B, and so forth. Well, maybe the first and second dot were the same, but older dots are different than the newer ones.

With me so far? All you have to remember is these dots are estimates, results from statistical models. The dots are not raw data. That means the dots are uncertain. At the least, Plait should have shown us some “error bars” around those dots; some kind of measure of uncertainty.

Now—here’s the real tricky part—we do not want the error bars from the estimates, but from the predictions. Remember, the models that gave these dots tried to predict what the global temperature was. When we do see error bars, researchers often make the mistake of showing us the uncertainty of the model parameters, about which we do not care, we cannot see, and are not verifiable. Since the models were supposed to predict temperature, show us the error of the predictions.

I’ve done this (on different but similar data) and I find that the parameter uncertainty is plus or minus a tenth of degree or less. But the prediction uncertainty is (in data like this) anywhere from 0.1 to 0.5 degrees, plus or minus. That is, prediction uncertainty is about five times larger.

I don’t know what the prediction uncertainty is for Plait’s picture. Neither does he. I’d be willing to bet it’s large enough so that we can’t tell with certainty greater than 90% whether temperatures in the 1940s were cooler than in the 2000s. And also such that, just as the WSJ‘s scientists claim, we can’t say with any certainty that the temperatures have been increasing this past decade.

In other words, the scientists were right and Plait was wrong. Or, as he might phrase it, he blatantly misinterpreted long term trends. Notice old Phil (his source, actually) starts, quite arbitrarily, with 1973, a point which is lower than the years preceding this date. If he would have read the post linked above, he would have known this is a common way that cheaters cheat. Not saying you cheated, Phil, old thing. But you didn’t do yourself any favors.

Somewhat amusingly, Plait ends his semi-random venting by telling us that Michael Mann has been “tweeting furiously” about this. Good grief! This isn’t helping his case. Mann’s understanding of statistics may be likened to an overly enthusiastic undergraduate who left the lecture early.

I only bring this trivial issue up because someone else made a point of this in an earlier thread. The Romney campaign has been classlessly spreading the story about Newt not calling Mitt. People don't call sometimes. It happens. It's not a big story. Mitt didn't call Huck after he won Iowa in 2008. Maybe because he felt that his opponent attacked his religion during the campaign?

While people are caught up celebrating today's BLS report that the official unemployment rate went down from 8.5% to 8.3%, (including our own Rod Kaufman, who says Anybody in their right mind can see it's improving , I do feel bad about spoiling the fun.

I'll try to make this as simple as possible with step by step instructions because I have read in these threads that some of our members (like Richard Davis ) are quite slow on the uptake.

Please refer to the latest BLS report here:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Please open the report to Table B-1 (ctrl-f, type "Table B-1" in the search field, hit Enter key)

Refer to the top row of the chart, which is the total non-farm employment summary data.

See the Nov. 2011 total employment number. 133.172 million
See the Jan. 2012 total employment number. 130.263 million

Subtract January from November and get -2.908 million jobs. That's 2.9 million more people who have lost jobs since November.

Now look at the far right column. Your dear leaders at the BLS have adjusted that to a net increase of 243,000 jobs.

Like magic, the unemployment rate has gone down to 8.3%.

Call that good news if you want. It's your mind and your choice.

Well, it's good news if you are a federal employee because their employment is up slightly, so all is good in Washington. Which is funny, because they report on the news that they have shed jobs, but the table shows that they have increased federal jobs. It's an alternate reality, I guess.

Of course, this 8.3% doesn't include the 5 million or so additional people that have dropped out of the job market, meaning there are 159 million in the labor force, not 154 million that the BLS is using. So the real unemployment in January rose from 11.2% to 11.5%.

Disclaimer: Weather is not climate.

And yes, the climate alarmists are blaming this deep freeze on global warming. Amazing:

It’s going to get much colder. So far 70 people have frozen to death in Central Europe, but this is only the start of the effects of global warming: The less summertime ice coverage there is in the Arctic, the higher the probability is for Arctic cold in the following winter in Munich, Dresden, Potsdam, Warsaw or Kiev. That’s the result of a study from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Ocean Sciences.” (klimaretter.de )

I turned on the tube today and they showed tourists in Rome with snow piled on their heads and a good accumulation on the ground. I didn't know it ever snowed in Rome.

Feb. 3, 20.00h: Killer cold wave death toll now up to 220!
101 in Ukraine — 24 in Romania — 17 in Czech Republic — 11 in Slovakia — 64 in Russia – no end in sight!
http://www.bild.de/news/inland/kaeltewelle/killer-kaelte-friert-europa-ein-schnee-22431978.bild.html

Minus 30 degrees in Poland, 50 centimeters of snow in Istanbul and cut off villages in Serbia: Bibbert Europe, Europe freezes. From Ukraine up to Italy, the whole continent is a small freezer. The Siberian cold brought the death already 220 people. And an end to the cold spell is not in sight!

The worst, it has met the Ukraine. 101 People fell victim to killer cold. Most were homeless. They lived on the street and are at erfroren minus 33 degrees. More than 1200 people are treated for frostbite in hospitals.

What do I need to know when it's this cold?

Now, the Government has responded and established 3000 emergency shelters across the country. The problem: Many beneficiaries know nothing of the offers.

In the capital Kiev, the foods are scarce, because many roads are impassable. No more trucks come through with ice and snow.

But other European countries holding the killer cold in the claws: in Romania, 24 people were killed in Poland 17, Czech Republic 11, in the Slovakia at least two people in France a. In Russia, the authorities registered in January alone already over 64 Kälteopfer.

Siberia holds the cold record: "CNN" reported that were measured in some cities minus 40 degrees.

The Balkans also suffers from the Arctic temperatures.

Rescue workers described the situation as very serious in Serbia. On the border with Montenegro it's snowing for weeks continuously.

Cooling free in Schwanenwede (Lower Saxony)

Because the heater failed in the primary school of the town, all 180 students were allowed to go home.

Villages are cut off from the outside world, sink into the snow. Helicopters provide the inhabitants in continuous operation with food and medicines.

This help came too late for six people. They died in the Serbia ice Chamber.

In Bucharest, there are problems with the heating system. The inhabitants of the Romanian capital city jitter at up to minus 30 degrees in their homes. In many homes, the heaters fell out overnight, because the gas pressure in the lines died down.

People in bitterly cold weather freeze in Bosnia, Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria and the Slovakia.

Two people in the killer cold died in Magdeburg: A homeless man (55) erfror at night on a road. A renter was on the way to the doctor killed, he is apparently frozen.

In Lehrte (Lower Saxony) erfror a pensioner (69) on a country lane. He was overthrown on the way to the nursing home.

Germany experienced so far coldest night this winter. Especially in Saxony and Thuringia, she beat sibirisch to cold.

In Bad Elster, in the Vogtlandkreis district, Saxony, the thermometer slid even minus 23.6 degrees. Minus 26.4 degrees were measured in German new village (Saxony, Germany).

"It remains cold for the time being." "Also a low over the Baltic Sea brings snow something to Northern Germany," said Dorothy Pätzold from the German weather service.

Bibber-Winter has even southern Europe in its icy grip: snow on Corsica, negative levels in Athens and the coldest week for 27 years in Italy.

Up to 15 cm of new snow is expected in Rome on the night of Saturday. Already Friday, students got cold-free.

Tuscany is sinking in the snow: the electricity failed in many households, roads are impassable. "The situation is particularly critical," said the head of civil protection of Franco Gabrielli.

In the North of Italy 600 passengers had to endure seven hours in an unheated train. The killer cold freeze brakes and switches, the train had to stop on the track.

Where else in France tourists sunbathe, you can now build snowmen: the island of Corsica and the coastal regions of var and Alpes-Maritimes are covered with thick snow.

Also Istanbul is known not just as a winter sports venue. The Turkish metropolis is less than 50 centimeters thick snow. Public life is paralyzed.

For days, the South-Eastern of Turkey suffers from heavy snowfalls. Again and again, roads are buried by avalanches.

In the village of Secmen, an avalanche buried a home among themselves. A woman died. Neighbors rescued her husband and their two children from the rubble of the House.

Temperatures throughout the country increased to Spain only to no more than five degrees. For Friday to Sunday was a Temperatursturz up on predicted minus 10 degrees in the mountains even minus 13 degrees.

Europe bibbert further, an end to the cold spell is not in sight.

"The icy winter weather remains days us also in the next", said the meteorologist, Hans-Werner Voss, of the German weather service.