2001-2010 was the Snowiest Decade on Record

Guest post by Steven Goddard


Snow blankets New York City. Al Gore (below) claims the increased  snow is due to global warming.

Snow blankets New York City. Photo: Del Mundo, New York Daily News

Photo above from: NY Daily News: Record Snowfall in New York

Now that we have reached the end of the meteorological winter (December-February,) Rutgers University Global Snow Lab numbers (1967-2010) show that the just completed decade (2001-2010) had the snowiest Northern Hemisphere winters on record.  The just completed winter was also the second snowiest on record, exceeded only by 1978.  Average winter snow extent during the past decade was greater than 45,500,000 km2, beating out the 1960s by about 70,000 km2, and beating out the 1990s by nearly 1,000,000 km2.  The bar chart below shows average winter snow extent for each decade going back to the late 1960s.

Here are a few interesting facts.

  • Average winter snow extent has increased since the 1990s, by nearly the area of Texas and California combined.
  • Three of the four snowiest winters in the Rutgers record occurred during the last decade – the top four winters are (in order) 1978, 2010, 2008, 2003
  • The third week of February, 2010 had the second highest weekly extent (52,170,000 m2) out of the 2,229 week record

The bar graph below shows winter data for each year in the Rutgers database, color coded by decade.  The yellow line shows the mean winter snow extent through the period.  Note that the past decade only had two winters below 45 million km2.  The 1990s had seven winters below the 45 million km2, the 1980s had five winters below 45 million km2, and the 1970s had four winters below 45 million km2.  This indicates that the past decade not only had the most snowfall, but it also had the most consistently high snowfall, year over year.

It appears that AGW claims of the demise of snowfall have been exaggerated.  And so far things are not looking very good for the climate model predictions of declining snowfall in the 21st century.

Many regions of the Northern Hemisphere have seen record snowfall this winter, including Washington D.C, Moscow, China, and Korea.  Dr. Hansen’s office at Columbia University has seen record snowfall, and Al Gore has ineptly described the record snow :

“Just as it’s important not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm,”

A decade long record across the entire Northern Hemisphere is not appropriately described as a “snowstorm.”


Sponsored IT training links:
If want to improve TK0-201 score then go through 646-230 exam dumps and self test RH302 exams and get guaranteed success in first attempt.


About these ads
This entry was posted in records, snowfall, Weather. Bookmark the permalink.

332 Responses to 2001-2010 was the Snowiest Decade on Record

  1. Karl says:

    Good work Steve.

  2. Pascvaks says:

    Warmest? and Snowiest? Somehow I just knew there had to be a logical connection. Beautiful! This explains everything!

    (Please don’t ask what;-)

  3. Steve Goddard says:

    http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?showtopic=227130&st=460

    this is the snowiest decade since the 1940′s in NYC…It will beat out the 1960′s…February 2001-2010 has the highest average for any decade…The top three February snowstorms came during the decade…

  4. TheGoodLocust says:

    Sounds like typical proof of global warming to me.

    We must save the polar bears!

  5. Steve Goddard says:

    Pascvaks,

    The areas of record snow this winter also saw well below normal temperatures.

  6. Zoltan Beldi says:

    “Don’t believe white lies, says Al Gore, record-breaking snow is due to global warming”

    he has even forgotten the modelling he espoused in “An Inconvenient Truth” where it indicated that the snows of winter would be a memory only.

    Some memory !

  7. davidmhoffer says:

    What’s with 1981? I know the scale starts at 40 million so exagerates it, but it still stands out. Was there something unusual that year that reduced the snowfall?

  8. Gary Hladik says:

    Wait a sec: the “warmest decade on record” is also the snowiest? Has AGW raised the melting point of snow? Yikes, IWTWT!

  9. Frank says:

    From The Simpsons:

    Homer: See, Lisa, looks like tomorrow I’ll be shoveling ten feet of global warming.
    Lisa: Global warming can cause weather at both extremes, hot and cold.
    Homer: I see, so you’re saying warming makes it colder. Well aren’t you the queen of crazy land. Everything’s the opposite of everything.

  10. John Balttutis says:

    Not bad for nine-year decade!

  11. Stuart says:

    But it’s “rotten” snow!

  12. Chris D. says:

    Chalk up another failed AR4 prediction.

  13. PaulH says:

    Yes, but it’s “rotten” snow, so it doesn’t count. ;->

  14. Squidly says:

    Judging by the graph, does this not disprove the AGW theory that, as we warm, we get more snow? It appears to me, judging by the graph, that the warmest decades had less snow than the cooler ones. For example, the 70′s decade has almost as much snow as this decade, whereas the 90′s (supposedly the most severe of warming) had the least snow. So, when Al Gore says that “more snow is consistent with Gorebull Warming”, he is lying out his posterior, is he not?

  15. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Steve:

    If I’d known that it would be so important, I’d have kept better memories. Here in Southern New England I remember much colder, much snowier winters throught the 50′s and 60′s. Long Island Sound had a two or three mile fringe of ice in 1976. During the most recent warmest decade ever I have not been tempted to turn on the air-conditioning once. Everyone else has been hit with snow this winter, but here in West Haven I’ve had to shovel only once. I’m seriously starting to wonder if all our records are merely anecdotal. My experience doesn’t seem to match anyone else’s. Billions for modeling, but chicken-feed for well-sited, well-staffed, well-reported stations?

    Maybe climate, like politics, really is local.

  16. PJB says:

    Okay, so now we have to buy sulfate/particulate credits to offset the snowmaking cold, right? Surely there is a climate model that can be co-opted to show the relationship of snowy doom, right? We will be able to legislate changes to industry to ensure that the snow goes down, right?

    Charlie Brown, Lucy, football, repeat as often as you can get away with it.

  17. latitude says:

    “It appears that AGW claims of the demise of snowfall have been exaggerated. And so far things are not looking very good for the climate model predictions of declining snowfall in the 21st century.”

    The 1967 – 1980 period was the prediction of the next ice age. Not because of snow, but because of temperature.

    CO2 levels have increased since then.

    People that say CO2 = warmer = more moisture = more snow.

    Moisture without cold is called rain.

    This was not the rainest decade on record!

  18. LearDog says:

    While all good sport I suppose – we all can giggle (two can play at that game!) – this kind of analysis makes me nuts.

    1) Choose your metric (snowfall, rainfall, temperature, hurricane intensity, hurricane numbers, tornado numbers, etc.)
    2) Choose your baseline (past month, past year, past decade,since 1973, whatever)

    and

    Invoke your correlation! Causation – inferred by reader or politician du jour.

    This kind of analysis is what got us to this point. I gotta call it on BOTH sides of debate, sorry.

  19. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Well, there’s graphs, and there’s graphs. I always like to start out with a graph that shows the actual data, not some kind of reduced anomaly. That puts things in the proper perspective, and allows us to see how big the changes actually are. I used the same data used by Steve Goddard, starting in 1971 to avoid early gaps in the dataset.

    Here’s that graph:

    As you can see, all that this proves is that there is nothing unusual in the data. As I have argued before, there is nothing to be explained. There is nothing unusual about the temperature data. There is nothing unusual about the snowfall data. As far as I know, there is nothing in any climate data outside natural variations, nothing to require an explanation, whether it is CO2 or anything else.

    In fact, the unchanging overall nature of the climate, with only minor up and down natural changes, strongly argues for my hypothesis that the earth has a thermostat.

  20. It is clear from your graphs that the snow cover has been flat since the beginning of the data [1967] with no trend whatsoever.

  21. old44 says:

    “Average winter snow extent during the past decade was greater than the 1960s by about 70,000 km2″ which only goes to proove (switching to Alarmist mode) that it is getting warmer.

  22. latitude says:

    Willis, update your graph to include 2010, so you get that little up-tick on the end.
    ;-)

  23. DJ Meredith says:

    Might be worth pointing out that cities with huge UHI receive less snow, simply because they’re warmer. Tokyo is an excellent example.

    So if cities are recording record snowfall, the “recorded” temperatures vs. actual should be even more suspect.

  24. David Segesta says:

    Does anyone have the quotes from the IPCC or Al Gore saying there would be less snow in the future?

  25. Tim F says:

    There’s probably too much CO2 in the snow–deadly to the plant and animal life you know.

  26. John A says:

    I agree with Dr Svalgaard. The record shows large annual variation but no long term trend, which suggests a stochastic process with low autocorrelation.

  27. Robert Kral says:

    You know, temperature observations can be mishandled, manipulated, misperceived, or whatever. It’s hard to sense the difference between 95 degrees and 96 degrees, or between 40 and 41. Snowfall, on the other hand, is bloody obvious. Anyone can tell the difference between snow that comes halfway up your shoes and snow that comes over your ankles. People remember that stuff. The bloody obvious test is my favorite statistical test.

  28. Willis Eschenbach says:

    latitude (17:52:59)

    Willis, update your graph to include 2010, so you get that little up-tick on the end.
    ;-)

    It’s already there, the graph goes as far as the data goes, through February 2010.

    w.

  29. A decade long record across the entire Northern Hemisphere is not appropriately described as a “snowstorm.”

    True! And Gore was not describing “a decade long record across the entire Northern Hemisphere,” so for once the two of you agree.

    “Just as it’s important not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm,” Gore wrote in a wonky Op-Ed for The New York Times.

    The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth,” he acknowledged.

  30. mkurbo says:

    If global warming is causing snow storms and snow storms are causing unemployment, then is global warming cause unemployment ?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6205EP20100301?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&rpc=23&sp=true

    Or better, is being unemployed a green job ?

  31. pat says:

    Damn inconvenient to have the warmest decade in the existence of the world also the snowiest.

  32. Dave F says:

    I think that the data needs to be adjusted. We should add to the older data because of measurement efficiency increasing in the modern era, and subtract from the modern era because the modern snow cover is increasing, but the snow mass is lower…

  33. Tim Channon says:

    Figure out the significance from this.

    Assuming this link works.
    http://daedalearth.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/nh-snow-cover.png

    Shows all months, no cherry picking.

  34. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – Steve Goddard (16:59:57) :
    Pascvaks (16:57:20) :
    “Warmest? and Snowiest? Somehow I just knew there had to be a logical connection. Beautiful! This explains everything!
    “(Please don’t ask what;-)”

    The areas of record snow this winter also saw well below normal temperatures.
    ________________________
    Please don’t misunderstand. For some crazy reason it seems to make sense that global temperatures would be up/high in various places and heavy snows and below norm temps would also be occuring elsewhere. No one was around when the last glacial –or even the little ice age– started. We’re fumbling around in the dark doing the best we can. Why not have both?
    PS: I have a strong feeling that nothing serious will happen unless/until the Global Conveyor starts to shrink or collapse:-)

  35. latitude says:

    Thanks Willis, that wasn’t clear to me.

  36. ginckgo says:

    And more snow is incompatible with Global Warming how?

  37. pat says:

    Warm = snowfall is a dolts attempt to explain a fallacy with something only Cooper or Couric could repeat with a straight face because they have never takes a physics class, much less 7th grade weather science.
    It is sheer nonsense.

  38. Ani says:

    Just a quick question. I think we had a polar outbreak in 1978 kinda like we had this year. But it might have been 79. Also I would like to see if the solar cycle corresponds to years of more snowfall. Sorry I work off of a blackberry and can’t check it myself.

  39. Richard Sharpe says:

    I think Steve was having a little tongue-in-cheek fun with the breathless warmest-decade-in-a million-years or whatever comes out of the AGW crowd.

  40. p.g.sharrow "PG" says:

    This wide spread heavy snow is a cooling, little white lie.

    So what is big Als’ giant whopper called?

  41. N i c k B . says:

    LearDog,
    With no disrespect to Steve, I think Willis’ point – which is echoed by Dr. Svalgaard – that there is no real trend is the really important part here.

    Chasing short/short-ish trends or spurious-seeming events to counterpoint the Al Gores and Joe Romms is good for advocacy or PR… but it’s Summer of the Sharks hand-waving.

    Don’t get me wrong, it is fun to see their tricks used against them but the real storyline is much more subtle.

  42. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    Increased snow and global warming predictions fit hand in glove—so global warming advocates like Al Gore would say—i.e., warmest decade on record has produced the greatest snowfall on record. But this theorized increase in snow from global warming is supposed to be in an ever smaller and smaller circle in the Northern Hemisphere with the circumference of that diminishing circle around the world approaching closer, year by year, to the North Pole.

    But that isn’t happening. The area of snow cover is not retreating towards the north but it is covering a greater area heading south. The area of snow cover at wintertime around the world in the Northern Hemisphere is growing bigger not smaller.

    This southward moving snowline at winter is impossible in global warming theory scenarios. So again, global warming predictions are not coming to pass.

  43. N i c k B . says:

    Willis/Anthony/Mods,
    This is my work address – the offer stands, if you ever come through the drinks are on me!

  44. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – ginckgo (18:40:53) :
    “And more snow is incompatible with Global Warming how?”
    ________________________

    Nothing’s incompatable with Anthroprogenic Global Warming. Man Made Global Warming allows for and predicts all contingencies. Remember? It’s “man made”, some say mann made;-)

  45. Roger Knights says:

    John Balttutis (17:21:04) :

    Not bad for nine-year decade!

    Now that we have reached the end of the meteorological winter (December-February,) Rutgers University Global Snow Lab numbers (1967-2010) show that the just completed decade (2001-2010) had the snowiest Northern Hemisphere winters on record.”

  46. Roger Knights says:

    PS: 2001 through 2010 includes 10 years, just as there are ten numbers within the range of 1-10.

  47. Pamela Gray says:

    I would agree that no trend is the better hypothesis. We often trot out the increase in CO2 ppm graph as a function of the million parts of the atmosphere to show that in reality, the trend is rather…tiny.

    This tiny tick up would, likewise, not show up on such a graph and is likely well within the error bars from year to year and decade to decade.

  48. Jay says:

    This looks like good work Steve.

    I’m interested though. Comparing your new plots now that all the data is in for Feb 2010 to your previous plots where you used filler data for the last little bit in February shows quite a discrepancy. Indeed you predicted that 2010 was on track to be the snowiest winter by quite a significant margin. I wonder if you’ve learned any lessons about the use of filler data.

    Also, can you tell me when the 21st century started and by how much you think ‘things’ aren’t looking very good for the models.
    All the best.

  49. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Roger Knights (18:58:52)

    John Balttutis (17:21:04) :

    Not bad for nine-year decade!

    “Now that we have reached the end of the meteorological winter (December-February,) Rutgers University Global Snow Lab numbers (1967-2010) show that the just completed decade (2001-2010) had the snowiest Northern Hemisphere winters on record.”

    No, ten years. It runs from the winter ending Feb 2001 to the winter ending Feb 2010 inclusive, or ten years.

  50. Roger Knights says:

    OOps — I was interrupted by a phone call. Make that:

    PS: 2001 through 2010 includes 10 years, just as there are ten numbers within the range of 1-10.

  51. Snowguy716 says:

    Here in Minnesota, we haven’t had our snowiest decade by a long shot. In fact, the period of 1997/98-2006/07, with the exception of 2000/01, were historically warmer than normal (the most warm winters in a row by a long shot with data going back to 1820 in Minneapolis). The winters of 1999/2000, 2001/02, 2002/03, 2003/04, and 2006/07 were exceptionally mild and dry winters with only 2003/04 having any significant snowstorms of those listed (which melted thanks to unusual warmth… again unusual here). Only since 2007/08 have things seemed to have returned to normal with 2007/08 being an average winter with a very cold and snowy spring (our snowiest April on record with 50″… nearly a season’s worth of snowfall!). On the other hand, our summers have gotten noticeably colder with frequent June and August frosts which were unheard of in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. In fact, 2004 set the record for shortest growing season here… only to be broken again in 2009 when unusual cold in early June with two days of temps down into the 20s and another frost in mid August… not good for someone who has a green thumb!

  52. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    Seems that some are missing, again, Steven Goddard’s point. There is not supposed to be an increase in snow covering a larger area of the earth (as he pointed out in a previous post) in global warming predictions.

    I don’t see him making a point about ‘trend from 1967 to 2010′. Do you?

    But I do see this:

    It appears that AGW claims of the demise of snowfall have been exaggerated. And so far things are not looking very good for the climate model predictions of declining snowfall in the 21st century.

    Science requires unforgiving accuracy. Let’s try to keep things in context would be my request of scientists here. ;-)

  53. AlexB says:

    There are parts of the world that are moist enough to snow but too warm to snow in a given season. There are also parts of the world that are cold enough to snow but too dry to snow in any given season. Consider the North Pole. Changes in snowfall in the north pole would be moisture driven because all year round it is cold enough to snow at some point during the day but there is a lack of moisture. So places like the north pole would likely have more snow in a warming world.

    Now consider the United States. The lack of snow here is mainly driven by it being to warm to snow not the lack of moisture. So more snow in the United States would be driven by colder temperatures.

    So we have different regions of the world where different conditions (warming vs cooling) will produce different trends in snowfall.

    Now I don’t understand why people think they can take the theory from the Arctic (warmer = more snow) and apply it to a different region like the US (colder = more snow) and claim that observation supports the theory.

  54. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES (19:19:18) :
    There is not supposed to be an increase in snow covering a larger area of the earth
    And there hasn’t been as his graphs and Willis’ and mine http://www.leif.org/research/Snow-Cover-1966-2010-NH-Winter.png show so clearly.

  55. _Jim says:


    DJ Meredith (17:57:40) :

    Might be worth pointing out that cities with huge UHI receive less snow, simply because they’re warmer. Tokyo is an excellent example.

    Nice theory, but, a large part of the UHI effect is retained heat from insolation (incoming solar radiation energy warming concrete etc) and, if no sun, no warmth … which in large part happened in Dallas Ft. Worth just recently with our record snow; and we had continuing overcast afterwards too.

    When the sun *does* come out, whatever frozen precip we did have literally melts away; continued overcast and the winter precip is much longer to melt.

    .
    .

  56. Richard M says:

    Paul Daniel Ash (18:22:09) :

    A decade long record across the entire Northern Hemisphere is not appropriately described as a “snowstorm.”

    True! And Gore was not describing “a decade long record across the entire Northern Hemisphere,” so for once the two of you agree.

    “Just as it’s important not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm,” Gore wrote in a wonky Op-Ed for The New York Times.

    “The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth,” he acknowledged.

    Yup, Gore and others like him hyped the alarmist claims that the ski industry would disappear and children might never see snow again. They lied and now those lies are coming back to roost.

    Now, in pure revisionist mode, they are claiming that more snow is “consistent” with AGW, and in fact, a result of AGW.

    And you are surprised that people would ridicule him? That people would laugh and complain about 2′ of global warming on their driveways? Isn’t it about time you removed the blindfold.

  57. genezeien says:

    The temperatures records have been “cooked”. So it’s no surprise the hottest decade is the snowiest :-)

  58. Dave F says:

    Sure there is no trend. But that is because we are measuring in whole kms! Lets split the km into decimal places, and portray and do all the calculations that way. But, remember, since we are measuring snow cover, we have to eliminate the outliers, which would be all areas that are too snowy, and any areas that are deemed not snowy enough, such as the Mojave. We can’t have these outliers contaminating the trend we are trying to detect.

  59. NickB. says:

    aMINO,
    The point, to me at least, of bringing up the lack of long term trend is to preempt the quite predictable holier-than-thou, we-do-it-but-you-can’t charge of cherry picking that Tamino should be posting in 3… 2…

    It’s not to beat Steve up. That’s my $0.02 at least

  60. rbateman says:

    Too bad for the warmists they couldn’t enjoy the good times while they lasted.
    Now we have another decade or two of getting our chops busted with snow & ice.

  61. Kate says:

    Climateprogress is patting itself on the back for displaying a list of scientists who support global warming.

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/02/the-climate-change-debate-is-science-versus-snake-oil/#comment-265042

    After removing all the national academies of science and national departments of something for linking their science to the UN IPCC, what have we got left?

    I intend to start on this project tomorrow.

  62. timetochooseagain says:

    “A decade long record across the entire Northern Hemisphere is not appropriately described as a “snowstorm.””

    It’s a Blizzkrieg ;)

  63. hunter says:

    So we have what appears to be snowiest decade, along with what is claimed to be the warmest decade…..and so what?
    No great catastrophes.
    No great famines.
    Droughts within historic norms.
    Rainfall within historic norms.
    Storms within historic norms.
    Snow is falling within its seasonal expectations.
    But according to our AGW friends, we are facing *climate crisis*.

  64. Steve Goddard says:

    The point is again, that snowfall is not declining as predicted by the models.

  65. rbateman says:

    ginckgo (18:40:53) :

    And more snow is incompatible with Global Warming how?

    If the Earth warms, there is less cold air to freeze the warmer moisture into snow.
    If the Eath cools, there is more cold air to freeze the warmer moisture into snow.

  66. Stephan says:

    These types of postings are devastating to AGW because the proof is provided directly. THis is why its important to keep the originals always.

  67. Patrick Davis says:

    “latitude (17:40:52) :

    People that say CO2 = warmer = more moisture = more snow.

    Moisture without cold is called rain.

    This was not the rainest decade on record!”

    Downunder, some places in Australia we’ve had record rains while you guys up north have had record snows.

  68. Steve Goddard says:

    Willis, Leif,

    I haven’t seen any criticism from you about anything in the article or the data presented.

    You seem to be complaining about your own inferences. I can’t take credit or responsibility for your thoughts.

  69. Stephan says:

    Looks like NH ice is at 2000 levels! better keep originals before they start “hiding the increase” see DMI and compare with CT !

  70. Steve Goddard says:

    Willis,

    I completely agree that the earth has to have a thermostat, given that temperatures have remained in a narrow band for hundreds of millions of years.

  71. RockyRoad says:

    What are the Warmers predicting for the next decade? Whatever it is, I’ll expect just the opposite!

  72. Graeme From Melbourne says:

    Well…. Just go ahead… Raise my Taxes!!!

    I’ve become completely convinced that more Global Warming equals more Cold and more Snow, and that paying more Taxes is a civic duty to support the Noble cause of saving the planet…

    You know – if I could pay 110% of my income as tax – I would, I really would, because you just know that the government will spend it wisely, you just know it, you can trust them to do what’s best for all of us. After all they have certainly nailed that Man Made Global Warming thingy.

    What if I got a second job and worked nights and weekends, I could get some extra money to give to Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund to save the Polar Bears. ‘Cause they need our help, Al Gore said so, and just like the Government we can trust him too, after all he was a Vice President or something…

    Seeing all that snow, well it just makes me mad to know that Man Made emissions of CO2 did all that. Making snow and killing Polar bears – I can hardly stand it.

    Wheeeww… good to got that off my chest…

  73. Wayne R says:

    Yeah, yeah, if the warming is causing more oceanic evaporation thereby causing increased snow, why didn’t it come down as nice warm rain?

    Well, we still don’t know enough about our chaotic climate system to say that in a warming world all that snow was impossible. Mind-bogglingly unlikely, sure, especially over a period of years (this winter was not the first such, as we know). But still not a cast-iron case.

    One datum that would help a lot would be the amount of precipitation, snow and rain combined, over those snowy winters. If greater than normal, that would refine the questions we need to answer. If the same precip, equally ditto but different. If less, ditto again but also different again.

  74. Allan M R MacRae says:

    Nothing to see here folks, move on!

    The snow does not exist.

    The people at CRU, GISS and NCDC have conferred, and adjusted their records.

    There is no snow.

    There is no snow.

    There is no snow.

  75. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    Leif Svalgaard (19:25:50) :

    Starting points are the fodder of endless arguments.

  76. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    Steve Goddard (20:00:23) :

    You seem to be complaining about your own inferences.

    This is the point I was also trying to make.

  77. Steve Goddard says:

    kate,

    Good catch. It certainly is not surprising that scientists would support their funding sources.

  78. Dave Worley says:

    “the data are surely wrong.
    Our observing system is inadequate.”

  79. Dave Worley says:

    Oops…forgot.

    “it is a travesty”

  80. Steve Goddard says:

    I made a graph of GISTEMP vs. snow cover. If there is a correlation between snow cover and temperature, I sure can’t see it.

    http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddw82wws_442cfr5k9cw

  81. crosspatch says:

    “And more snow is incompatible with Global Warming how?”

    It isn’t the amount of snow. One could have “more” as in deeper snow with Global Warming. But what is incompatible with AGW is the extent of the snow. Imagine you have an area that was just barely at the snow line. If you warm the climate, that snow line should move North. So while one might expect greater precipitation amounts during warming climate, the precipitation would fall as rain in that location and the snow line would be expected to move North.

    What we have seen this year is the snow line moving South of where it has been in recent years in both North America and Eurasia. This would tend to contradict a warming climate. But climate change can manifest in many different ways.

    The Younger Dryas is considered a cold period when climate returned to near ice age conditions for a while but during the Younger Dryas, the Midwestern US had hotter Summers than before the event. The climate became more extreme during the Younger Dryas in many areas with both hotter summers and colder winters than before the event or even today (Shuman et al., 2002; Grimm and Jacobson, 2004) . So you can have a “cold” period that produces record high summer temperatures.

    But generally, snow lines move according to general climate. Lets see how the next 10 years look.

  82. philincalifornia says:

    Great post, great comments. Pretty entertaining for an essentially flat line, but how come we can’t compare raw to the adjusted data ?? Did the climate charlatans not agree as to whether they should adjust it up or down, ha ha ha.

    Quite a bit of discussion above about Al Gore and his predilection for telling whoppers. Surely, this most recent one has to be his most obvious ?? It’s sort of set in the present as opposed to most of his whoppers of the future.
    A massive lie to start his recent WSJ essay (credit to the person who wrote it for him):

    It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

    Al Gore would be relieved if his raison d’etre for the past 20 or 30 years turns out to be a pile of crap ?? Eh ?? Anybody believe that ??

  83. RockyRoad says:

    Wayne R (20:14:26) :

    Yeah, yeah, if the warming is causing more oceanic evaporation thereby causing increased snow, why didn’t it come down as nice warm rain?
    ———
    Reply:
    Don’t you remember the teeter-totter analogy? When its warmer over the ocean, evaporation offsets that higher temperature by snowing over the continent. What happens is that the evaporation process makes it cool in one place and the process of condensation into snow makes it warm in another. It’s that simp…. wait…. Let me think about that again. :-(

  84. Terry says:

    Hang on a minute, this data hasnt been through Tamino’s statistical analysis yet. Im sure that there must be a decline somewhere in there to be found with an R2 of at least 0.1

  85. Steve Goddard says:

    Terry,

    I’m looking forward to Tamino demonstrating how snow cover has declined to a record decadal high. We can call it “Tamino’s snow trick.”

  86. Steve Goddard (20:00:23) :
    You seem to be complaining about your own inferences. I can’t take credit or responsibility for your thoughts.
    Some models, e.g. INM-CM3.0 predict an increase until 2025, but in any case since the models start their ‘prediction run’ in about year 2000, there has not been enough time to validate or invalidate their claims on a statistically valid basis. Post again around 2020, when we should know which way the wind blows.

  87. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Steve Goddard (20:00:23)

    Willis, Leif,

    I haven’t seen any criticism from you about anything in the article or the data presented.

    You seem to be complaining about your own inferences. I can’t take credit or responsibility for your thoughts.

    Well, lets see:

    1. I don’t see any complaining in what I said.

    2. I didn’t criticise your article or the data presented, I merely tried to place it in a wider context. In fact, I used the data you used.

    3. I never asked you to take credit or responsibility for my thoughts.

    In short, I don’t understand your point. My point was that although this is the snowiest decade in a while, overall the data show no trend at all.

    If you’d like a comment on your article, since you have only five data points and they vary by only ~ ±1%, the difference is not statistically significant.

    Better?

  88. wayne says:

    Jet stream shows signs of a collapse back to the fifty degree latitude line. Uooo…, what could it mean? Cooler arctic for the summer? AO back to positive? And the sun, it’s now 1/4 wave of the last cycle’s heat max, the Arctic ice minimum. Is there really such a thermal lag? Watching… waiting…
    http://squall.sfsu.edu/scripts/nhemjetstream_model.html

    Your post’s appreciated Steve, keep ‘em coming.

  89. James Sexton says:

    See, knowing that more snow equals CAGW, that’s proof positive that we’re in uber melt mode!!!!! You guys can’t deny that now!!!!

  90. Just The Facts says:

    So I find myself cheering for sea ice…

    Arctic Sea Ice Extent is on an upswing;
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    and making a run at the arbitrary normal range used by NCIDC:
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    Global Sea Ice Area also appears to be making a run on average:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    and Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is again above average:
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

    There are certainly no signs of the catastrophic, accelerating, extremely rapid, alarming, faster than we predicted only a few years ago, sea ice free arctic summer and drowning polar bear type melting we’ve heard so much about…

  91. Steve Goddard says:

    wayne,

    Thanks for the Jet Stream link. After five months of miserable cold, snow and ice at 45N in Colorado, we finally had a warm afternoon today. We definitely felt the shift in the Jet Stream.

  92. Squidly says:

    @ Willis Eschenbach (17:46:17) :

    Thank you for the graph! That is quite telling, and while I agree with your annotation, “snow cover” and “snowiest decade” are two completely different things, at least as I interpret them. “snowiest” suggests to me that there has been MORE snow (ie: deeper snow, more of it), while “snow cover” suggests to me larger COVERAGE (ie: larger areas affected, etc.). Two different measurements.

  93. Steve Goddard says:

    willis,

    OK, thanks for clarifying. The graph and trend you presented was for year round snow cover. I’m just discussing winter snow cover though.

    The point I am making is that winter snow cover is not declining and I think we are in agreement.

  94. savethesharks says:

    Al Gore: “Just as it’s important not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm.”

    Steven Goddard: “A decade long record across the entire Northern Hemisphere is not appropriately described as a “snowstorm.”

    Well said, and great post, Steven.

    I think you and Willis [and Leif] are talking past each other in different languages, while saying the same thing: There is no trend.

    I get what you are pointing out, that this snowfall increase defies the predictions of the warmists [or now, in their latest claim that more warming means more snowfall....does it? LOL]….and turns out that you agree with Willis on the longer scale…so we are all fine.

    Thanks, Steven, Willis, Leif, Anthony, and everyone else who is working hard to set the record straight….as that is the way science should work.

    On a side note of the spurious “more warming means more snow”….

    I don’t think they realize how difficult and how “special” conditions need to be to support snow in the temperate climes.

    Unlike rain, snow requires specific dendritic snow growth zones in the atmosphere.

    Competing with dewpoint-raising factors like the subtropical jet, the Gulf of Mexico, or the Gulf Stream, the “Pineapple Express” in the Pacific, or whatever, snow has a hard time forming, let alone even reaching the surface….unless you are Steamboat Springs, CO.

    My own locality on the coastal plain of Virginia [where snow is an anomaly, for sure] saw a change over to brief heavy snow this evening, as adiabatic cooling did its dirty work. But that ended pretty quickly, as there is no arctic air in place, and the Atlantic air took back over.

    Speaking of “no arctic air”….it should be pointed out, as Joe Bastardi and other meteorologists on his site have recently opined: There has been little true arctic air in the pattern for this cold, snowy winter.

    The persistent high latitude block that sent the Arctic Oscillation into its abyss, has made sure of that. The block has worked so good, that it prevented a true cross-polar flow to set up over the winter.

    [Can you imagine how bad it would have been if we would have had true "vodka cold" outbreaks? I remember my brother calling me about the below zero temps (F) in Bend OR in December....there was some damn cold for sure...but not as bad as it could have been.]

    Truly an interesting winter season.

    All part of that nearly flat line that Willis points out….but the variations from season to season….can be quite dramatic!

    Enough to fool people like James Hansen and Michael Mann, for sure.

    But, given their shoddy performance so far, is that so hard to do??

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  95. Squidly says:

    ginckgo (18:40:53) :

    And more snow is incompatible with Global Warming how?

    Well, lets see. Warmer=more evaporation from the oceans (no more worries about sea level rise), which causes more precipitation to fall (no more worries of droughts and water shortages), and finally, more snow (no more worries of receding glaciers or low level snow pack).

    Hmmm, you’re right, it all sounds pretty good to me. Crisis averted… we’re all saved! And to think, all this goodness from a little “global warming”, who’da thunk it?

  96. James Sexton says:

    Willis Eschenbach (21:15:27) :
    Steve Goddard (20:00:23)
    Willis, Leif,

    I can’t and won’t try to carry a bucket for you guys in respect to climate, but……….lol, you girls are much more knowledgeable about climate/whether than I ever wish to be. That being said, that information is as meaningful, if not more, than the decadal data given to us by the warmistas. At the very least, it shows an irrelevance to the alarm we’ve heard over and over again about the decline of winter. As Anthony pointed out in an earlier post, it has to be colder to snow; Reading the article, I haven’t seen any inferences other than what has been stated. Nothing earth shattering,

    Kindest regards,

    James Sexton

  97. tarpon says:

    Is this a homogenized record or are we stuck with the raw data.

    Steve is this how the data is normally compiled, or is this special run … Just curious, because I haven’t heard of ‘decade snowfall’ records before.

    I think it’s just snow cover, does this say anything about amounts?

  98. Squidly says:

    @ Snowguy716 (19:13:01) :

    Go take a look to your Northwest (Fargo, ND) for 1997/98, and you will find a completely different story (snowiest, coldest). 97/98 winter produced 137 accumulated inches of snow in Fargo (most ever recorded) and caused “The Flood of The Millennium” that spring (Discovery Channel production, Google it).

  99. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    Steve Goddard (20:32:49) :

    I made a graph of GISTEMP vs. snow cover. If there is a correlation between snow cover and temperature, I sure can’t see it.

    Just take data from different graphs and splice in it in to create what you want. That’s a ‘standard practice’ ‘trick’ in global warming science. It could be worth millions to you.

  100. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES (21:49:02) :

    /sarc off now/

  101. The UK’s government declared the UK out of recession after the statistics somehow came up with a growth rate of 0.1% in the last quarter of 2009.
    This is pure statistical nonsense; a distraction from reality.

    Same for people that not even after but during one very snowy NH winter declare all the remaining data on Climate Change for being wrong.

    Are you all serious? It feels like a Kindergarten where shouting out loud is part of the kids’ development.

  102. KlausB says:

    @Graeme From Melbourne (20:12:15) :

    “Well…. Just go ahead… Raise my Taxes!!!”

    Only, if I can pay my tax in snow.

  103. savethesharks says:

    Willis Eschenbach (21:15:27) :

    It was your tone, that’s all. Blog posts can be so impersonal, no?

    You said: “I always like to start out with a graph that shows the actual data, not some kind of reduced anomaly.”

    You could have said it like this:

    “Thanks Steven for pointing out the variations between the seasons. Rather dramatic. Point taken about the climate model errors showing less snowfall.
    Check out this larger scale graph which shows no real trend. What do Hansen and Gore have to say about that?”

    Something like that.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  104. Steve Goddard says:

    tarpon,

    The Rutgers data only shows extent. The snow could be an inch deep.

    The record snows in recent years in New York, Washington, Moscow, China, Scotland, Colorado ski areas, etc. are an indication of depth.

    In 1999, Mt. Baker in Washington set the world’s record for snowfall at 1140 inches.
    http://www.skimountaineer.com/CascadeSki/CascadeSnow.html
    http://www.skimountaineer.com/CascadeSki/CascadeSnow/MountBakerSnow1998-1999.gif

  105. Larry says:

    NO REAL TREND. I want everybody to repeat that, like a mantra. NO REAL TREND. Because I think that it is becoming fairly obvious that it is the case as to both temperature and snow cover. This is the point that has to be stressed by everyone who gets into it with the AGWers.

    Thanks to Willis, Leif, and Steven for your work on this.

  106. Steve Goddard says:

    tarpon,

    I would say that the “normal” way of describing climate is:

    Temperatures are rising
    Snowfall is declining
    Spring is coming earlier
    Sea level is rising
    The poles are melting
    Polar bears are drowning
    Penguins are dying
    Hurricanes and tornadoes are increasing

    etc. etc.

    That is what my kids get taught at school.

  107. wayne says:

    Oh, and Steve, just tell others you are stating numeric statistical facts, not trends. Nowhere in your article did I ever see the word trend. Others need to open up their statistics book, or maybe their book is limited. Oh, and by the way, a trend line can have two distinct meanings, one is to statistically determine drift (or levelness) of a number of data points, the other is to establish confidence membership and predict continuation and to this r2 does apply. Your statements a week or so ago on snowfall were merely stating the former, drifts in the data points, not confidence in continuation of a trend (and for this you need at least two points!). So to me, you’ve been right all along! I am finding that some commenters here, which I initially take as more or less experts, also need the eye of a truly skeptical scientist lifetime student.

  108. Peter Jones says:

    The thing about measuring snow cover is that it is really an indication of how large an area had temperatures that consistently remained below freezing. If we were really seeing increased snow due to global warming, the snow would come and melt very quickly and the average extent would match an area that was consistently below freezing, not just the snow occurrence due to extra humidity.

    Thus, this is actually an indication of average temperature during the winter. It is a very exact thermometer since we don’t have to adjust for differences in where the solid-liquid transition of water is; we only can’t know how much colder or warmer it is. In any case, it certainly brings further question to the temperature record.

  109. Luboš Motl says:

    Sorry, I am not understanding how the 2001-2010 decade could have been completed by March 2010. Doesn’t it end in December 2010? Did you mean 2000-2009? Or are these numbers some projections? Or has it become the snowiest already 1 year before the decade ends?

  110. Aaron says:

    God bless you for knowing when a decade begins and ends.

    A

  111. Luboš Motl says:

    I see, these are Northern Hemisphere numbers and the snow that will come after early March is just being ignored…

  112. rbateman says:

    Try running a double graph, one bar being snowfall in the N. Hemisphere, the other being the rainfall for the same.

  113. Ken Stewart says:

    I’ve never seen snow… but I know that I’ve recorded 1472mm of rain for the Wet season, December to February, which is 184% of our average.
    Many places in Eastern Australia have broken records for March as well after only a couple of days. See kenskingdom.wordpress.com
    This in spite of El Nino and BOM seasonal outlooks predicting warmer and drier.
    I believe (NH & SH) seasons are getting back towards “normal” and any trend is in the eye of the beholder.

  114. Dan says:

    To Al Gore:
    The forest consists of trees, and climate consists of weather.
    If you have enough trees you get a forest, if you have enough weather it will be climate.
    Just to get things straight.

  115. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Steve Goddard (21:35:26)

    willis,

    OK, thanks for clarifying. The graph and trend you presented was for year round snow cover. I’m just discussing winter snow cover though.

    The point I am making is that winter snow cover is not declining and I think we are in agreement.

    Thanks, Steve. What we can say statistically about both the overall and the winter snow cover data is this.

    The trend over the entire dataset is not statistically different from zero.

    In fact, it is a long ways from being statistically different from zero, in both instances. In practical terms there is absolutely no trend at all.

    Which as you point out, Steve, puts the lie to the modeler’s claims you cited above. That citation says:

    20th and 21st century decadal scale trends and variability in winter North American snow cover extent (NA-SCE) are investigated using coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model experiments participating in the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. … These results suggest that snow cover may be a sensitive indicator of climate change, and that North American snow extent will probably decrease in response to greenhouse gas emissions, although the magnitude of the response may be nonlinear.

    BZZZZT! Next contestant please, wrong answer.

    The amazing thing to me is that they could make those claims in 2005, when there had been no trend in either the winter or year-round snow cover for almost forty years. If you think snow is a “sensitive indicator of climate change”, and it has shown no change for decades … wouldn’t that kinda be a clue?

    This total denial of easily observed reality is a sad commentary on the computer climate modelers, who often seem to be verging on the psychotic … and as the story goes, what’s the difference between a neurotic AGW supporter, a psychotic AGW supporter, and Al Gore?

    The neurotic builds climate change castles in the air … the psychotic lives in those castles and never looks outside to see if it’s snowing … and Al Gore?

    He collects the rent on the castles, and laughs all the way to the bank.

  116. Steve Goddard says:

    Lubos,

    One of the Rutgers metrics is seasonal snow extent.
    http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php

    Peak snow cover always occurs during the winter (December-February) period, which is over for the current decade.

  117. Willis Eschenbach says:

    savethesharks (21:52:03)

    Willis Eschenbach (21:15:27) :

    It was your tone, that’s all. Blog posts can be so impersonal, no?

    You said: “I always like to start out with a graph that shows the actual data, not some kind of reduced anomaly.”

    You could have said it like this:

    “Thanks Steven for pointing out the variations between the seasons. Rather dramatic. Point taken about the climate model errors showing less snowfall.
    Check out this larger scale graph which shows no real trend. What do Hansen and Gore have to say about that?”

    Something like that.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

    Thanks, Chris, point taken.

    w.

  118. Dave F says:

    crosspatch (20:48:10) :

    …for a while but during the Younger Dryas, the Midwestern US had hotter Summers than before the event. The climate became more extreme during the Younger Dryas in many areas with both hotter summers and colder winters than before the event…

    So, I must ask, is it possible Earth just contains the same amount of energy, but distributes it unevenly based on greenhouse and other conditions? Other conditions can dictate the maximum amount (or climate sensitivity) the Earth can warm to a certain change? Or in other words, is it possible that Earth has a climate sensitivity that is NOT CONSTANT?

  119. Peter of Sydney says:

    It’s bound to happen sooner or later. The differences between the real world climate and the reported climate readings of the various official sources are starting to show someone is not telling the truth. Which is it? The real climate observation or the officially reported ones? I would not be at all surprised to hear there are people in this AGW game that would say it’s the latter. That in itself proves the AGW thesis is a fraud.

  120. Steve Goddard says:

    There have been a number of famous instances of roofs collapsing in Russia during the last decade due to heavy snowfall. Including a hockey rink, swimming pool and a market.

    http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS323US323&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=russian+roof+collapse

  121. Steve Goddard says:

    wayne (22:05:26)

    Exactly right!

  122. HB says:

    Yay Steve,

    I loved the very simple point of your post – it really has snowed a lot lately.

    Not here in Melbourne, Aus, but clearly the NH has copped it. Usually an El Nino year will give us a hot summer but not this year. We’ve been cooler as well.

  123. Perry says:

    From http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/falling-stars.html

    “Forbes magazine, in the persona of Henry I Miller, has him suffering from suffers from narcissistic personality disorder. Amongst the signs he lists, taken from the psychiatrist’s bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is a “pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts.”

    We also get, “A grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)” and: “Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love; believes that he or she is ‘special’ and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).”

    Miller notes that Gore’s Sunday op-ed column was entitled, “We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change.” Too bad we can’t wish away Al Gore, he says. But … you can always wish upon a falling star.”

    Imagine what state the USA would be in now, if Al Gore had been president?

  124. Michael says:

    Al Gore is Back

    Absolutely hilarious.

    Greg’s Greg-alogue: 3/2
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/4059437/gregs-greg-alogue-32

  125. Nick says:

    HB, metropolitan Melbournes’ summer was warmer than average by 1 to 2 degrees Celsius,day and night,according to your Bureau of Meteorology.

    Ken Stewart,El Nino in Australia usually means hot dry spring-early summer, with late summer and autumn often wet particularly in the east and northeast

  126. dp says:

    Some days I wonder about all this and think: no way.

    This is part of what my Jeep and I have warmed up (That white ball behind the space station is what I refer to).

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/1003/iss_sts130_big.jpg

    Well – I had to use my Dodge pickup, too. As a result the world is in peril. If it’s any consolation I don’t have my airplane any longer, but still – AGW is really all my fault.

    All seriousness aside, what I see in that photo is a huge spherical radiator, half of which is exposed to the night time sky and its unforgiving -70º heat sink, and much of the other half hiding behind clouds. It’s difficult to imagine the temperature on the surface of the ball is anywhere near stable over time. And I guess it’s not.

  127. Michael says:

    My latest upload on Youtube
    The State of AGW Climate Change Theory 3-1-2010

  128. Michael says:

    See my previous video post at 6:20 to see Nathan Thurn in that one.

    Nathan Thurm interviewed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

  129. wayne says:

    Steve Goddard (22:51:25) :

    Thanks Steve, it took a week of some digging to finally get my mind set straight, to me anyway.

    And Leif, this is not meant against you, but contraire, I owe you a big thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I seem to have looked at these finer points of statistics in the wrong way for years. Other people of science had hood-winked me on these points before, using statistics as the hammer. Hopefully, never so easily again. However, don’t jump too fast to say someone is implying continuation of a trend within a certain confidence level when they may merely be saying, statistically, the points plotted against time are pointing up, level, or downward within a certain range, no continuation of confidence said, meant, or implied. Once again, if this is wrong, let me know, I am always trying to learn the next thing I do not know.

  130. Michael says:

    I think I’m seeing a pattern here. This is how the extreme environmental thoughts were implanted in the sheeples brains through SNL among other places. This video is the precursor to the Green Police videos. It may have been used for test marketing purposes.

    Wastebusters! (Nathan Thurm)

  131. Ralph says:

    >>Many regions of the Northern Hemisphere have seen
    >>record snowfall this winter, including Washington D.C,
    >>Moscow, China, and Korea.

    And N.W. Europe (UK and neighbouring regions).

    .

  132. John Baltutis says:

    Willis Eschenbach (19:09:09) :

    Roger Knights (18:58:52)

    John Baltutis (17:21:04) :

    Not bad for nine-year decade!

    “Now that we have reached the end of the meteorological winter (December-February,) Rutgers University Global Snow Lab numbers (1967-2010) show that the just completed decade (2001-2010) had the snowiest Northern Hemisphere winters on record.”

    No, ten years. It runs from the winter ending Feb 2001 to the winter ending Feb 2010 inclusive, or ten years.

    Maybe I missed something during my Maths classes, but AFAIK:

    01-02 1
    02-03 2
    03-04 3

    08-09 8
    09-10 9

    implying that Feb ’01-Feb ’10 equates to nine years.

    Note: Misspelled my name earlier, it’s Baltutis.

  133. Richard Telford says:

    Was the decade significantly snowier? If not you really have no story.

  134. John Finn says:

    Roger Knights (18:58:52) :

    John Balttutis (17:21:04) :

    Not bad for nine-year decade!

    “Now that we have reached the end of the meteorological winter (December-February,) Rutgers University Global Snow Lab numbers (1967-2010) show that the just completed decade (2001-2010) had the snowiest Northern Hemisphere winters on record.”

    Don’t worry about it, Roger. John Balttutis appears to have trouble counting from 1 to 10.

  135. John Baltutis says:

    Ah! After a walk around the cool, night air, I see the error of my ways.

    12/00-2/01 1
    12/01-2/02 2

    12/08-2/09 9
    12/09-2/10 10

    So, it should read the last ten winters, 12/00-2/10 and not the decade of 2001-2010, which implies 01/01-12/10, inclusive.

  136. Ian E says:

    ‘ Gary Hladik (17:16:47) :

    Wait a sec: the “warmest decade on record” is also the snowiest? Has AGW raised the melting point of snow? Yikes, IWTWT! ‘

    OMG – Ice Nine has arrived!

  137. Bernd Felsche says:

    Willis; how dare you upset Steve’s wonderful satire in chartmanship and tabloid headlining! :-)

    I saw the graphs and thought I was looking at a RealClimate blog article.

    You’d form a rock band if you wanted to make money from noise in the 1970′s. Since the 1990′s, “the buzz” has been to go into climatology. Lots of money to be made from noise.

    The choice of the 30-year nominal period to define climate is especially appropriate. Climate was previously observed to occur in significant cycles of *at least* twice as long as that, so profits from “climate change” are a certainty.

  138. Rob says:

    Yes, but this is the raw data. You should give us the graph of the “value added” data. I am sure there is a significant downward trend there.

  139. Tenuc says:

    I’m sure that when the historians of a hundred years hence try to explain the CAGW global scam, the first decade of the 21st century will be seen as the ‘tipping point’ of failure. Snow is such an obvious event that it can’t be fudged or hidden.

  140. Copner says:

    Hasn’t the world population greatly increased since 1967?

    And, at the same time, hasn’t the world’s urban population, and the size of cities, increased by an even larger percentage since 1967?

    So if the climate were constant, wouldn’t we expect snow coverage to decline slightly, just because of the larger urban areas?

  141. fred wisse says:

    Finally a true hockey-stick except for the pure chance interval in 1987 , but even a champion sometimes looses , mr obama can confirm this although algore will detect another rhythm , his new movie will show the inevitable melting of this snow of yesterday

  142. kadaka says:

    Well, the meteorological winter may be over. But how about the meteorological spring? Are we heading towards any sort of snowiest spring(s) of any sort of record? ‘Cause I’ve just been outdoors, it’s snowing right now, it’s accumulating, and it’s been awhile since it was all gone. This does not look promising.

  143. Mari Warcwm says:

    Kate:

    ‘Climateprogress is patting itself on the back for displaying a list of scientists who support Global Warming’

    I checked out this site. How very depressing. How many of these organisations are being supported by the taxpayers the world over? Should we tell them that we have record snow fall these ten years? How far will the glaciers of the next ice age advance before these dinasaurs notice?

    There was a small crumb of comfort – one of the bloggers pointed out that the climate deniers seem to be winning. Hurrah!! Onward doubting soldiers….

  144. Mike Haseler says:

    Peter Jones: “Thus, this is actually an indication of average temperature during the winter. It is a very exact thermometer since we don’t have to adjust for differences in where the solid-liquid transition of water is; we only can’t know how much colder or warmer it is. In any case, it certainly brings further question to the temperature record.”

    Peter, that would be true if the temperature were the only variant. However, if e.g. the quantity of precipitation were to increase, then you would get more snow – so by one argument more snow cover, but as I know to my cost (spoilt weekends) more precipitation can also mean more rain which very quickly wipes the Scottish hills of snow.

    It should also be possible to get less snow with the same amount of precipitation if e.g. the day-night variation increases, in that snow melts during the heat of the day and even if the cold of the night averages out the temperature, the added cold cannot remake the lost snow.

    There will be other factors like the type of snow (fluffy stuff melts quicker compared to granular) vegetative ground cover (snow melts on concrete but settles on grass)

  145. Clive E Burkland says:

    The snowfall short term trends over 50 years may not show the complete picture.

    While agreeing with Willis re the thermostat theory (how do you post your graphs?) the dataset is quite limited. 1976 although coming out of a cool era cannot be compared with a solar grand minimum, the thermostat perhaps works better when the solar measures are on the increase.

    Lets visit the same graph in 10 years time. Its early days.

  146. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Bernd Felsche (01:12:54) : edit

    Willis; how dare you upset Steve’s wonderful satire in chartmanship and tabloid headlining! :-)

    Dang … if that was satire, it went entirely over my head. Steve, was that satire? I’m losing my touch …

  147. P Gosselin says:

    Why haven’t I seen this before?
    Offsets for cheating on your spouse!

  148. Caleb says:

    Robert E. Phelan (17:34:31) :
    I also remember that very cold winter of 1976-77. The sea-ice was pretty amazing up in Maine, and I remember harbors had troubles with sea-ice all the way down to Chesapeake Bay. This winter is balmy, up in the northeast, by comparison.

    I think that 1976-77 winter might be repeated once the AMO enters its cold phase. As I recall both the AMO and PDO were in their cold phases back then.

    In 1976-77 a ridge of high pressure got stuck out west, and California was sunny with a drought all winter. The jet stream curved all the way up to Alaska, and I think their winter was mild, at least near the coast. However the jet stream then curved around, and came southeast clear down to the Gulf of Mexico, before turning back up to the northeast. In Maine the winds shifted to the northwest in October and pretty much stayed northwest for months, only occasionally shifting northeast for storms. The colder AMO did not put up such a fight against the cold as it did this year.

    This year the clash between the arctic flow from the northwest and the warmer AMO has allowed the big blizzards to blow up along the mid-Atlantic coast. As these storms have exploded the north side of the storms have drawn milder, maritime air east over Eastern Canada. On several occasions I’ve seen the moisture thrown all the way west to Chicago, even as the arctic air plunged all the way south to Florida. On one occasion it was colder in Augusta Georgia than it was in Augusta Maine.

    If I was judging the winter simply by how often the water buckets froze in my barn, I’d have to call it a mild winter, in New Hampshire. I thank the warm phase of the AMO, but know that is going to change in the next few years.

  149. Peter Jones says:

    Mike Haseler

    My point is, that we have all seen how we can’t trust the temperature record due to the problems with siting weather stations. Since Snow Extent is an area measurement, then we know region that has maintained cold enough temperatures to not lose snow cover. Moreover, while there are other variants, we have this observational record for the complete area and we don’t have to worry about sampling bias and homogenization. Yes, it is a more crude assessment, where snow will melt as some function of the thickness and the average high temperature for the day, but the thing is that we have the data for every single point on the map. We can’t get a fuller dataset.

  150. Bill Tuttle says:

    Doesn’t count — it’s not *multi-year* snow.

    Yet…

  151. HectorK says:

    Sorry…. OT I know but after a brief lull it appears the BBC are right back on it! Global Warming the child killer!!!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8533937.stm

    Have we heard too much about climate change? Are people switching off the subject, particularly as we in the UK go through the coldest, snowiest winter for many years, and the media is full of stories about the climate sceptics?

    The Lancet medical journal has had two special editions on the subject during the last year, which show that children, the most vulnerable in any community, are already dying in large numbers in poor countries as a result of a warming world.

    To a paediatrician, this would be a devastating response, coming just as health professionals are accepting not only that lives are being lost by global warming, but that the potential health benefits of a low carbon lifestyle would be very, very big.

    Little has been said in the media about climate change and health – usually what we hear about is polar bears, loss of the ice cap, dying species and flood risks.

    But much hard data has come out in recent months to show that health is being hit now.

    The Lancet medical journal has had two special editions on the subject during the past year, which show that children, the most vulnerable in any community, are already dying in large numbers in poor countries as a result of a warming world.

  152. RR Kampen says:

    Re: Pascvaks (16:57:20) :

    “Warmest? and Snowiest? Somehow I just knew there had to be a logical connection. Beautiful! This explains everything!”

    Of course. More H2O in the air, is just an AGW-prediction you probably forgot. Maybe you consider a temperaturechange from -7 to -4° C as, well, what? Cooling?

    How does the snowcover in March hold out?
    How about trends in duration of snowcover?

  153. Peter Plail says:

    I have seen a number of posts here trying to explain why global warming causes more snowfall – a case of post rationalisation if ever I have seen one.

    The point that numerous contributors are making is that the models used to predict future climate trends said that snowfall would decline.

    The models made a prediction (well actually they made a lot of predictions) but they got the snowfall one clearly wrong by a large margin.

    If I were a climate modeler, I would have to start thinking about revising my model in the light of experience. I would then make a further prediction and wait to see how that model works out before suggesting that people radically change their lifestyles at massive cost on the basis of an as yet unproven model.

    There have been sufficient failures of prediction, IMHO, to seriously question the validity of the model(s) used. The excuses given to account for these failures should instead be built into revised models and then tested, otherwise they appear to many rational observers to be attempts to cover embarrassment rather the genuine moves to improve the poor performance of current models.

  154. Ziiex Zeburz says:

    The reason behind ‘Global Warming’ ( in the UK )

    Dr. Richard North of the ‘eureferendum’ blog has posted the reason for global warming in the UK,
    It is political, and financed by the UK taxpayer, here are the results:

    Grants for global warming

    EPSRC (engineering and physical sciences research council)
    grants to study the effects of global warming:
    pounds sterling 63,245,372

    NERC (natural environment research council )
    Grants to study the effects of global warming:
    pounds sterling 166,500,521

    total $344,631,889
    this is only 2 of the government departments that have released their figures,
    there are many, many more that have not been released.

  155. joel says:

    It was just a few years ago the state of Vermont was suing(?) the US Govt over global warming reducing their snowfall and thus their tourism. They wanted special aid because of this “fact.”

    It is amazing. This stinking dead elephant is lying in the middle of the room and they keep saying he is just asleep. It is good they don’t have the power to burn heretics anymore.

  156. Joe says:

    Steve,

    There is a very good correlation to the snowfall and the signs of an increasing trend.
    1967 the oceans surface salinity started to change. Around the equatorial areas where this started and expanded. This salinity change effected the evaporation cycles and created massive draughts. The past 8 years, the north Atlantic salinity declined. Last year a massive die off of salt water salmon that were suppose to return to spawn.

    Any sign here?

  157. wayne (00:00:52) :
    the points plotted against time are pointing up, level, or downward within a certain range, no continuation of confidence said, meant, or implied.
    The observed snow cover [that has no trend] is compared to the models’ predicted trend the next hundred years. There is the continuation, said, meant, and implied.

  158. jaypan says:

    OT? “Family in Argentina … killing each other in a global-warming inspired suicide pact”. What is Al Gore saying about it?

    And how many people, kids are out there, having fears, just not killing themselves? It’s a shame.

  159. Vincent says:

    HectorK,
    “The Lancet medical journal has had two special editions on the subject during the past year, which show that children, the most vulnerable in any community, are already dying in large numbers in poor countries as a result of a warming world.”

    Dying in large numbers due to warming? How? Can you provide some actual examples that this is due to a world that is 0.6C warmer than it was a century ago, and not the result of, say, poverty?

  160. Vincent says:

    So that most “sensitivie” of all measurements of global warming – snow cover – has shown no trend whatsoever in the last 40 years.

    And to think that Al Gore was just putting his finishing touches to his theory of how warming makes more snow. What a shame.

  161. Joe says:

    Steve,
    The AGW debate is just the tip of the iceberg. The physcists and scientists have pickles up their butts when it concerns missing any significant research that should have been included in their researches. Science took the wrong turn in not including rotation when they were doing research and theories. So a great deal of science is incorrect including what we think how and what our planet core is created with.
    Remember peer review is of like minded people and anyone who doesn’t conform to these areas are automatically dismissed. Even if all the physcial evidence and experimentation are included.

  162. Mike Haseler says:

    Ziiex Zeburz (03:31:57) :
    EPSRC (engineering and physical sciences research council)
    grants to study the effects of global warming:
    pounds sterling 63,245,372

    NERC (natural environment research council )
    Grants to study the effects of global warming:
    pounds sterling 166,500,521

    total $344,631,889

    Oh, why are people content with the scraps from the table when there’s a real feast: Renewable obligation worth £1billion/year, so far I guess that is a total of: £5,000,000,000. To which the £50,000,000 spent on (failed) wind energy research is peanuts.

  163. OceanTwo says:

    Ok, so all calamities aside, I’m sure there must be some scientific paper(s) describing the mechanisms that a fractional positive change in temperature causes an increase in snowfall.

    I mean, you know, like, settled science, yeah?

    Not that I’ve seen an increase in snow. True, it snowed in SC and many other places which see limited snowfall, but isn’t this simply a weather event? Cold fronts and all that?

  164. Mick says:

    Steve Goddard (20:09:32) :

    Willis,

    I completely agree that the earth has to have a thermostat, given that temperatures have remained in a narrow band for hundreds of millions of years.

    Is our sun the thermostat?

  165. Bill Marsh says:

    “If I were a climate modeler, I would have to start thinking about revising my model in the light of experience.”

    This is not ‘standard practice’ in Climate Science (which apparently operates under a different version of the Scientific Method than other branches of science). In Climate Science, when the model does not conform to reality, you question reality, not the model.

  166. JonesII says:

    Hey, Al Baby!, What happened with your Inconvenient Truth…or it´s that you received an Inconvenient Nobel from your Progressives Colleagues?
    You have to give it back if you are not a “baby” but a grown up man…are you?

  167. Bill Marsh says:

    “True, it snowed in SC and many other places which see limited snowfall, but isn’t this simply a weather event? Cold fronts and all that?”

    It is only a ‘weather event’ when it contradicts AGW, if it supports it, it is a ‘climatic change.

  168. ScuzzaMan says:

    @jaypan:

    Have you read Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”?

    He said that the biggest problem he had was finding a real ecological disaster that he could model his eco-terrorist threat on.

    Chernobyl, which should have been the biggest, baddest, terrifyingest, just didn’t stack up.

    Why?

    Because MORE PEOPLE DIED FROM THE SCAREMONGERING than from any physical effects.

    AGW is going down exactly the same track. Will the scaremongerers ever cop to the deaths they cause?

    To ask is to answer: it is always “someone elses fault” with these people …

  169. OceanTwo says:

    Ziiex Zeburz (03:31:57) :

    The reason behind ‘Global Warming’ ( in the UK )

    Dr. Richard North of the ‘eureferendum’ blog has posted the reason for global warming in the UK,
    It is political, and financed by the UK taxpayer, here are the results:

    Grants for global warming

    EPSRC (engineering and physical sciences research council)
    grants to study the effects of global warming:
    pounds sterling 63,245,372

    NERC (natural environment research council )
    Grants to study the effects of global warming:
    pounds sterling 166,500,521

    total $344,631,889
    this is only 2 of the government departments that have released their figures,
    there are many, many more that have not been released.

    And here’s the hypothesis:

    If you spend all this money, you have two outcomes:

    There are essentially no global warming effects;
    There are significant global warming effects.

    If the former result is presented, the accountability office is going to question such great expenditure to give no results. You could easily have spent a couple of dollars to reach the same conclusion.

    Also of note is that the premise has been ‘built in’: it’s given that global warming is happening. And not the ‘good’ kind – ‘global warming’ tends to have an implicit ‘anthropogenic’ component, whereas a ‘warming of the globe’ implies that the globe is warming with no preconceptions.

    Suffice to say, it’s not possible to obtain a grant or any funding from any source to prove a negative, because there is no higher authority to hold any accountability.

  170. Benjamin says:

    Hi,
    Even though i agree with you on many point, i think that taking Dec-Feb is IMHO kind of a biased way to make your point.

    If you take the sum of snowcover over each calendar year (Jan-Dec) for NH, you see a smal downward trend from 1970 to 2009.
    Same thing if you take Nov-Feb.

    I see no reason in taking Dec-Feb.

    It’s like the biased IPCC graph showing Northern Hemisphere snow cover for March-April.

  171. Mick (05:01:51) :
    Is our sun the thermostat?
    No, it is getting steadily ‘warmer’. Its luminosity increasing about 1% in a hundred million years.

  172. Peter Plail says:

    I have just finished watching a weather forecast from the BBC. The forecaster explained that although it has been the snowiest and coldest winter in the UK for 31 years it has been particularly dry, especially in Scotland. The northerly winds bring snow but far less moisture than the winds that normally prevail from the Atlantic.

    Perhaps the apologists for the AGW movement who have posted above would like to reconsider their claims and perhaps comment further here.

  173. Baa Humbug says:

    David Segesta (18:02:33) :

    “Does anyone have the quotes from the IPCC or Al Gore saying there would be less snow in the future?”

    AR4 Chp 10 pp750 “As the climate warms, snow cover and sea ice extent
    decrease”.
    pp770 “Decreases also occur at high latitudes, where
    snow cover diminishes”.
    pp772 “Because of this temperature association,
    the simulations project widespread reductions in snow cover over
    the 21st century (Supplementary Material, Figure S10.1).” “At
    the end of the 21st century the projected reduction in the annual
    mean NH snow cover is 13% under the B2 scenario (ACIA,
    2004). The individual model projections range from reductions
    of 9 to 17%. The actual reductions are greatest in spring and late
    autumn/early winter, indicating a shortened snow cover season
    (ACIA, 2004). The beginning of the snow accumulation season
    (the end of the snowmelt season) is projected to be later (earlier),
    and the fractional snow coverage is projected to decrease during
    the snow season (Hosaka et al., 2005).

    AR4 SPM pp5 “Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on
    average in both hemispheres.”

    Chp 9 pp665 “The observed decrease in global snow cover
    extent and the widespread retreat of glaciers are consistent
    with warming”.
    Chp 11 pp 850 “Snow season length and snow depth are very likely to decrease in most of North America except in the northernmost part of
    Canada where maximum snow depth is likely to increase”
    Box 11.1, Figure 2. “(12) Very likely decrease in snow season length and likely to very likely decrease in snow depth in most of Europe and North
    America”.

    Theres more but I gave up for now.

  174. savethesharks says:

    Caleb (02:31:53) : “If I was judging the winter simply by how often the water buckets froze in my barn, I’d have to call it a mild winter, in New Hampshire. I thank the warm phase of the AMO, but know that is going to change in the next few years.”

    That and the the high latitude Greenland block and the accompanying tanked Arctic Oscillation was SO successful, that some of that warmth and higher than normal heights backed into Atlantic Canada and the Northeast.

    During the last big storm that brought all the snow to New York City and points west and southwest, but rain to Albany, the polar vortex had plunged south into West Virginia.

    It was 40 F and raining in Albany NY and Boston, 32 F with heavy snow in Central Park, and 19 F with near blizzard conditions in Boone, North Carolina.

    Truly an “upside down” storm if there ever was one and a testament to such a successful high latitude block, for sure…not to mention the last gasps of a very robust cycle of the AMO, as you say.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  175. Steve Goddard says:

    Benjamin,

    Dec-Feb is defined as meteorological winter and is when peak snow always occurs.

  176. Rob Vermeulen says:

    For what I know, the models predict more precipitations in the winter, but a less extended period of snow (a wetter but shorter winter).

    While you don’t mention it, the annual average snow is indeed decreasing. In what sense do the observations you show then contradict the predictions?

  177. Copner says:

    Re: Lancet

    Maybe the Lancet will also comment on the 25,000 British pensioners die of cold, every year? Or the thousands of people who die in North India every time there is a cold snap? Surely there be fewer of these types of deaths if the world warmed?

    Assuming AGW for the sake of this point: Surely if we’re going to measure impact of warming, we need to consider both positive and negative aspects. Or are cold-related deaths acceptable whereas warming-related deaths aren’t?

  178. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – RR Kampen (03:20:16) :
    Re: Pascvaks (16:57:20) :
    “Warmest? and Snowiest? Somehow I just knew there had to be a logical connection. Beautiful! This explains everything!”

    Of course. More H2O in the air, is just an AGW-prediction you probably forgot. Maybe you consider a temperaturechange from -7 to -4° C as, well, what? Cooling?
    How does the snowcover in March hold out?
    How about trends in duration of snowcover?
    _______________________

    We are not given to understand these things. These mysteries are for others to solve. Some day, some when, perhaps in a Galexy far far away, a child will be born who will know all (or a lot more than we do) and answer these mystical questions you have posed to me.

    I once heard it said that the Roman Empire eventually fell because they used too much lead in their pipes and people went stupid and crazy. I suppose we have a similiar problem in our day and age. Perhaps it is the plastic or the glue we use to stick it together?

    “nasa” has recently announced their discovery that the Chilian Quake shifted the tilt of the globe and made a change to the Earth’s rotation speed. Through my superior powers of deduction, and blessed by his highness Leif The Great, I recently commented that Climate variation is a function of Geology, that it is henseforth and evermore to be considered a minor subfield of that Guild of Science. Don’t you agree?

    Life’s a beach! Forever changing! Forever the same! Sometimes hot! Sometimes cold! Sometimes stormy! Sometimes calm! Sometimes clean and fresh! Sometimes filthy and foul. Sometimes long! Sometimes short! –I could go on and on..;-)

  179. Steve Goddard says:

    Willis,

    Perhaps a touch of satire. ;^)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html

    Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows
    By JOHN M. BRODER
    Published: January 21, 2010
    WASHINGTON — The decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record, new surface temperature figures released Thursday by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration show.

    The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began. The warmest year was 2005. The other hottest recorded years have all occurred since 1998, NASA said.

    James E. Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that global temperatures varied because of changes in ocean heating and cooling cycles. “When we average temperature over 5 or 10 years to minimize that variability,” said Dr. Hansen, one of the world’s leading climatologists, “we find global warming is continuing unabated.”

  180. Steve Goddard says:

    This one is dedicated to Dr. James “tipping point” Hansen

    In the natural sciences, gradualism is a theory which holds that profound change is the cumulative product of slow but continuous processes, often contrasted with catastrophism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism

  181. Steve Goddard says:

    Arctic sea ice extent is approaching a record high in the six year DMI record

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

  182. Pamela Gray says:

    A decade of life counted in years begins on your first birthday (after you were born, you can’t be one years old till you have lived outside your mommy’s tummy for a year). Given that example, if your first birthday is in 2001, on your 10th birthday (in 2010), you will have been on this Earth for 10 entire years.

    So for our decade of snow example, the first snow season ended its first year in 2001. Counting forward to the last snow season, it ended in 2010. 10 snow seasons.

  183. Steve Keohane says:

    Steve Goddard (21:29:31) : After five months of miserable cold, snow and ice at 45N in Colorado, we finally had a warm afternoon today. We definitely felt the shift in the Jet Stream.
    Thanks for a good article Steve. I agree, it has been a long cold winter in Colorado. On the Western Slope it seems like the last two days are warmer than it has been since Oct/Nov, we had none of the usual warm days here and there. I am curious, living at about 39° N 40′, what part of Colorado at 45°N? That latitude is on the border of Montana…

  184. Steve Keohane says:

    I wanted to add…I keep daily precipitation records, and started tracking weekly cores from the snow on the ground last week, 2 samples to date. As of 3/1, with the snow pack settled to 16″ from 22″ the prior week, the snow/ground interface is powder dry, ie. no melting down there yet. I think the bitter cold with little snow cover in late Nov. early Dec. drove the frost unusually deep. I know of one water line that froze at 4′ deep. Interesting that three months later that cold has still kept the warmth of the earth at bay. Snow not only has a high albedo, but is a good insulator as well.

  185. David Ball says:

    Leif Svalgaard (21:15:26) : “Post again around 2020, when we should know which way the wind blows”. This is the right perspective, Dr. Svalgaard. The problem is that our government is setting policy based on erroneous information. That cannot be in our best interests.

  186. JonesII says:

    What about NOAA´s warmest decade ever. Not Opine Argue or Answer?

  187. JonesII says:

    Leif Svalgaard (05:14:43) :
    A sensible warmist heart just revealed!

  188. J. Newman says:

    A thought has occured to me about a key issue in climate research and I beleive I could get a good bit of funding for this new theory.

    Surveying the research for many years both warmist and skeptical, this winter I’ve had an epiphany. With this being the “warmest winter on record” per the warmers and this now doccumented record snow extent, there is certainly enough observational evidence to further research my theory that the rise of man made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased the freezing point of water by about 5degrees F. This startling realization cleanly merges the results the greenies come out with and the more real world observations that seem more plausable covered here.

    I just need a way to make a ton of money with it…. I’ll call the Goreacle to get things started.

    With enough grant money and a united cause for saving the planet I’m pretty sure I can get a scientific consensus that the freezing point of water has indeed changed and it’s plainly obvious who caused it.

  189. latitude says:

    Emergency Climate Scientist Meeting Called

    With the popularity of the latest weather change handle, “climate change”, falling out of favor, an emergency meeting of climate scientists was called today to come up with a new, catchy, handle.

    The popular vote went to “cold front”.

  190. toyotawhizguy says:

    @Willis Eschenbach (17:46:17) :

    “In fact, the unchanging overall nature of the climate, with only minor up and down natural changes, strongly argues for my hypothesis that the earth has a thermostat.”

    Mr. Eschenbach, I agree 100%. Check out the Stefan-Boltzmann law, that’s the thermostat, for the most part, and is enhanced by minor natural changes in the earth’s emissivity. The Earth System is a gray body that differs only from a black body due to earth’s emissivity < 1.0.
    A 1.0% global average temperature increase (Kelvin temperature scale) causes the black body radiation to increase by the same amount, but raised to the fourth power, thus the black body radiation increase is 4.06%. If the emissivity of the gray body remains constant during the temperature increase, the % increase in the gray body radiation is the same as for a black body. The reverse holds true for a global temperature decrease, a 1.0% global average temperature decrease is accompanied by a 4.06% decrease in radiation. EM radiation is virtually the only way for the earth system to rid itself of excess heat.
    It's interesting that two 19th century scientists discovered and formulated this important natural law of Physics, and over 100 years later, this law is summarily ignored by most of the the warmists, and virtually all of the alarmists.
    Joseph Stefan (1835 – 1893). Physicist and mathematician.
    Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906). Famous mathematician and physicist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law

  191. Robert E. Phelan says:

    HectorK (03:11:03) :

    Dr Tony Waterston
    Consultant paediatrician and chair of the Advocacy Committee, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
    “And malaria will be more common as the mosquito which carries it moves into countries which were formerly too cold. Dengue, another severe tropical infectious disease also spread by mosquitoes, will similarly increase. ”

    The good doctor begins his sentences with conjunctions and knows nothing about the range of malaria-carrying mosquitos. What an intellect.

  192. Steve M. from TN says:

    James Sexton:
    earth shattering
    heh, best pun in CAGW in a long while :)

    Benjamin:
    I see no reason in taking Dec-Feb.
    Because Dec-Feb is considered to be winter. Read Willis’ and Leif’s posts earlier that point out zero trend in over all yearly snow cover.

    You know, I can wrap my head around warmer temperatures mean more snow/rain. Great..northern areas get more snow. But, Watts up with record snowfalls in Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Tennessee, Louisiana (no offense to people that live outside of North America…but this is what I am familiar with)? Florida lost something like 4% of their citrus crop this year to freezing temperatures. Many southern states’ average temperature doesn’t drop below freezing. Here it is, March 3rd, and snowing when average high temps should be approaching 60. Of course I know the answer..this is all just weather and not climate.

  193. Steve Goddard says:

    Steve Kohane,

    Good catch. I meant 40N. We had no Chinooks along the Front Range this year. Normally we get a number of days in the 60s or 70s during January and February.

  194. NickB. says:

    Joe,
    Is there *any* proof that the salmon die off was really caused by global warming and salinity levels as the hand waving suggests?

    IMO, and until proven conclusively otherwise, this is no different than the polar bears drownings in the 90′s – an unexplained phenomenon that very well might not be unprecedented. Lets not forget the hundreds (thousands?) of scientists searching the globe for signs of global warming. All they have to do is find a scary short term trend and extrapolate ad absurdum… or point at any spurious/abnormal *seeming* phenomenom and chances are they’ll get their funding again next year.

    “ZOMG LOOK BEHIND OUR ICE BREAKER! IT’S GLOBAL WARMING!!!”

  195. Steve Goddard says:

    Winter snow extent is defined by snow falling at low latitudes. Summer snow extent is defined by snow melting at high latitudes.

    The physical processes are opposite and probably unrelated, so it makes little sense to average apples and oranges into a trend.

  196. DC says:

    OT: Jane Ferringo of the U.S. Geological Survey in an interview
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124178690

    “RAZ: Give us a sense of how much ice [on the Antarctic peninsula] has been lost over the past, say, 10 years.

    Ms. FERRIGNO: I think I’ll go back 20 years, and in the last 20 years, I would say at least 20,000 square kilometers of ice has been lost, and that’s comparable to an area somewhere between the state of Texas and the state of Alaska.

    RAZ: So about the size of the state of Texas in terms of ice has been lost in the past 20 years. ”

    Texas is a little bigger than that – about 700,000 square kilometers.

  197. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – David Ball (06:35:48) :
    Leif Svalgaard (21:15:26) :
    “Post again around 2020, when we should know which way the wind blows”.

    This is the right perspective, Dr. Svalgaard. The problem is that our government is setting policy based on erroneous information. That cannot be in our best interests.
    ———————-

    Policies are “set” based upon what politicians think they can get away with and they only rarely do anything that is in the “best interests” of the people who elected them.

    Unless “their people” are burning an effigy of them at their county court house –and their local police and fire department are there to participate in said ‘burning’– they are deaf, dumb, and blind to everything except Their Party Leadership within Their Beltway.

    People are “responsible” for their politicians and should never allow them to play in the streets, or go swimming without proper supervision. Politicians are like precocious children whose parents ignore them in public and let them run wild –think about it, they really only upset other folks, not good old Mom and Dad.

  198. toyotawhizguy says:

    NYT – “The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began. The warmest year was 2005. The other hottest recorded years have all occurred since 1998, NASA said.”

    Apparently Michael Mann doesn’t have exclusive rights to “Hide the decline”, and it’s widely practiced, even by Never-A-Straight-Answer.
    And it’s not surprising that the NYT usually takes the warmist posture, after all they are right in the middle of the greatest UHI hot spot (NYC) in New York State.

  199. Tom_R says:

    >> Leif Svalgaard (05:14:43) :

    Mick (05:01:51) :
    Is our sun the thermostat?
    No, it is getting steadily ‘warmer’. Its luminosity increasing about 1% in a hundred million years. <<

    The sun also continually loses mass. Because of that, the Earth's orbital semimajor axis must slowly increase. Has anyone calculated the rate of change of the Earth's orbit due to solar mass decrease?

  200. kwik says:

    I am pleased to provide a link to an article by Professor Robert Carter, Australia, about Lysenkoism and “AGW-Theory”;

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/hansenist-climate-alarmism

  201. rbateman says:

    It would be interesting to see the Ice Core data up close in a year-by-year blow.
    I’d like to know if both global warming & global cooling are concurrent, and the only difference between an Ice Age and an Interglacial are which one is winning more than the other one at any given time interval, right down to year-by-year.

  202. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    Steve Goddard (06:13:37) :

    Arctic sea ice extent is approaching a record high in the six year DMI record

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    Well now, Al Gore says it is disappearing. What will I believe: Al Gore or the data?

  203. Steve M. from TN says:

    Rob Vermeulen (05:50:40) :

    For what I know, the models predict more precipitations in the winter, but a less extended period of snow (a wetter but shorter winter).

    While you don’t mention it, the annual average snow is indeed decreasing. In what sense do the observations you show then contradict the predictions?

    Rob, you going to prove that? Lief’s and Willis’ graphs show 0 trend in yearly snow cover and Steve G’s for winter pretty much agree with that.

  204. toyotawhizguy says:

    @Just The Facts (21:28:51) :

    “So I find myself cheering for sea ice…

    Arctic Sea Ice Extent is on an upswing;
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    Not so fast! I’m expecting that soon “Bill Nye the Science Guy” will announce that this is due to Global Warming.
    [satire=on]

  205. Tom_R (07:22:33) :
    The sun also continually loses mass. Because of that, the Earth’s orbital semimajor axis must slowly increase. Has anyone calculated the rate of change of the Earth’s orbit due to solar mass decrease?
    Yes, and it is negligible.

  206. wakeupmaggy says:

    Steve Keohane (06:32:46) :
    I agree, it has been a long cold winter in Colorado. On the Western Slope it seems like the last two days are warmer than it has been since Oct/Nov, we had none of the usual warm days here and there.
    I wanted to add…I keep daily precipitation records, and started tracking weekly cores from the snow on the ground last week, 2 samples to date. As of 3/1, with the snow pack settled to 16″ from 22″ the prior week, the snow/ground interface is powder dry, ie. no melting down there yet. I think the bitter cold with little snow cover in late Nov. early Dec. drove the frost unusually deep. I know of one water line that froze at 4′ deep. Interesting that three months later that cold has still kept the warmth of the earth at bay. Snow not only has a high albedo, but is a good insulator as well.

    Yup, yup from 38.75N at 5000′, also dry desert Western Co. I was just reflecting on the fact that under the latest record dump of 10″ lies not only Dec big snow of 5″ but a bit of October’s, Kevin Trenberth’s famous “January weather”. Multi season snow. Normal here in 25 years seems to be a half inch, gone by noon. Not so the last four winters. Normal ice thickness on a small pond is 4″, last four winters 12″+, added heater.

    Our bare surface soil has gotten wet, frozen, cracked and expanded into a froth, letting weed seeds in and leaving us subject to dust storms. Last year we had no hare barley (subject of nightmares), the soil AND the seeds blew away. Usually it’s so dry that the soil absorbs practically nothing in winter, it evaporates first in the hot sun. Of course, there was no hot sun this winter as all the moisture caused a looong inversion. We get steam from two hot dammed rivers too. The Colorado was frozen almost solid in DeBeque canyon, just a trickle at the roller dam out from under the ice.

  207. johnh says:

    Christian A. Wittke (21:51:24) :

    Same for people that not even after but during one very snowy NH winter declare all the remaining data on Climate Change for being wrong.

    Are you all serious? It feels like a Kindergarten where shouting out loud is part of the kids’ development.

    First read the title, it contains the word decade so its not just about 2010, second in the words of the Met Office in 2000

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

    However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

  208. An Inquirer says:

    Snowguy716 (19:13:01) : … our [Minnesota] summers have gotten noticeably colder with frequent June and August frosts which were unheard of in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. In fact, 2004 set the record for shortest growing season here… only to be broken again in 2009 when unusual cold in early June with two days of temps down into the 20s and another frost in mid August… ”

    Can you provide a reference for growing seasons? In my search of growing season data bases, I am surprised by their limitations. Most of them start after mid-20th century which of course is going to give an obvious trend. But can we get several data bases of rural areas that go back to the start of the 20th century? The few that do go back longer seem to show no trend in the end of the growing season. (Several AGW papers that argue for lengthening growing seasons get some issues confused. The fact that various plant species have a more northward extent now can often be explained by increased CO2 in the atmosphere and hybrid developments.)

  209. An Inquirer says:

    Regarding the claim of Al Gore and other advocates that global warming leads to more snow: many of us have observed that measured average sea surface temperature has increased this winter, and certainly there is logic to expect evaporation to increase in warmer waters. HOWEVER, what is the source of the moisture for these snow storms? — it has been the Atlantic / Gulf of Mexico! In comparison to the Pacific, these waters have been relatively cooler. Meanwhile Idaho to Arizona has been noticeably dry lately, and they get their moisture from the Pacific.
    (Bob Tisdale, I would appreciate any relevant insights or correction or clarification on temperature anomalies by ocean.)

  210. A C Osborn says:

    Leif Svalgaard (05:14:43) :

    Mick (05:01:51) :
    Is our sun the thermostat?
    No, it is getting steadily ‘warmer’. Its luminosity increasing about 1% in a hundred million years.

    Would you like to change that comment?
    Or do we actually have records from 100 Million Years ago?

  211. kadaka says:

    HectorK (03:11:03) :

    Sorry…. OT I know but after a brief lull it appears the BBC are right back on it! Global Warming the child killer!!!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8533937.stm

    You could have headlined that post with what is stated at the beginning of the article, as it explains a lot.

    VIEWPOINT
    Dr Tony Waterston
    Consultant paediatrician and chair of the Advocacy Committee, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

    Thus we have the chair of the committee dedicated to making a lot of noise and getting noticed, making a lot of noise to get noticed.

    The Lancet medical journal has had two special editions on the subject during the last year, which show that children, the most vulnerable in any community, are already dying in large numbers in poor countries as a result of a warming world.

    This is of course manifestly obvious. As seen with the children dying and suffering due to Hurricane Katrina, which was caused by global warming. As with the numerous tornadoes, typhoons, and hurricanes worldwide every year, which are caused by global warming. Don’t forget the floods and droughts, which are caused by global warming. It seems a safe bet that many children have died and suffered from the recent record-busting Northern Hemisphere winter snow and cold, which was caused by global warming.

    Don’t get me started on the earthquakes, which are linked to global warming. (Because the extra thermal energy has lead to more intense flows in atmospheric and oceanic currents, which has resulted in more movement of and stress on the tectonic plates thus more and stronger earthquakes. See, makes perfect sense.)

    One may also consider the increase in malnutrition due to crops being diverted to bio-fuels as being linked to global warming. Shame there is no mention of that in the article, but I guess they can’t fit in everything. Of course this can be alleviated by using more genetically-modified crops giving better yields, but those dang climate skeptics are just so loud in their anti-science crusade it is causing people to reject science even in agriculture. Think of the children!

    To a paediatrician, this would be a devastating response, coming just as health professionals are accepting not only that lives are being lost by global warming, but that the potential health benefits of a low carbon lifestyle would be very, very big.

    Thus we come to what appears to be the main thrust of the article, Potential Health Benefits of a Low Carbon Lifestyle!

    Because, as it is well known, more people are harmed by refrigeration technologies (preservation of food and medical supplies, air conditioning) than are helped when it is powered by dirty fossil fuels. It is only when they are powered by clean renewable energy like wind and solar that any net benefit is seen. Indeed, we may well be better off by getting rid of them altogether. Likewise for heating, if people would just wear sweats and thermals and run around as needed to warm up, we would all be healthier and happier. And the cooking of food? Nasty stuff, kills nutrients, raw is better. Unless one is talking about meat and pathogens, but meat is bad so you should be eating less anyway. Use only a solar cooker, which will also help with the goal of having more meatless days during the week.

    Yes, nearly everyone would benefit from getting more exercise. Walk or bike instead of taking the car. But why stop there? Stop using that fossil fuel-based electricity which is killing us and our world. Every home gets a bike and/or treadmill for electricity generation. Just imagine how healthy everyone would be if they had to generate the electricity needed to run the TV as they are watching it. Want to microwave some popcorn? Work for it. It’s for your own good!

    Of course, doctors are well known for their complete and utter understanding of science, as shown in the last section of the article.

    What can doctors do to help their patients and the government understand that low carbon living offers a great future?

    Over the years, doctors have taken a lead in setting health priorities, on topics from sewers and drains to immunisation, smoking and alcohol and road traffic accidents.

    Now doctors both locally and globally have united under the Climate and Health Council (CHC). Top doctors in the UK are calling on the NHS to reduce its carbon footprint and the government to set higher targets for reduction of carbon emissions to avoid a worsening health crisis worldwide.

    See, they have recognized the need for advocacy and shown their understanding of Post Normal Science, by engaging in advocacy and Post Normal Medicine.

    But this part needs no comment, just some highlighting, as it wonderfully shows the depth of understanding on the issue.

    And crucially, doctors are curbing their well-known love of travelling by holding video conferences instead, and bringing together medics from India, Africa and Europe for educational meetings without leaving a carbon footprint.

  212. JonesII says:

    kwik (07:22:56) From the link you just gave:
    Moreover, Copenhagen has shown that the balance of world power has shifted to the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China). Western countries, including New Zealand and Australia were totally side-lined in Copenhagen. It is now extremely unlikely that an international climate agreement will ever be reached. Thanks to the BRIC countries, we can now all heave a sigh of relief

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/hansenist-climate-alarmism

  213. A C Osborn (09:25:18) :
    “No, it is getting steadily ‘warmer’. Its luminosity increasing about 1% in a hundred million years.”
    Would you like to change that comment?
    Or do we actually have records from 100 Million Years ago?

    We understand how the Sun is generating its energy and can calculate very precisely how the energy generation changes with age. We check the calculations by observing the neutrino flux coming straight to us from the solar core and by observing how other stars [of which we have billions of examples] behave as a function of their age. So, no need to change the comment.

  214. JonesII says:

    What people, person or group did sponsor in 1988 the then young James Hansen?, The Club of Rome, The Bilderberg group, which one?
    On June 23, 1988, a young and previously unknown NASA computer modeller, James Hansen, appeared before a United States Congressional hearing on climate change. On that occasion, Dr. Hansen used a graph to convince his listeners that late 20th century warming was taking place at an accelerated rate, which, it being a scorching summer’s day in Washington, a glance out of the window appeared to confirm.

  215. R. Gates says:

    Steve,

    Good work…as the last 10 years were also the warmest, and we know with more heat we get more evaporation, and thus, in the winter, more snow. Thanks for providing proof that AGW is correct.

    The coldest place on earth (Antarctica) is also one of the driest in terms of precipitation, and the last glacial period was cold and DRY. So it sure makes sense that a WARMER decade would also be a SNOWIER decade. The coldest months of winter in N. Hemisphere are not typcially the snowiest…as in Denver, CO instance, it’s the late winter Month of March that is warmer and snowier.

    Warm=Wet
    Cold=Dry

  216. kadaka says:

    A C Osborn (09:25:18) :

    Would you like to change that comment?
    Or do we actually have records from 100 Million Years ago?

    I think you are on the wrong end of the time scale, and he meant 1% increase over 100 million years to come going into the future.

    Remember, over the expected lifetime of our Sun, it will expand and eventually engulf the Earth, provided that there is still a planet left to engulf. Thus global warming will eventually destroy all life on Earth, one way or another, if something else doesn’t do it first.

    Global warming is our destiny. Do not deny it. Embrace our destiny.

  217. wakeupmaggy says:

    kadaka (09:28:22) :
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8533937.stm
    And crucially, doctors are curbing their well-known love of travelling by holding video conferences instead, and bringing together medics from India, Africa and Europe for educational meetings without leaving a carbon footprint.

    Using computer parts made by child slave wage labor, picked over for parts when broken by waifs in very toxic computer “recycling centers”, (outdoor dumps in rural China).
    Guilty, guilty, guilty!

  218. kadaka (09:56:38) :
    I think you are on the wrong end of the time scale, and he meant 1% increase over 100 million years to come going into the future.
    It, of course, also means that a 100 million years ago, the solar luminosity was 1% smaller than today. And a billion years ago, 10% smaller [or 7 degrees cooler - if it were not for various greenhouse gases actually making it 7 degrees warmer than today]

  219. Steve Goddard says:

    R. Gates,

    As we have previously discussed, the fifty snowiest sites in Colorado show that most of the snow falls during the coldest months, and December and March are tied for the snowiest. Wolf Creek Pass is the snowiest place in Colorado and receives the most snow during December.
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdGhHc01yT25Ic0Nvcnc4SWNCWTlnSWc&oid=2&v=1267641169656

  220. Peter Plail says:

    I think I’ll shout this so that R gates etc listen, as they obviously haven’t read my earlier post.

    The BBC this lunch time reported that this winter has been DRIER than usual despite being COLDER and SNOWIER than the previous 31 years.

    Did you all get it – DRIER.

  221. Alec, a.k.a. Daffy Duck says:

    Early snow is very bad for ice thickness development….snow is an insolator, early snow=thin ice. Makes me wonder if that has been a contributor to Arctic ice meltback of the last decade

  222. Steve Goddard says:

    a good deal of attention has been focused on the causes of the Ordovician Ice Age. In fact, it is not easy to see how an ice age could have occurred. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are believed to have been 8 to 20 times their current values. This ought to have prevented anything approaching an ice age.

    http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ordovician/Ordovician.htm

  223. JonesII says:

    All these intelligent people, who managed to think all the “tricks” involved in Climate Gate, in order to achieve the ideological goals of their masters, must realize that they no longer live in the first and leading world and that their power is over, and the millions of tons of snow that wise nature made fall over your heads was just to mock on you and show you that it is but a silly dream any anthropogenicity.
    If you, silly kids, could influence in any measure weather or climate, challenge yourselves to remove by exhaling the noxious CO2 gases you exhale, every time you breathe, at a rate of more than two pounds a day, and which, as you settled science affirms, has the very singular property of heating up anything, to remove one single pound of fallen snow from your front door.
    You just don’t realize it: you are nuts! …and the time for you of losing all your fantasies and face harsh reality is here. The sooner you realize it the better for you. Wanna change climate babies?, well, begin by changing one single trait of your character, and surprisingly the world will change a lot for you out there.

  224. John McManus says:

    Does snow depth figure in this? I’m Canadian and know that there is a difference between a widespread dusting of snow an a .8 meter Nor’easter.
    We have also been experiencing winters with 3-5 20 cm. falls that melt within 5 days when it warms up. Is this factored in ?
    Does this report make any distinction between a little snow and a lot or is it just based on a space picture that can’t distinguish mass?

  225. A C Osborn says:

    Leif Svalgaard (09:47:29) :
    Yes you do, it is Estimated from current Research. That does not make it a Fact.
    You are so pedantic with other posters on here, why did you not clarify your remark instead of stating it as Fact, which it can’t possibly be.
    Fact as far as we know.

  226. A C Osborn says:

    kadaka (09:56:38) :
    I did not get the wrong end of the stick, I was asking Lief to be more precise and now he has. But still won’t change what he quoted as a fact and not a CALCULATION.

  227. A C Osborn says:

    Leif, you talk about others using short data sequences for Trends, just how many Years of Results have you got to “Calculate” 100 Million Years in to the Future?

  228. Joe says:

    NickB. (07:11:33)

    Do you mean did I catch a dead fish and disected it to see the cause of death myself?
    Or did you mean that the salinity changes in the area declining coincided with the fish disappearing to never return when there was no oil spills or other natural causes off the coast of British Columbia, Canada.
    If I was at home, I would give you the report on the salinity changes in the area along with the news story of the salmon becoming extinct.

  229. R. Gates says:

    Steve,

    Why do you want to change what I post? I said Denver, not Wolf Creek pass, or any of the other sites around the state. Denver’s snowiest month on average (over the past century at least) has been March…and it is also the warmest month of the traditional (Dec-March) winter.

    Finally, you keep shying away from the fact that a global cooling (ala the last glacial period) would be more dry, not Snowier. The last Glacial Period was more like Antarctica is, with very little precip.

    For it to be snowier, you have to have more evaporation from the oceans, which means more heat, not more cool. No amount of twisting will change these basic laws of atmospheric physics– warm=wet, cool=dry, and has for millions of years on earth.

  230. A C Osborn (11:21:01) :
    Fact as far as we know.
    Many ‘facts’ are ‘as far as know’. But when you know it, it is a fact. Example: The Earth is round. No amount of future research will change that.

    A C Osborn (11:23:33) :
    But still won’t change what he quoted as a fact and not a CALCULATION.
    Calculations can be facts [and it this case are]. If you know the material and construction of a bridge, you can calculate at which load it will break, and it will.

    A C Osborn (11:29:27) :
    Just how many Years of Results have you got to “Calculate” 100 Million Years in to the Future?
    About 12 billion years.

  231. kadaka says:

    @ A C Osborn (11:23:33) :

    Ah, gotcha, my apologies. I studied his wording and thought that was the problem, didn’t seem to clearly indicate either direction.

    Of course we know it is not a completely linear trend. At some point the Sun fired up, as it ages it will fuse heavier elements with reactions yielding less heat, it’ll run out of fuel and cool down. But for right now, in this little slice of time, I guess a linear approximation is close enough for government work (as the expression goes).

  232. Joe says:

    R. Gates (11:42:44) :

    No Ice Age is ever alike due to the constant changes involved.
    Evolution if you will. The rotation is slowing the planet, the planet is moving away from the sun more, volcanic activity, atmospheric activity, oceanic activity, meteorologic activity, any planetary shifts.
    The shifts are gradual as to starve plant and animal life. Hence, very small fossil record of land animals.
    But where did all the precipitation come from to form the massive glaciers that inhabited most of the conteninents?

  233. R. Gates says:

    Here’s one example of record warmth for February 2010 and what it can do:

    http://www.srh.noaa.gov/sju/?n=record100301

    Now where do you think all that moisture that evaporated from the oceans around Puerto Rico went to? Answer: Mostly to Europe in the form of the severe rain and snow storms they saw in February:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35496312/ns/world_news-europe/

    If you look at the satellite maps during this time period, you can almost see the direct bee-line trail of clouds and storms that the moisture from around Puerto Rico made right toward Europe. Combine the record warmth with the extremely negative AO index…and bingo! Big Snows. Basic atmospheric physics…

    Warm=wet, Cold=Dry, And Wet + Cold = SNOW!

  234. R. Gates says:

    Joe,

    Your question is an excellent one, and really gets to the reasoning behind the AGW prediction that the interior of Greenland will see growth in snowpack while the edges deteriorate, with the net overall loss of ice for Greenland. Remember, warm=wet and cold=dry, but wet+cold=Snow. So, it takes heat to evaporate the moisture from the oceans, and it generally stays warmer near the oceans, but once this moist air travels over the interior of a continent and finds cooler air, bingo, you get more snow! This is precisely what the latest very accurate mapping of Greenland ice has found. See:

    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003476/index.html

    So, in a cooling world, we see the slow growth of glaciers and ice moving from the interior of continents out toward the seas, and in a warming world, we see the slow shrinkage of ice, moving from the seas toward the interior of continents.

  235. JonesII says:

    Leif Svalgaard (11:45:24) :
    Many ‘facts’ are ‘as far as know’. But when you know it, it is a fact. Example: The Earth is round. No amount of future research will change that
    It depends of the observer, if its blink of his/her eye would be a thousand years, that observer would say perhaps it is an spiral or rather a more complicated geometrical form. So your opinions are not facts but only relative to your aprehension of reality.

  236. Steve Goddard says:

    R Gates,

    So what you are saying is that you expected to see less snow at lower elevations of Greenland because of warming, and also expected to see more snow in Florida because of warming.

  237. globaltemps says:

    While we in the northern fifties were snowed in, Southern Spain suffered the wettest winter in the past 100 years.

    Interesting remark by José Antonio Maldonado, president of the Asociación Meteorológica Española (the Spanish Meteorological society), and I quote: “en el último siglo no se ha registrado un temporal de lluvias tan intenso y prolongado como el actual que, en su opinión, contradice las estimaciones sobre el cambio climático en España.”. Translated: “A rainy season as intense and long-lasting as the current one has not been registered in the last century, and in his [Maldonado's] opinion this contradicts the predictions for Spain resulting from climate change”.

    linky: http://actualidad.orange.es/sociedad/maldonado_dice_que_este_temporal_es_unico_en_el_siglo_y_contrario_al_cambio_climatico_386208.html

    Of course y’all can know how the deceivers and the deceived would respond…
    But remember: the settled climate change science predicted a much drier Spain. Quid non.

    PS: I won’t be translating the president’s name, the poor lad :)

  238. kadaka says:

    Leif Svalgaard (11:45:24) :

    Calculations can be facts [and it this case are]. If you know the material and construction of a bridge, you can calculate at which load it will break, and it will.

    It’s simplistic statements like that which can cause major problems. I could trust such a calculation for a simple beam of a homogeneous material, provided it is known the material used had no flaws. However it is still good practice to spec the load under what the calculated amount is “just in case.” And for a bridge, given all the many components that are involved, a healthy margin is best.

    But even for a simple bridge that is a mere slab of concrete, your statement falls apart. For such a slab it would be rare that rebar is not used in the concrete for reinforcement, virtually unthinkable to not use it. Well, steel rebar is spec’d to minimum yield strength. Since said calculation would use that minimum value, and rebar (predominantly recycled steel) varies quite a bit batch-to-batch and all that used in a project would very likely not be right at that minimum value, it is more likely than not the bridge will hold at above that calculated maximum load. Far more likely, I would wager.

  239. R. Gates says:

    Steve Goddard said:

    “R Gates,

    So what you are saying is that you expected to see less snow at lower elevations of Greenland because of warming, and also expected to see more snow in Florida because of warming.”

    ? ? Steve, Your comment makes no logical sense, and I insinuated no such thing, nor does any climate model indicate such. But of course it seems rather than talking basic climate and atmospheric physics, you’d like to poke fun at the notion that warmth can bring snow, when that is exactly the case, and any Climate 101 class explains this quite well. The moisture that fell on Florida, Washington, NY, Germany, and all the other places affected by the negative AO this winter was evaporated from warm oceans and carried to the point that it collided with cold air brought down from the arctic.

    January and February have seen record or near record global tropospheric temps, and that combined with El Nino and the negative AO this winter has given us the big snows and storms we’ve seen. Also, I suspect that the very low GCR count, brought about by the waning solar minimum helped to encourage greater cloud cover, though this is more speculative.

  240. Joseph says:

    R. Gates (09:54:53) :
    Steve,
    Good work…as the last 10 years were also the warmest, and we know with more heat we get more evaporation, and thus, in the winter, more snow. Thanks for providing proof that AGW is correct.
    The coldest place on earth (Antarctica) is also one of the driest in terms of precipitation, and the last glacial period was cold and DRY. So it sure makes sense that a WARMER decade would also be a SNOWIER decade. The coldest months of winter in N. Hemisphere are not typcially the snowiest…as in Denver, CO instance, it’s the late winter Month of March that is warmer and snowier.
    Warm=Wet
    Cold=Dry

    R Gates, you are confused about oceanic evaporation, but don’t feel bad, it is common.

    In each hemisphere, the evaporation is the greatest during that hemisphere’s winter season, when the wind blowing across the ocean is cold, and more importantly, dry. Global humidity rises and falls on an annual cycle, peaking during the SH winter. This is because the SH has more ocean surface than the NH , and the SH is windier. It is cold winter temps that drive evaporation, not hot summer temps (or averages).

    You can learn about oceanic evaporation here:
    http://oaflux.whoi.edu/

    This paper is a good place to start:
    http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/20/21/pdf/i1520-0442-20-21-5376.pdf

    In addition, the glacial episodes are most definitely NOT dry periods. It would be very difficult for continental glaciers to form up to 2 miles thick without copious quantities of winter precipitation in the form of snow.

    Certainly, precipitation patterns are different during a glacial episode. For example, the western US was much wetter during the last glacial than it is today: http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/mojave/paleoenviron.html but there is no evidence that total global precipitation was any less than we see today.

    In fact, because during a glacial period the average position of the polar jet streams are shifted equator-ward, which would result in more cold, dry wind blowing across the ocean, it is likely that total global precipitation was greater then than today, it just occurred in different places.

  241. JonesII (12:30:08) :
    “The Earth is round. No amount of future research will change that”
    It depends of the observer, if its blink of his/her eye would be a thousand years

    This guy would be right up your alley:

    kadaka (13:21:30) :
    “Calculations can be facts [and it this case are]”
    It’s simplistic statements

    The analogy is valid, because in the case of the Sun we do know the internal constitution and properties with some precision. It is as we had x-rayed [or gamma-rayed for the steel] every beam and ensured [or mapped it so we can take it into account] that we have a detailed knowledge of every component and material of the bridge. In a sense, the Sun is simpler because it is so hot [and therefore a gas]. We can verify our calculation of the internal constitution of the Sun the same way people peek into the Earth prospecting for oil: analysis of seismic waves. We find that the calculated properties match the actually observed ones very closely. So calculations are good and the analogy with a bridge [of which we know every detail] is good as well.

  242. DirkH says:

    “R. Gates (13:36:37) :
    [...]
    Also, I suspect that the very low GCR count, brought about by the waning solar minimum helped to encourage greater cloud cover, though this is more speculative.”

    Ah, you’re not a simple warmist the, you’re a Svensmark warmist. Now that’s a first.

  243. NickB. says:

    Joe (11:37:55)
    What I’m getting at here is that for all I (we?) know this could be another polar bear drowning incident (caused by a storm – not arctic sea ice retraction). It could be (real) pollution, it could be a natural phenomenon… could it be a freak change in salinity (I guess), could it be a change in salinity caused by global warming yes (not the top of my list but sure, anything’s possible).

    All I’m getting at here is that there is a track record for knee-jerk reactions to make specious attributions of both precedented and unprecedented phenomenon to global warming. I’d be interested to see a reliable analysis of the incident in question, but for now it seems like fish die-offs (if that’s even a proper term) are not uncommon, and the same goes for trying to pin them on global warming: http://home.att.net/~thehessians/fishkill.html

  244. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Joseph (13:48:54)

    … R Gates, you are confused about oceanic evaporation, but don’t feel bad, it is common.

    In each hemisphere, the evaporation is the greatest during that hemisphere’s winter season, when the wind blowing across the ocean is cold, and more importantly, dry. Global humidity rises and falls on an annual cycle, peaking during the SH winter. This is because the SH has more ocean surface than the NH , and the SH is windier. It is cold winter temps that drive evaporation, not hot summer temps (or averages).

    To paraphrase your somewhat paternalistic approach “Joseph, you are confused about oceanic evaporation, but don’t feel bad, it is common.”

    Your citations say that evaporation is greater in the winter. However, this is because the information used is not actual observations. As your cited site says,

    Direct measurements of air-sea fluxes are too few to contribute directly to the compilation of the flux field on the global-scale. Our knowledge of the mean and variability of global air-sea fluxes has been gained mainly through the parameterizations of observed basic surface meteorological variables (such as wind speed, temperature, humidity, cloud cover, etc.). The observed quantities are obtainable from ship meteorological reports and satellite retrievals. They are also produced from the numerical weather prediction (NWP) models.

    OK, so we’re not dealing with real observations. We’re off into the ethereal region of “parameterizations” (which means guesses that fit our theories) and climate models. Note that they say that the “observed quantities” are inter alia “produced from [models]“. Obervations produced from models?? These guys are so far out into their modelled universe that they think that models produce observations … if that doesn’t ring huge alarm bells for you, you’ve never looked at the guts of a climate model.

    The main problem with this approach is that it ignores thunderstorms. These are too small to be seen in models, and don’t show up in satellite retrievals of bulk air qualities.

    But underneath the thunderstorms, unseen by the satellites and invisible to the models, storm winds drive the evaporation through the roof. The warm moist air rises in the core of the storm, the moisture is stripped out, and the now warm dry air continues to rise.

    At the top of the thunderstorm, this now cold dry air leaves the thunderstorm and begins to descend in the area around the thunderstorm. As a result, because of greatly increased evaporation driven by thunderstorm formation, the bulk air (the air in between the storms, the air that is measured by the satellites and simulated by the models) becomes drier. And since the air over the ocean is drier, this is interpreted by your cited sources as there being less evaporation.

    This is a small part of the huge and unrecognized problem with using averages. Nature is not smooth, it has sharp boundaries. What goes on under a thunderstorm is hugely different from what is happening in the bulk air surrounding it … but a satellite or modelled average ignores this small but vitally important area entirely. This gives a very distorted picture of the underlying reality.

  245. kadaka says:

    Leif Svalgaard (14:02:19) :
    (…) So calculations are good and the analogy with a bridge [of which we know every detail] is good as well.

    No, it’s not. You are saying if you know everything about anything going into the bridge then the analogy holds, you can make that precise calculation. Sorry, real world doesn’t work that way. The rebar is joined together with welding and other methods, introducing variance. Over time the steel components corrode, fasteners loosen, the concrete itself ages, that calculated maximum load is no longer valid.

    Heck, even the weather works against you. It rains, the concrete soaks up water, that calculated maximum is no longer valid. Unless you declare that value was an absolute number, then fiddle around and try to figure the added weight of the water so you can do fancy subtraction for the calculated maximum load on the bridge “at that moment.”

    And we haven’t even gotten to the differences in maximum loading at a particular point over the span of the bridge due to certain elements, like perhaps more where a support cable is attached and less between attachment points.

    Too much possible variance, too many other factors involved. You can’t get a precise definitive answer. A competent structural engineer will give you a number good for official documents that will hopefully avoid all lawsuits, with a healthy margin of understatement “just in case.”

    Now, are you saying the calculations for the Sun, out here in the real world, are of similar nature?

  246. Steve Goddard says:

    R Gates,

    If you look at areas of the US which had unusual snowfall this winter, you can see that most have also had cold temperatures.
    http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/maps/current/index.php?action=update_daterange&daterange=Last3m

    Same for Europe.

  247. R. Gates says:

    Joseph,

    Thanks for those links, I shall study them, though I think we are talking about two different things…rate versus total moisture in the air. Mssive amount of moisture in the air only come from warm water releasing that moisture. One bit from one of your links given above says:

    “…The nearly 50-yr time series shows that the decadal change of the global oceanic evaporation(Evp) is marked by a distinct transition from a downward trend to an upward trend around 1977–78. Sincethe transition, the global oceanic Evp has been up about 11 cm yr1 (10%), from a low at 103 cm yr1 in1977 to a peak at 114 cm yr1 in 2003. The increase in Evp was most dramatic during the 1990s.”

    For the period in question, those were also warmer years in the troposhere, and follow the temperature trendlines. Seems even your link, (at least at first glance) would confirm the general statement that warmer=wetter.

    I think for everyone’s general information, a good 101 course on evaporation, humidity, global rainfall amounts, etc can be found at:

    http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/lemke/geog101/lecture_outlines/07_hydrologic_cycle_intro.html

    The warmest and wettest place on earth is near the equator, and not at the poles. Warmer=Wetter.

  248. kadaka (15:26:33) :
    No, it’s not. You are saying if you know everything about anything going into the bridge then the analogy holds, you can make that precise calculation. Sorry, real world doesn’t work that way.
    Yes it does if you make the calculation for the moment where you have just measured all the properties in great detail. The calculation is then only valid for that precise moment, but that is all that is claimed. We do not extrapolate the result of a stale calculation indefinitely into the future while the bridge rusts.

    Now, are you saying the calculations for the Sun, out here in the real world, are of similar nature?
    The calculations for the Sun show that the state of the Sun changes with time [the bridge is rusting], but we calculate the changes and update the calculation all along, so there is never any extrapolation. Our knowledge is so detailed that we can start with a ball of hydrogen [with 24% Helium and ~1% heavier stuff] and the mass of the Sun and calculate what luminosity it should have 4.6 billion years later and compare that with what we actually measure of the real Sun today and they agree very well, so we have confidence that they also agreed 100 million years in the past as well as in the future.

  249. kadaka (15:26:33) :
    Now, are you saying the calculations for the Sun, out here in the real world, are of similar nature?
    Here is more about how these calculations are performed
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Solar_Model
    The agreements are so good that we can use the disagreements to learn about the finer details of the Sun to get more correct decimals in the calculation. But these are just details, the basic evolution is well understood. Also, by making the same calculations for stars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_structure
    We can check the validity of the calculations over enormous ranges of mass, composition, and age that the billions of stars in the Galaxy present to us.

  250. tom t says:

    Ever since I first heard of global warming people were saying “I know it must be true we aren’t getting the snow storms that we had as kids (1960-1970s)”. I would concede that I thought that was right, but I wasn’t sure because a foot of snow looks much bigger as a kid and people remember things differently. It is disingenuous in the extreme for the AGW crowd to now turn around and say global warming causes more snow. They were not saying that in the 1980s and the 1990s.

    The 1960s and 70s were a cold period so it absolutely absurd to argue that more snow was caused then by cold global temperatures and that more snow is now being caused by warm global temperature and the only time we have less snow is at “normal” temps. Even the alarmists must see how stupid that sounds.

  251. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Joe (04:20:12)

    Steve,

    There is a very good correlation to the snowfall and the signs of an increasing trend.
    1967 the oceans surface salinity started to change. Around the equatorial areas where this started and expanded. This salinity change effected the evaporation cycles and created massive draughts. The past 8 years, the north Atlantic salinity declined. Last year a massive die off of salt water salmon that were suppose to return to spawn.

    Any sign here?

    Well … no.

    As someone who has spent some time as a commercial salmon fisherman, this seemed … well … doubtful. So as I always do, I went to look for the sources so I could check the numbers. The main source seems to be an article in Nature, quoted here. For the North Atlantic, where the salmon are, the study says that salinity decreased by 0.02 psu (Practical Salinity Units).

    Now, the salinity of the big oceans is slightly different, with the Atlantic averaging about 37 psu and the Pacific averaging 35 psu. In other words, the Pacific is 2 psu less salty than the Atlantic. And salmon live happily in both oceans … go figure.

    So in fifty years, the Atlantic has gone from 37 to 36.98 psu … is there anyone here that thinks that the salmon care?

    Which is why I always say, run the numbers yourselves. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist. I ran the numbers, and I saw that the North Atlantic salinity had decreased by 0.05% … be still my beating heart.

    So, salinity changes killing the salmon? Sorry, doesn’t pass the smell test.

  252. Pamela Gray says:

    And since I catch (or rather try to) salmon in fresh water, they seem quite able to handle NO SALT at all, relatively speaking.

  253. Joe says:

    Here is a paper from studies in 2002.
    http://co2science.org/articles/V6/N10/C2.php
    Here is the salmon collapse of last fall.
    http://www.ianwelsh.net/british-columbias-salmon-stock-collapses/

    Ruth Curry’s work is quite good in understanding ocean flows, currents and changes.
    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=5098

  254. Mike M says:

    Well I was certainly thankful that most of the snow fell well to the south of us this winter; I think we only got about two feet…

  255. Steve Goddard says:

    Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.

    “It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

  256. Willis Eschenbach says:

    By one of those loveliest coincidences, I just got my quarterly newsletter for Winter from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Amazingly, no mention of this latest winter. So I sent them this email:

    SUBJECT: Lack of News Letter

    I just got my quarterly NSIDC newsletter. I read it, and went away shaking my head.

    We’ve just had the snowiest winter in history. It’s covered by all major news media. Arctic ice recovering. Antarctic ice at its highest level ever. Himalayan glaciers not going to disappear as IPCC forecast. Alaskan glaciers have been found to be not melting at the claimed rate.

    People everywhere are talking about all of these.

    Well, everywhere but the National Snow and Ice Data Center, because heck, why should you talk about snow and ice …

    Why no mention of any of those? Instead, we read that you spent taxpayer money to fly halfway around the world to do something really really important at the COP15 fiasco. We get a crossword puzzle. We get a snowtweets project … and not one word about the ongoing changes in the cryosphere.

    In the past, your newsletter has not failed to highlight things like “Antarctic Ice Shelf Disintegration Underscores a Warming World”, and “Arctic Sea Ice Extent Remains Low”, and “Arctic Sea Ice Down to Second-Lowest Extent; Likely Record-Low Volume” and “NSIDC Tracks Record Shattering Summer for Arctic Sea Ice” and “Arctic Sea Ice Narrowly Misses Wintertime Record Low”.

    But now that the tide is going the other direction, suddenly we get crossword puzzles.

    As a faithful reader of your newsletter, and as a taxpayer who funds your salaries, I find this … well … kinda strange, to say the least. Perhaps you didn’t get the memo, but the days of partisan science are over.

    Is there an explanation? Or do you just print bad news?

    Regards,

    w.

  257. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Joe (19:25:30)

    Here is a paper from studies in 2002.
    http://co2science.org/articles/V6/N10/C2.php
    Here is the salmon collapse of last fall.
    http://www.ianwelsh.net/british-columbias-salmon-stock-collapses/

    Ruth Curry’s work is quite good in understanding ocean flows, currents and changes.
    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=5098

    Joe, I’m not following this. You claim that the salinity in the North Atlantic is affecting the salmon. I show that’s not so. You come back with a citation about Pacific salmon. I live on the West Coast, I’ve fished commercially for salmon from Monterrey Bay to the Bering Sea, I’m more than aware of the problems with the Pacific salmon.

    The sad truth is that no one knows why the salmon are in decline. They have an extremely complex lifestyle. Likely culprits are some combination of overfishing, change in the PDO from warm to cool, destruction of inshore spawning habitat, shifting ocean currents, “first nation” overfishing, parasites from farm fish, and likely some unknown factors.

    So I’m not sure what your point is, Joe. What am I missing here?

  258. kadaka says:

    Leif Svalgaard (16:23:15) :

    Yes it does if you make the calculation for the moment where you have just measured all the properties in great detail. The calculation is then only valid for that precise moment, but that is all that is claimed. (…)

    Why do you keep beating this dead horse? The dog likes her meat tender but not mashed to a pulp.

    Such calculations of strengths of individual components are known to have issues, destructive testing is still employed. In manufacturing you work with tolerances, minimum and maximum values, thus calculations are affected right there. Rebar is a mass-produced commodity item, not made that critically, you could find strength variances in different spots along the same bar. For a bridge of any decent size, all the concrete will not be poured at the same time from a completely homogeneous mix, there will be variances in strength. Then comes assembly…

    For your analogy to hold, you are arguing that a hypothetical Star Trek near-instantaneous scanning will take place on the complete assembled structure, of complete depth at a very fine resolution, from which your definitive calculation can be made with the complete and precise understanding of the exact physical properties of such an assembly and everything in it… With the result being only good for when it was scanned.

    Real world, bridge gets a maximum weight classification good for all conditions, with regular inspections over time to verify it should still meet that rating with repairs as needed. And the rating is set lower than the calculated absolute maximum to provide a safety margin.

    Yes, I understand that solar calculations are done with time figured in, with recognition of changing conditions, and the results are good for the specific time inputted. I also know about manufacturing tolerances, safety margins, and that maximum loading at-this-moment calculations for bridges aren’t done and have a practical value of essentially nothing. To meet your original (11:45:24) statement, you would be so far into future hypothetical land that with such scanning technology and raw computing power you could know the position, size, and duration of each and every sunspot weeks in advance, which we certainly cannot do at this time.

    Now please stop trying to weaken my trust in solar calculations by insisting they can be as relatively sloppy as a bridge maximum load calculation. I would prefer to continue thinking solar physics is much more precise than bridge engineering, if you don’t mind.

  259. kadaka says:

    Willis Eschenbach (22:55:01) :
    (…)
    The sad truth is that no one knows why the salmon are in decline. They have an extremely complex lifestyle. Likely culprits are some combination of overfishing, change in the PDO from warm to cool, destruction of inshore spawning habitat, shifting ocean currents, “first nation” overfishing, parasites from farm fish, and likely some unknown factors.
    (…)

    Dang, and here I thought the eco-mentalists were certain it was dams keeping them from their spawning grounds, leading to the destruction of dams for the benefit of the fish.

    It must be very hard to Save The Earth (TM) these days. You need clean renewable hydroelectric to combat global warming. You need water reservoirs to cope with the droughts caused by global warming. But to save the salmon and prove you are not a selfish human, you have to get rid of old dams that do not have fish ladders, period. You really shouldn’t be adding on fish ladders, or even put up any sort of new dam regardless of whether it has one, due to the CO2 pollution in cement manufacture and the dam construction work. What is an Earth-loving environmentally-minded person supposed to do?

  260. Jimbo says:

    Public release date: 2-Mar-2010

    “Were short warm periods typical for transitions between interglacial and glacial epochs?”

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/haog-wsw030210.php

  261. A C Osborn says:

    Now we know why Leif posted this
    Leif Svalgaard (17:42:10) :

    cyclones 3-5 million years ago: http://www.physorg.com/news186250015.html
    “there were twice as many tropical cyclones during this period, and they lasted two to three days longer on average than they do now”
    “temperatures were up to four degrees Celsius warmer than today”
    on the WMO: “. . . we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data.” Thread.
    He actually does exactly the same thing himself, except he is confident out to Billions of years in either direction, not just mere Millions.

    Steve and you critcise Global Warming Predictions out to 100 years LOL, they have nothing on Stellar Scientists.

  262. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – Jimbo (02:23:44) :
    “Public release date: 2-Mar-2010
    “Were short warm periods typical for transitions between interglacial and glacial epochs?”..
    ______________________

    (-; Thanks Jimbo, I needed that.
    Why is it that a few European “SCIENTISTS” seem so much better at their game than our “scientists”? Think it might be diet?

  263. Joe says:

    The Atlantic is most studied which is why the Pacific in recent years have been putting in machines to record the sudden chnages that are occurring.

    http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20031117204012data_trunc_sys.shtml

    Observations of sea surface salinity in the western Pacific fresh pool: Large-scale changes in 19921995

    Observations of sea surface salinity in the western Pacific fresh pool: Large-scale changes in 19921995
    Christian Hnin

    Centre ORSTOM, Noumea, New Caledonia

    Yves du Penhoat

    Centre ORSTOM, Noumea, New Caledonia

    Mansour Ioualalen

    Centre ORSTOM, Noumea, New Caledonia

    This paper investigates the variability of sea surface salinity (SSS) in the western equatorial Pacific fresh pool. For this purpose, we processed data collected from thermosalinographs embarked on merchant ships. Two main cross-equatorial shipping lines that are representative of the oceanic conditions in the western tropical Pacific were selected: the Japan-Tarawa-Fiji line that crosses the equator near 173E (eastern track) and the New-Caledonia-Japan line that crosses the equator near 156E (western track). We show that there is a strong SSS variability in the region at monthly as well as interannual timescales. This high variability is attributed to the successive passages of a zonal salinity front, trapped in the (5N5S) equatorial band and migrating in phase with the southern oscillation index. We also found the eastern track to be more variable in SSS because it is more exposed to these SSS front incursions. We carried out a detailed study of the mechanisms responsible for this variability; it revealed that the rainfall input acts as a source of freshwater responsible for the existence of a contrasted distribution of SSS (mainly high-salinity waters in the central Pacific and low-salinity waters in the western Pacific). However, the main mechanism responsible for the SSS variability is zonal advection that makes the two distinct masses of water converge, resulting in a salinity front which shifts back and forth in the equatorial band.

    Received 18 November 1996; accepted 16 June 1997; .

    Citation: Hnin, C., Y. du Penhoat, and M. Ioualalen (1998), Observations of sea surface salinity in the western Pacific fresh pool: Large-scale changes in 19921995, J. Geophys. Res., 103(C4), 75237536.

    Here is a cool map of the Atlantic Salinity changes.
    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=897

  264. Michael Ozanne says:

    Trouble is that Mr Goddard hasn’t made it dull and boring enough something like this (Starts brushing rust of some very unexercised stats skills) :

    Start…..
    Testing the Influence of Climate Change on Northern Hemisphere Snow Coverage

    Introduction
    It has been suggested that increases in global average temperature should result in less snow coverage. This paper will test three hypotheses’ concerning that suggestion against the northern hemisphere snow coverage data held at: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/files/moncov.nhland.txt
    The test set will be:
    Hypothesis 1: Winter Snow coverage has changed over time
    Hypothesis 2: Annual Snow coverage has changed over time
    Hypothesis 3 Earlier Springs, Later Autumns has caused Snow Coverage to change over time
    Assumptions
    Winter can be considered as months 11, 12 and 01 (November December January)
    Early Spring /Late Autumn should affect periods 02,03,09,10 (February, March, September, October)
    Method
    The mean and standard deviation of each selection will be calculated for each decade and the difference in means and standard deviation tested for significance at the 95% confidence level using the Fisher F test and the Student t Test.
    Winter
    Visual inspection of the Global average temperature graph in GISS Hansen, J et al 2006 suggests that the period 1966 to 1980 was relatively stable with little net change in average global temperature and we will use this as a baseline against which we will assess later decades. The rest of the data was divided into the periods 81 to 91, 91 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010. The mean and standard deviations were calculated for each set of samples and F and t against the baseline calculated using the standard formula.
    Results
    Baseline 11/81-01/91 11/91-01/2000 11/2000-01/2010
    Mean 41134582 42776492 41347281 41521268
    σ 6166676 5402701 5070364 6048009
    Samples 42 33 27 30
    Base to 81/91 Base to 91/2000 Base to 2000/2010
    σd 1337889 1362937 1457637
    t 1.227 0.156 0.265
    F 0.76757 0.67605 0.96188
    t Req’d 2.0 2.0 2.0
    F Req’d 1.8408 1.8408 1.8408
    Significance None None None

    Annual
    The data set was divided into the sets 66-76, 77-87, 88-98, 99-2010. The mean and standard deviations were calculated for each set of samples and F and t against the 66-76 set calculated using the standard formulae.
    66-76 77-87 88-98 99-2010
    Mean 27431721 25428376 24485368 24913328
    σ 15703001 16381646 16305789 16677242
    Samples 113 132 132 146
    66/76 to 77/87 66/76 to 88/98 66/76 to 99/2010
    σd 2053090 2048510 2021674
    t 0.976 1.438 1.246
    F 1.088303 1.078247 1.127933
    t Req’d 1.96 1.96 1.96
    F Req’d 1.3519 1.3519 1.3519
    Significance None None None

    Spring/Autumn
    The data set was divided into the sets 66-76, 77-87, 88-98, 99-2010. The mean and standard deviations were calculated for each set of samples and F and t against the 66-76 set calculated using the standard formulae.
    66-76 77-87 88-98 99-2010
    Mean 29545013 27620185 26429362 27540621
    σ 16321318 17464479 16246471 16412070
    Samples 37 44 44 45
    66/76 to 77/87 66/76 to 88/98 66/76 to 99/2010
    σd 3759203 3632963 3631156
    t 0.512 0.858 0.552
    F 1.144988 1.009235 1.011152
    t Req’d 2 2 2
    F Req’d 1.8408 1.8408 1.8408
    Significance None None None

    Conclusion
    There is no indication of any change in snow coverage in the northern hemisphere on either a winter, annual or spring/autumn basis and that any effects suggested should be assigned to random variation about a stable mean.

    Critique
    1) I have no idea about any cleansing, homogenisation or aggregation performed on this data prior to its presentation by Rutgers
    2) Snow extent is only 1 part of the issue, thickness and mass would need to be considered for a full picture
    3) I haven’t taken care to provide exactly similar sample sizes, however the F and t methods do not require it
    4) I haven’t taken care to ensure that the same number of winter periods are present in each sample batch; this would increase the risk of a false positive and would have required further investigation if a weak indication of significance had been detected.
    5) I used GISS/Hansen to assess a baseline for hypothesis 1. This may be contentious in some quarters.
    6) I selected a baseline by eyeball only and identifying a stable period by use of a smoothing or curve fitting function would have been more rigorous.

    Further Lines of Inquiry
    It’s possible that there is deviation from a stable distribution on a shorter timescale than decadal. I would suggest generating the process control data from the requisite tables and plotting the seasonal groups as 3 element sample sizes on an X-Bar and R chart, using 66-80 as a sample capable process.
    This data is hemisphere total, there may be effects at lower latitudes masked by the overall data. I would suggest an experimental design based on ANOVA which would be looking at quantifying latitude and temperature anomaly data.

    End….
    Ouch that hurt… must exercise more….:-)

    So there you go thermageddon postponed by simple high school maths….:-)

  265. Steve Goddard says:

    Michael Ozanne,

    Thanks for that! A lot of scientists feel that plain English is bad for their reputation. The best ones (like Feynman) use plain English as a primary tool.

  266. kadaka (00:14:54) :
    Why do you keep beating this dead horse? The dog likes her meat tender but not mashed to a pulp.
    I thought that my last post buried the horse for good, but since you brought this up again [and again], here goes [and hopefully this will be last, unless you like to chew on cadavers]:

    For your analogy to hold, you are arguing that a hypothetical Star Trek near-instantaneous scanning will take place on the complete assembled structure, of complete depth at a very fine resolution
    No, only for the things that are relevant, which for a star or the Sun are only its mass, composition, and age [and to second order if it is part of a binary star or has giant nearby planets - but since none of those things apply to the Sun we can ignore them]. For the Sun, the occasional sunspot is not important for the evolution of the Sun, while a single rebar can have large consequences for a bridge. One includes what is relevant.

    you would be so far into future hypothetical land that with such scanning technology and raw computing power you could know the position, size, and duration of each and every sunspot weeks in advance, which we certainly cannot do at this time.
    None of these are relevant for the luminosity.

    Now please stop trying to weaken my trust in solar calculations by insisting they can be as relatively sloppy as a bridge maximum load calculation.
    Rather the other way around, one might consider being less sloppy about bridges [so they don't fall down so often].

    A C Osborn (03:28:17) :
    He actually does exactly the same thing himself, except he is confident out to Billions of years in either direction, not just mere Millions.
    There is a big difference. We have billions of stars that we can observe and use to check on our models, but we have only one Earth. If we had billions of Earths with different CO2, different ocean/land, different volcanism, different solar variations, different orbits, different biospheres, etc, then we would know how important the different influences were and would likely be better able to project. There is another difference: stars are hot and hot things are simpler than cold things. If I take a modern automobile [with driver] which is a very complex thing, enclose it in a box and heat it to 10,000 degrees, it would turn into a gas with virtually no complexity at all, and its behavior would be a lot more predictable.

  267. Steve Goddard (06:22:42) :
    The best ones (like Feynman) use plain English as a primary tool.
    Complete nonsense. They use mathematics. They [or some, at least] can explain their results in plain English, but only to a point, as natural language is not sharp enough for this – or rather nobody would listen to a ten-hour natural language explanation of something that can be done in ten minutes with the proper mathematics. You even fail to use plain English properly, I’ll let you correct what is wrong with ‘a primary tool’.

  268. Steve Goddard says:

    Feynman in plain English :

    “I’m smart enough to know that I’m dumb.”

    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”

    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”

    “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”

    “If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part.”

    “I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.”

  269. Steve Goddard (07:24:31) :
    Feynman in plain English
    Feynman doing science:
    “The theory of a general quantum system interacting with a linear dissipative system:
    A formalism has been developed, using Feynman’s space-time formulation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics whereby the behavior of a system of interest, which is coupled to other external quantum systems, may be calculated in terms of its own variables only. It is shown that the effect of the external systems in such a formalism can always be included in a general class of functionals (influence functionals) of the coordinates of the system only. The properties of influence functionals for general systems are examined. Then, specific forms of influence functionals representing the effect of definite and random classical forces, linear dissipative systems at finite temperatures, and combinations of these are analyzed in detail. The linear system analysis is first done for perfectly linear systems composed of combinations of harmonic oscillators, loss being introduced by continuous distributions of oscillators. Then approximately linear systems and restrictions necessary for the linear behavior are considered. Influence functionals for all linear systems are shown to have the same form in terms of their classical response functions. In addition, a fluctuation-dissipation theorem is derived relating temperature and dissipation of the linear system to a fluctuating classical potential acting on the system of interest which reduces to the Nyquist-Johnson relation for noise in the case of electric circuits. Sample calculations of transition probabilities for the spontaneous emission of an atom in free space and in a cavity are made. Finally, a theorem is proved showing that within the requirements of linearity all sources of noise or quantum fluctuation introduced by maser-type amplification devices are accounted for by a classical calculation of the characteristics of the maser.”

  270. A C Osborn says:

    Leif Svalgaard (06:33:10) :
    So if your understanding is so good perhaps you can give us the exact date & time of the next Solar Flare?
    And tell us exactly how many Sunspots there will be at noon on the 11th March 2010?

  271. A C Osborn says:

    Leif Svalgaard (06:33:10) :
    No, only for the things that are relevant, which for a star or the Sun are only its mass, composition, and age

    So you also know the Exact age of the Sun as well, my, my, it must be a time travelling machine you use.
    No let me guess you Calculated it!

  272. Steve Goddard says:

    After 270 comments and two days, no one has disputed my (mathematical) assertion that the past decade had the greatest winter snow extents in the Rutgers record.

    It follows logically that we can’t be at a record decadal high, without having increased from any and all decades in the past.

  273. Steve Goddard says:

    Feynman wrote several excellent books in plain English, including one of my favorites. “What Do You Care What Other People Think?”

    “In one chapter, he describes an impromptu experiment in which he showed how the O-rings in the shuttle’s rocket boosters could have failed due to cold temperatures on the morning of the launch. This failure was later determined to be the primary cause of the shuttle’s destruction.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Do_You_Care_What_Other_People_Think%3F

  274. A C Osborn (07:59:58) :
    And tell us exactly how many Sunspots there will be at noon on the 11th March 2010?
    Which noon? New York time? California time? Tokyo time? …
    My best estimate at Greenwich Mean Time noon would be a sunspot number of 30. Check back with us when you verified this.

    A C Osborn (08:03:48) :
    So you also know the Exact age of the Sun as well, my, my, it must be a time travelling machine you use.
    No let me guess you Calculated it!

    We measure the Earth’s age to be 4.54 billion years and we estimate that the Sun is about 50 million years older than that [although some people disagree and believe the Sun is younger than the Earth by three days, what do you think?]

  275. Steve Goddard (08:09:13) :
    “In one chapter, he describes an impromptu experiment in which he showed how the O-rings in the shuttle’s rocket boosters could have failed due to cold temperatures on the morning of the launch.
    And he used an English Dictionary as a primary tool, right?
    Feynman was good at communicating science in plain English, without having to resort to “(mathematical) assertions [Steve Goddard (08:04:44)]“, but his primary tool was Mathematics.

  276. R. Gates says:

    Steve,

    More heat=more moisture=more snow in winter (until it warms enough that the snow will be rain instead. This year, we saw El Nino heat plus a negative AO, so what else could we get but more snow further south.

    January & February seeing record heat in the troposphere. So how does this all fit in your scenario? What exactly do you think you’re proving by making your “snowiest” assertion…as it sure CAN’T be that things are getting colder…since they are not.

  277. kadaka says:

    Timeline:
    Leif Svalgaard (11:45:24) :

    (…)
    Calculations can be facts [and it this case are]. If you know the material and construction of a bridge, you can calculate at which load it will break, and it will.
    (…)

    kadaka (13:21:30): Statement shown false in real world. “Computer vs reality. Computer loses.” Validity of solar calculations not questioned.

    Leif Svalgaard (14:02:19) : [Summarized with bracketed notes]

    Wait, that’s an analogy with the Sun. Now the Sun is simpler, and we know its internal composition and properties with some precision. Thus it is like we could completely scan thus have a detailed knowledge of every component and material of the bridge. [We can't do that for the Sun as well as we currently can with bridge parts BTW, and for those we still can't do it with absolute precision.] Our calculations for the simpler Sun system are very good, therefore as specified we can do very good calculations for maximum load for a more-complex bridge system, thus the analogy holds.

    kadaka (15:26:33): Original statement still false in real world, now for more reasons. Validity of solar calculations still not questioned. Question is raised, do you want me to think solar calculations are as sloppy as bridge load ones?

    Leif Svalgaard (16:23:15) :

    Wait! If we know everything about the bridge we can do great bridge calculations for that moment when we knew everything, therefore we can do great solar calculations. We don’t just figure for the Sun once, we figure over time with great results. We can do great solar calculations!

    Leif Svalgaard (16:34:12) :

    See how we do those solar calculations! They are great and verified and precise!

    kadaka (00:14:54) : Original statement still real-world false. Validity of solar calculations still not questioned. Question raised, why are you still bothering to try to prop up the original statement? Statement made, continuing to insist that less-precise bridge load calculations are as precise as accepted-as-more-precise solar calculations may lead to the downgrading of personal opinion as to the precision of solar calculations.

    Leif Svalgaard (06:33:10) :

    The Sun is simpler. Individual bits are less important. We can do great luminosity calculations.

    Bridge engineering should be more precise!
    [And how am I to interpret "rather the other way around"? I trust current load ratings of bridges due to safety margins and periodic inspections. If a computer were to tell me at this moment the bridge can take exactly this much load, no safety margin is required, and give a different value at a different time, well it would take a lot of experimental results for me to trust those ratings as much as the current one, and as a daily working number I would use the absolute lowest calculated value for the worst possible conditions anyway.]

    Where we are at: Original statement still real-world false. Validity of solar calculations still not questioned (subject to change depending on further arguing).

    Why are you still arguing? Ah heck, what are you still arguing?

  278. Steve Goddard says:

    Leif,

    Mathematics is a two edged sword. Applied properly it yields all kinds of important information. Applied improperly it is GIGO. One of the most common mistakes in science is when people jump into detailed math or statistics based on faulty assumptions. It looks impressive, but is often worse than useless.

  279. A C Osborn says:

    Leif Svalgaard (08:16:35) :
    Finally
    “We measure the Earth’s age to be 4.54 billion years and we estimate that the Sun is about 50 million years older than that”

    ESTIMATE.
    NOT FACT A THEN?

  280. kadaka says:

    Leif Svalgaard (08:16:35) :

    We measure the Earth’s age to be 4.54 billion years and we estimate that the Sun is about 50 million years older than that [although some people disagree and believe the Sun is younger than the Earth by three days, what do you think?]

    I think Wikipedia says the difference is 30 million years, not 50, the Sun formed about 4.57 billion years ago. If you are certain it is 50 million then for the sake of humanity please edit Wikipedia at the relevant articles, here is another one. Don’t forget to provide references citing the correct age.

  281. Leon Elam says:

    I wonder if climategate smoke and mirrors has covered the stealthy approach of what Professor Vladimir Paar is predicting, a 70,000 year ice age?

  282. simon D says:

    What is the data for the ENTIRE potential snow season? You’re only showing December – February.

    From IPCC AR4 WG1 Technical summary:

    Snow cover has decreased in most regions, especially
    in spring. Northern Hemisphere snow cover observed by
    satellite over the 1966 to 2005 period decreased in every
    month except November and December, with a stepwise
    drop of 5% in the annual mean in the late 1980s (see
    Figure TS.12).

  283. Michael Ozanne says:

    “Steve Goddard (08:04:44) :

    After 270 comments and two days, no one has disputed my (mathematical) assertion that the past decade had the greatest winter snow extents in the Rutgers record. ”

    I re-ran F and t testing on the basis “winter” = periods 12,01,02 with the following results
    1 2 3 4
    66-76 77-87 88-98 99-2010
    SD 2051037.523 3208573.615 1495908.297 1916983.291
    Mean 45259371 45366337.09 44621390.58 45370340.72
    Tally 30 33 33 35
    1 to 2 1 to 3 1 to 4
    Delta S 672453.1088 456109.106 495197.0944
    t 0.159 1.399 0.224
    F 2.447241361 1.879910915 1.144749749

    Required t 2.0 Req’d F 1.8408

    In this case I have ensured that each sample only contains whole “winters” to avoid an upside risk of a false positive.

    So yes the mean of snow extent is at a maximum in the latest decade but this does not indicate a movement in the mean of the process. However 77-87 and 87-98 were more variable than 66-76 but 99-2010 is not

    “It follows logically that we can’t be at a record decadal high, without having increased from any and all decades in the past”

    Well “any and all” is a bit sweeping….:-) statistically rather than logically it is possible for a record to be set without it indicating that the process involved (northern hemisphere “winter” snow generation) has increased its average output.

    In this case it appears that “winter” snow extent became more variable for two decades around the same average output and has now stabilised.

    Hypothesis that needs testing: A negative feedback mechanism has been triggered to an increased variability in “winter” (dec to feb) snow output, howsever caused….

    There you go science in action………:-) Thermageddon still postponed by high school math….

  284. Michael Ozanne says:

    “simon D (14:55:40) :

    What is the data for the ENTIRE potential snow season? You’re only showing December – February.

    From IPCC AR4 WG1 Technical summary:

    Snow cover has decreased in most regions, especially
    in spring. Northern Hemisphere snow cover observed by
    satellite over the 1966 to 2005 period decreased in every
    month except November and December, with a stepwise
    drop of 5% in the annual mean in the late 1980s (see
    Figure TS.12).”

    The data set in play http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/files/moncov.nhland.txt
    shows no significant change in mean snow cover at the 95% confidence level in any of the following scenarios: whole year(01-12), early winter (11,12,01) winter (12,01,02) early spring/late autumn (02,03,09,10) between 1966 and 2010. It does indicate increased winter(12,01,02) variability that occured between 1977 and 1987 diminished between 1988 and 1998 and was undetectable in 1999-2010.

  285. Steve Goddard says:

    simon D,

    Far be it for me to question the irreproachable accuracy of the iPCC, but you might want to think about the difference between summer and winter.

    Winter extent is defined by snow falling at low latitudes. Summer extent is defined by snow melting at high latitudes. The mechanisms are unrelated, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to average them together in a trend.

    The maximum always occurs in the winter. That is when snow falls. So if you want to measure snowfall patterns – do you do it in the summer, or in the winter?
    http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/nhland_season1.gif

  286. Willis Eschenbach says:

    simon D (14:55:40)

    What is the data for the ENTIRE potential snow season? You’re only showing December – February.

    From IPCC AR4 WG1 Technical summary:

    Snow cover has decreased in most regions, especially
    in spring. Northern Hemisphere snow cover observed by
    satellite over the 1966 to 2005 period decreased in every
    month except November and December, with a stepwise
    drop of 5% in the annual mean in the late 1980s (see
    Figure TS.12).

    Ummm … well … Stephen Goddard clearly identified the source of his data. I used it to graph the “ENTIRE potential snow season” here.

    Read the thread much?

  287. Tim Channon says:

    I’ve already posted a link to a complete variation.

    If you need it larger or the data, ask. No stats, signal processing.

  288. kadaka (10:25:24) :
    Why are you still arguing? Ah heck, what are you still arguing?
    You are arguing. I buried the horse a long time ago. Bridges also have a ‘military max loading’ [marked on maps used by tank commanders in the European Theater. You exceed that and the bridge fails [in my time in the Royal Danish Army a half-century ago, I have seen that happen on maneuvers in Germany]. This is a load without safety margin. Here I’m not arguing, I’m telling you. But if you are comfortable with our solar calculations, perhaps the cadaver can go back under ground.

    Steve Goddard (10:58:33) :
    Mathematics is a two edged sword. Applied properly it yields all kinds of important information. Applied improperly it is GIGO.
    Mathematics cannot be applied incorrectly. You can apply it to garbage, but that is not the fault of Mathematics, but of you.

    An not applying Mathematics at all is just eyeballing, and doesn’t quite cut it.

    A C Osborn (11:16:56) :
    ESTIMATE.
    NOT FACT A THEN?

    Fact is that the Earth is somewhere older than 4.49 Gyr and the Sun is 4.565 Gyr. The age of the Earth is more uncertain that that of the Sun, partly because of the Moon. Measurements of the age of Moon cluster around 4.51 Gyr. Both for the Earth and the Moon the uncertainty is of the order of 0.05 Gyr, so it is hard to tell any better than that.

    kadaka (11:40:22) :
    I think Wikipedia says the difference is 30 million years
    It does not. Take the uncertainties into account as I just explained above.

  289. Willis Eschenbach says:

    I don’t understand why you guys keep arguing about bridge load limits. Calvin and Hobbes spelled it out long ago:

    Calvin: How do they know the load limit on bridges, Dad?

    Dad: They drive bigger and bigger trucks over the bridge until it breaks. Then they weigh the last truck and rebuild the bridge.

    Calvin: Oh, I should’ve guessed.

    Mum: Dear, if you don’t know the answer, just tell him!

  290. Steve Goddard says:

    Leif,

    “There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don’t.”

    Math gets applied incorrectly all the time, like when the Hubble telescope was designed, or when Hansen estimated that sea level could rise 2-25 metres this century.
    http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/news_repository/will-oceans-surge-59-centimetres-this-century-or-25-metres

  291. Phil. says:

    Tenuc (01:26:00) :
    I’m sure that when the historians of a hundred years hence try to explain the CAGW global scam, the first decade of the 21st century will be seen as the ‘tipping point’ of failure. Snow is such an obvious event that it can’t be fudged or hidden.

    You’d think so, yet here I am in British Columbia well behind the snow line according to the Rutgers map supporting the data Goddard has presented. All week there has been no snow on the ground here, just little patches on the tops of the hills. I’ve driven for 80 miles N and 60 miles E of here and it’s the same there, unusual lack of snow and warm weather. Not even 10% snow cover here for miles around much less 39% so why does it show up yellow on the Rutgers map? It was similar on the NH/Vt border last week, so I suspect that the ‘record’ extent is in error. The lack of scepticism on here about an homogenized, gridded data set is interesting given the response to other such data.

  292. Steve Goddard (20:18:09) :
    Math gets applied incorrectly all the time
    Nonsense. You can’t add 1 and 1 incorrectly. Your data could be bad or your assumptions wrong or in your case the trend not significant, but that is not incorrectly applied math [in your case not even applied].

  293. DeNihilist says:

    “Pamela Gray (18:29:14) :

    And since I catch (or rather try to) salmon in fresh water, they seem quite able to handle NO SALT at all, relatively speaking.”

    Pamela, as you probably know, Pacific Coho were introduced into Lake Michigan, I believe in the thirty’s. They have a thriving commercial fishery there. We have a biologist here in Vancouver, out at UBC, who raises sockeye in fresh water tanks. Says that this is the way to farm fish, get em outta the ocean!

  294. Jerry Skelley says:

    Does H2O precipitation pull a signifiant quantity of CO2 out of the atmosphere?

  295. Michael Ozanne says:

    As near as I can figure a rainwater pH of 5.7 assumed to be all carbonic acid would indicate about 1gramme of CO2 for every 10 Tonnes of rainwater.
    But hey it’s been a long time since ‘A’ level chemistry and I might have blown the maths…..:-)

  296. Steve Goddard says:

    Leif,

    A good example of the incorrect application of mathematics :

    Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 “looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago,” says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. ..Hathaway and Wilson looked at records of geomagnetic activity stretching back almost 150 years and noticed something useful:. “The amount of geomagnetic activity now tells us what the solar cycle is going to be like 6 to 8 years in the future,” says Hathaway.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm

  297. Steve Goddard (07:02:40) :
    A good example of the incorrect application of mathematics :
    Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 “looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago,”

    Absolutely not. No mathematics involved here, just cherry picking [a la your snow cover]. See page 31-33 of http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.pdf
    The reason they cherry picked the ‘wrong peak’ was to conform to the Dikpati et al prediction of a very large cycle which was at the time politically favored by NASA.

  298. Mihail says:

    The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship.

    THE KHAZAR JEWS WANT NWO,don’t believe in this GLOBAL WARMING CRAP,THEY ARE BEHIND IT,NO WONDER THE BIBLE CALL THOSE CRIMINALS,THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN,FAKE JEWS,KHAZARS,,REVELATION 2:9,3:9.In this New World Order the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands.”

    — Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx, ‘La Revue de Paris’, p.574, June 1, 1928

  299. kadaka says:

    Leif Svalgaard (19:04:40) :

    kadaka (10:25:24) :
    Why are you still arguing? Ah heck, what are you still arguing?
    You are arguing. I buried the horse a long time ago. (…)

    The public health authorities would like to have a word with you. Continually dropping off that festering carcass of yours in front of my house does not constitute burying it. Not even on the times when you bothered to throw a few shovelfuls of dirt in its general direction. Original statement is still real-world false. Now please drag that poor thing back on your truck and properly bury it at your house.

    Leif Svalgaard (19:04:40) :

    (…)
    kadaka (11:40:22) :
    I think Wikipedia says the difference is 30 million years
    It does not. Take the uncertainties into account as I just explained above.

    Wikipedia says in the “Age of the Earth” article (emphasis added):

    The age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 10^9 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. The Sun, in comparison, is about 4.57 billion years old, about 30 million years older.

    Ah yes, I see the difference. It is so clear now. Wikipedia clearly says the Sun is about 30 million years older. In my careless wording, I said I think Wikipedia says it is 30 million years. You are quite right.

    And in astronomical terms, “about 30 million” is the same as “about 50 million” so Wikipedia is in full agreement with you.

    I have no idea what those uncertainties you mentioned have do do with Wikipedia saying (about) 30 million instead of 50 million. But in any case, you are right as always.

    You know, you really should go clarify those Wikipedia articles, as a person can get the impression that Wikipedia says the Sun is 30 million years older than the Earth, instead of it saying about 50 million as you have put it. Why, one could even take the figure that the Sun is about 4.57 billion years old, also found in the Sun entry, subtract about 4.54 billion years for the age of the Earth, and mistakenly not realize the result is about 50 million years instead of about 30 million years.

    Please go clarify those articles. Do it for the children. Please don’t forget to supply better references as needed.

  300. Steve Goddard says:

    Leif,

    An example of the incorrect application of mathematics would be showing that winter snow extent has declined to a record decadal high.

  301. Steve Goddard says:

    Four friends have been doing really well in their calculus class: they have been getting top grades for their homework and on the midterm. So, when it’s time for the final, they decide not to study on the weekend before, but to drive to another friend’s birthday party in another city – even though the exam is scheduled for Monday morning. As it happens, they drink too much at the party, and on Monday morning, they are all hung over and oversleep. When they finally arrive on campus, the exam is already over. They go to the professor’s office and offer him an explanation: “We went to our friend’s birthday party, and when we were driving back home very early on Monday morning, we suddenly had a flat tire. We had no spare one, and since we were driving on backroads, it took hours until we got help.” The professor nods sympathetically and says: “I see that it was not your fault. I will allow you to make up for the missed exam tomorrow morning.”

    When they arrive early on Tuesday morning, the students are put by the professor in a large lecture hall and are seated so far apart from each other that, even if they tried, they had no chance to cheat. The exam booklets are already in place, and confidently, the students start writing. The first question – five points out of one hundred – is a simple exercise in integration, and all four finish it within ten minutes. When the first of them has completed the problem, he turns over the page of the exam booklet and reads on the next one:

    Problem 2 (95 points out of 100): Which tire went flat?

    http://mathfail.com/jokes-1/math-jokes/

  302. kadaka says:

    Leif Svalgaard (07:19:39) :
    (…)
    The reason they cherry picked the ‘wrong peak’ was to conform to the Dikpati et al prediction of a very large cycle which was at the time politically favored by NASA.

    Politics at NASA causing willful distortions of solar research? My, you’re starting to sound like Oliver.

    Yeah, I miss him too.

    Hey, I found his work cited as a reference on Wikipedia today. How often has your work been cited as a Wikipedia reference?

  303. kadaka (07:55:32) :
    Please go clarify those articles. Do it for the children.
    I don’t see any reason to do this, as even our children will learn to understand about uncertainties. It is, in fact, good that there are such small discrepancies floating around, to show that these things have uncertainties. The ages of the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun, once you go to a precession higher than 0.05 Gyr become rather undetermined unless one is VERY specific.
    We can determine the age, AD, of the oldest material [dust and meteorites] found in the solar system. We can define the Sun’s age, AS, as since nuclear fusion began within the Sun [we think that AS > AD]. Since the Moon is formed by a giant collision between the protoearth and a large [Mars-sized] protoplanet, we can count its age, AM, from the time of collision. Since the protoearth was also completely shattered and the Earth was assembled from the pieces, one could debate whether the age of the Earth, AE, should be counted from the time of collision [so AE = AM] or from the birth of the protoearth, AP [where AP < AE]. Wikipedia is not clear about which ages are meant, although it seems that by age of Sun they mean AD, and by age of Earth they mean AE possibly with a little bit added for the time it takes the Earth to reassemble. So, before one begins to nitpick, one must be clear as to what the nits are.

  304. Leif Svalgaard (08:47:39) :
    [where AP < AE].]
    Read that as AP > AE
    It is hard to enter these characters correctly…

  305. Steve Goddard (08:26:49) :
    An example of the incorrect application of mathematics would be showing that winter snow extent has declined to a record decadal high.
    Show me how you do that trick and I can comment on it.

  306. Steve Goddard says:

    Leif,

    Tamino says:

    “That doesn’t mean that snow cover isn’t decreasing during (winter), only that there’s not a change which is statistically significant. Yet.”

  307. kadaka (08:41:41) :
    Politics at NASA causing willful distortions of solar research?
    Science corrects itself. ‘Willful distortion’ is perhaps a bit harsh. Perhaps ‘going with the flow’ would be better as that was the prevailing idea at he time. Hathaway has long since seen the light. His latest prediction agrees well with mine.

    Hey, I found his work cited as a reference on Wikipedia today. How often has your work been cited as a Wikipedia reference?
    Easy to find out: go to Wikipedia and search for me.

  308. Leif Svalgaard (09:10:16) :
    Steve Goddard (08:26:49) :
    An example of the incorrect application of mathematics would be showing that winter snow extent has declined to a record decadal high.
    Show me how you do that trick and I can comment on it.
    —-
    Please don’t just ignore my comments. Answer it.

    Steve Goddard (09:31:25) :
    Tamino says:
    “That doesn’t mean that snow cover isn’t decreasing during (winter), only that there’s not a change which is statistically significant. Yet.”

    And you hang on every word dripping from Tamino’s mouth?
    The ‘yet’ does not mean that it WILL become significant. It means he doesn’t know, yet.

  309. kadaka says:

    Re: Leif Svalgaard (08:47:39) with (08:50:20)

    Well, that may not have been a thousand words, even at 16 bits, but it did make for quite a pretty picture.

    Heh.

  310. Steve Goddard says:

    So Tamino suggests that winter snow extent might have been decreasing leading up to the current record high.

  311. Steve Goddard (10:23:22) :
    So Tamino suggests that winter snow extent might have been decreasing leading up to the current record high.
    Who cares what Tamino says.

    Leif Svalgaard (09:10:16) :
    Steve Goddard (08:26:49) :
    An example of the incorrect application of mathematics would be showing that winter snow extent has declined to a record decadal high.
    Show me how you do that trick and I can comment on it.
    —-
    Please don’t just ignore my comments. Answer it.

    kadaka (10:17:50) :
    Well, that may not have been a thousand words, even at 16 bits, but it did make for quite a pretty picture.
    I don’t know what you are talking about. The ‘Heh’ suggests that it may not be worth knowing, Heh?

  312. kadaka says:

    @ Steve Goddard (08:26:49) :

    Here’s something I’m trying to figure out.

    From this paper we get an age for the Sun of 4.57 ± 0.11 Gyr (aka Ga or simply billions of years). Despite extensive searching I cannot locate a more accurate figure, nearly always they will not even go past the tenth digit. So, with this figure, we get 4.57 Gyr ± 2.4%.

    Now Wikipedia, same as Leif Svalgaard, gives an age of 4.54 Gyr for the Earth, with Wikipedia referencing sources that add a ± 1% to the figure.

    So the Earth is between 4.58 and 4.49 Gyr old. The Sun is between 4.68 and 4.46 Gyr old.

    Therefore it is clearly possible that the Earth could have come before the Sun! The numbers don’t lie, math is infallible, thus it is true!

    Which is just something I noticed checking out something else.

    From Leif Svalgaard (19:04:40) we get:
    (…) The age of the Earth is more uncertain that that of the Sun, partly because of the Moon. (…)

    How does ± 1% indicate more uncertainty than ± 2.4%? I could use some help figuring that one out.

  313. kadaka (13:28:43) :
    (…) The age of the Earth is more uncertain that that of the Sun, partly because of the Moon. (…)
    How does ± 1% indicate more uncertainty than ± 2.4%? I could use some help figuring that one out.

    What you are missing is that the 1% relate to the Earth after it reformed from the debris from the collision that created the Moon. If you count [as I do] the age from when the protoearth formed, then the Earth is older than the Moon, but we don’t know precisely how much older [we can only estimate of surmise that - and the estimates vary], hence the larger uncertainty. I think I already explained that in some detail.
    The age you quote for the Sun is probably the ‘age of bodies condensed out the protosolar disk to form the solar system’ derived from meteorites. This is, however, not really the age of the Sun itself, which I would count from the time when nuclear fusion ignited, and that is probably before the meteorites condensed. You should stop being silly with poorly defined concepts and try to be precise as to what the concepts mean.

  314. kadaka says:

    Leif Svalgaard (14:12:22) :
    (…)
    The age you quote for the Sun is probably the ‘age of bodies condensed out the protosolar disk to form the solar system’ derived from meteorites. This is, however, not really the age of the Sun itself, which I would count from the time when nuclear fusion ignited, and that is probably before the meteorites condensed. You should stop being silly with poorly defined concepts and try to be precise as to what the concepts mean.

    You should read the paper. It is very short and free to download. In it they apply special relativistic corrections to get a more accurate helioseismic age, which they find to be in remarkable agreement with the meteoric age.

    Thus the time that you would consider for the age of the Sun, since the ignition of nuclear fusion, is what they have calculated, and what I have stated. Not the meteoric age, which you have mistakenly assumed I was probably using.

  315. kadaka (15:18:47) :
    more accurate helioseismic age, which they find to be in remarkable agreement with the meteoric age.
    Thus the time that you would consider for the age of the Sun, since the ignition of nuclear fusion, is what they have calculated, and what I have stated. Not the meteoric age, which you have mistakenly assumed I was probably using.

    Since they are in ‘remarkable agreement’ it shouldn’t matter. The point is that the uncertainty is large enough [0.11 Gyr] to encompass the various scenarios. I’m at a loss as why you have a problem with the uncertainties.

  316. Leif Svalgaard (15:46:56) :
    kadaka (15:18:47) :
    My own assessment of the sequence of events is
    1) fusion turn on heating the solar system disk
    2) small dust/meteorites condense from the disk
    3) they collect into larger bodies
    4) protoearth and large body collide and both protoearth and that body anre completely shattered to pieces
    5) the pieces reassemble into the Earth and the Moon
    several millions of years probably elapsed between each of these steps. We don’t know precisely how many, but it is being worked on.
    We do know that it took place about 4.5Gyr ago.

  317. Michael Ozanne says:

    “Steve Goddard (09:31:25) :

    Leif,

    Tamino says:

    “That doesn’t mean that snow cover isn’t decreasing during (winter), only that there’s not a change which is statistically significant. Yet.””

    I feel strangely torn, here is a statement so crass it absolves one from the obligation of polite disagreement, yet at the same time there is an ethical duty to assist the ignorant. So there is a short answer and a long answer.

    The long answer :
    Significance is often misunderstood . In any sampling activity there is the null hypothesis that the samples are typical of the population and do not indicate any change. And there is the hypothesis under test that the samples indicate a change in either the mean or the variability of the population. Significance testing gives an accepted (Settled Science) way of judging whether the observed sample satisfies the experimental or null hypothesis.
    Its not a case of sample b is bigger than sample a is bigger than my control sample therefore if it was a bit bigger it might show a change. Its a case of the difference between a,b and control being a consequence of the natural variability of the population under test. Now it is possible that the process of snow generation is becoming more variable and its mean output is changing.
    Detection of that would require application of the time phased process stability tests outlined in my original reply to Steve Goddard.

    The short answer :
    Bollocks… (Cobblers if the moderator is being finicky….)

    [The pottymouth mod is American, so bollocks is acceptable - The Night Watch]

  318. Steve Goddard says:

    Michael,

    So what you are saying is that snow extent “may” have declined to a decadal record high.

    Make perfect sense in Alice in Wonderland, where up is down and down is up.

  319. Mike Pearl says:

    I think the graph by Willis Eschenbach is false. If you put the data until february 2010 you do not get the up-pick. It is the second time:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php

  320. kadaka says:

    Mike Pearl (07:43:07) :

    I think the graph by Willis Eschenbach is false. If you put the data until february 2010 you do not get the up-pick. It is the second time:

    Hey, everyone’s entitled to an opinion. For example, I think you’re a moron.

    That graph was in Willis Eschenbach (17:46:17) posted back on March 2. There he said he used the same data as Steve Goddard starting from 1971.

    In latitude (17:52:59), it was asked that the 2010 data be included on the graph, specifically to get a little up-tick at the end.

    In Willis Eschenbach (18:18:44), Mr. Eschenbach said it was already in there, graph went as far as the data did, through February 2010.

    Now that you have waited four days until this thread was practically dead to impugn the man’s work, while blatantly displaying an URL accusing him of lying, exactly what are you saying? Are you saying the graph does not have the data through Feb 2010, despite Mr. Eschenbach saying it does? Or are you saying that with the 2010 data there should be no up-tick on the graph?

    In either case, your statement is gibberish. We have had a winter with record-breaking snowfall totals, with more snow than the previous year. So how could a graph incorporating that not have an up-tick? Therefore are you denying that there was that much snow, the figures are lying? That must be the case, since a graph with that would have an up-tick, and you are arguing there should be no up-tick.

    If you wish to argue there should be no up-tick with the data through Feb 2010 included, then you must argue that those 2010 numbers are less than or equal to the previous year’s numbers, no up-tick is possible. As it is, you are trying to loudly declare a man a liar, long after he and practically everyone else has left the room if not the building. Truly an excellent display of bravery.

    Thus my opinion stands.

  321. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Mike Pearl (07:43:07)

    I think the graph by Willis Eschenbach is false. If you put the data until february 2010 you do not get the up-pick. It is the second time: [with a citation to Tim Lambert calling me a liar]

    Dear Mr. Pearl:

    Despite your baseless accusations, I have used all of the available data, including February 2010. You don’t like it? Sorry.

    Perhaps it is perfectly all right where you come from to call a man a liar just because you disagree with him, and if so, I pity you. Where I come from it is a deadly, mortal insult, one that you had better have proof for.

    Your willingness to call me a liar because you don’t like my results, just like your partner in social ineptitude Tim Lambert at Deltoid has done, reveals two things about both of you.

    The first is your despicable lack of morals and common decency.

    The second is the weakness of your arguments.

    If you had more morals than a snake has hips, you would claim that I had made a mistake. Which is quite possible, I’ve made them before. Instead, like crass, churlish weaklings throughout history, you want to claim that you know my motives and that they are bad. You don’t have a clue what my motives are, of course, but you want to claim you have God-like powers to see what is in my mind … egotism, anyone?

    And if you had a decent argument based on actual facts, you would not need to stoop to the unbelievably crass, puerile, and socially repulsive level of calling me a liar.

    In short, you have destroyed any credibility you might have had by turning a scientific discussion into a personal attack. I knew you AGW guys were getting desperate, but I didn’t realize how desperate … the truth struck a nerve, did it?

    I sincerely hope that you are not so foolish in person as you are over the internet. If you try this kind of nonsense on in real life, I fear someone will punch your lights out, and deservedly so. You would not have the nerve to make this gutter accusation to my face, and you should avoid doing it remotely despite the fact that you can do so with impunity.

    Because all this type of vile accusation does is reveal your true nature, and destroy your credibility entirely. It is useless and even counterproductive for you to post further here, Mike, as now people see you for what you are.

    Me, I’m angry. As I said, to me, calling a man a liar is a mortal insult. But most people here are just pointing and laughing at Mike Pearl, the man who is so scared of the facts that he is willing to call a man a liar rather than discuss the issues … and no one ever trusts a man like that after they have seen what he is capable of.

    I have no illusions that you will learn to act like an adult, but in hopes you learn at least grade-school manners, I remain,

    Yours truly,

    w.

  322. Steve Goddard says:

    Mike Pearl,

    You seem to have come up with a new social theory, where people can ignore the snow if the high level of snowfall doesn’t match your view of the world.

    Think how much snow removal money cities could have saved by ignoring the three foot deep snow! They should hire you as a consultant.

  323. kadaka says:

    Re Leif Svalgaard (15:46:56) and (16:43:49) (March 5):

    Sorry for the delay in replying. Other issues, family, online research for this topic, etc.

    I preferred things as I was taught between public school and private university. Then the predominant theory was we have a second-generation sun, as evidenced by all the elements heavier than iron brought about by a supernova, indicating the predecessor was a massive red giant. Our current sun and solar system was the coalesced remains, arising as would a phoenix from the ashes.

    Instead we are now to believe we have a first-generation sun and solar system comprised of the swept-up debris from other supernovas all mashed together, of which there just happened to be enough lying around the galaxy in the general area to do the trick. From a phoenix to garbage can scrapings. Why the change? From what I can see, the meteoric dating yields remarkably close figures, which can indicate a single original source. Did they somewhere find so much variation in so many that multiple original sources became the best answer?

    In any case, we are talking about a debris field. It has been my understanding that when the protostar finally fired up, there was a massive solar wind, large volume and somewhat “dirty,” that pushed the small debris away from the young star. This would have prevented the young rocky planets nearby from accumulating any significant additional mass. Thus, as shown by the potential overlap in ages, first came the (original?) Earth, then the Sun. If the Sun had ignited first, there would have been a rather brief period for the Earth to finish its accumulation and be “finished” for dating purposes, thus the Sun coming after the Earth seems most likely.

    Dating of the Earth itself is primarily done from the meteoric dating, near as I can tell. Since this involves dating by examining radioactive decay, I do not see how the theoretical collision forming the current Earth and Moon could have affected it. Two things of the same age collided, that would not have “reset” the radioactive elements. The figure for the age of the Earth, to the precision known, has been established for quite some time. Various works (example given) keep referring back to Dalrymple, with work over a quarter century old and seemingly not seriously challenged.

    Dating of the Sun however has more contention, the age is more uncertain, there is fresh new research being done that modifies and refines the figure. I do not have a problem with the uncertainty, I welcome it, as it is currently enhancing the probability of the more-elegant concept that the Earth predates the Sun.

    Oh, about kadaka (10:17:50):
    16 bit word (as with 8 bits to a byte).
    “A picture is worth a thousand words.”
    “Well, ain’t that a pretty picture!” (sarcastic meaning)
    And the meaning of “heh” is best discerned by repetition. To wit: “Heh. Heh heh. Heh heh heh.”
    ;)

  324. kadaka (15:06:54) :
    From what I can see, the meteoric dating yields remarkably close figures, which can indicate a single original source. Did they somewhere find so much variation in so many that multiple original sources became the best answer?

    The Sun is a second, or fifth, or whatever high number, generation star. It was born with about 1% ‘metals’ [which is everything heavier than He]. And that 1% is debris from ~ a million of supernovae exploding over time, dusting the Galaxy with.

    Since this involves dating by examining radioactive decay, I do not see how the theoretical collision forming the current Earth and Moon could have affected it.
    Because the result is now the mixture of the protoearth and the colliding body, which likely formed at different times and at different places. Perhaps the protoearth first, because it is larger. Another point is that the dating methods assume that the parent and daughter products have been together since the ‘beginning’, but if the material was vaporized or melted and then recrystallized that assumption does not hold.

  325. Michael Ozanne says:

    I have a witty and erudite response to Mr Goddard unfortunately it requires a graph ias a .png for it to properly make sense, and I can’t see a way of including it in the comment. Any advice..?

  326. kadaka says:

    Leif Svalgaard (18:41:00) :

    The Sun is a second, or fifth, or whatever high number, generation star. It was born with about 1% ‘metals’ [which is everything heavier than He]. And that 1% is debris from ~ a million of supernovae exploding over time, dusting the Galaxy with.

    Yup, a Population I star, metal-rich. But first generation in the sense that there was no predecessor star at this location (in terms of relative position). By the predominant theory at the time that I knew, we had a single predecessor star, Population II or perhaps even III, and possibly some additional stuff from the interstellar medium got mixed in during the formation of the current star and planets. Currently the predominant theory is it was all gathered up from the interstellar medium, no single predecessor. I am reading about the finding of short-lived isotopes in old meteorites, which suggested there were nearby supernovae while our system formed. But I have found nothing which says the original molecular cloud could not have primarily come from a single predecessor star. I worry a good hypothesis has now been tossed out basically due to sample contamination.

    Because the result is now the mixture of the protoearth and the colliding body, which likely formed at different times and at different places. Perhaps the protoearth first, because it is larger. Another point is that the dating methods assume that the parent and daughter products have been together since the ‘beginning’, but if the material was vaporized or melted and then recrystallized that assumption does not hold.

    The Giant Impact Hypothesis still has some unresolved issues, currently it is the best fit to the available data. The alternate theories primarily suffer from not being able to readily explain the high angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. After reading up on the nebular hypothesis and figuring in the chaotic nature back then, I’m surprised that apparently no one has ever proposed that a planetary-sized object passed nearby a larger proto-Earth, causing a Moon-sized glob to get pulled off. That would account for the angular momentum and a host of other things. The Sun currently has 99.86% of all the mass in the solar system. We can accept the young Sun having a very strong solar wind when it fired up, ignition and its subsequent effects were somewhat violent. So why couldn’t it have “spit out” some large blobs as well? I presume that would have happened during the rapid expansion of gas near the core after ignition, destabilizing the upper layers. Relatively little mass would be involved. This would also take care of some issues regarding the formation of giant planets.

    Now with the dating, as Wikipedia words it while citing “Dalrymple, G. Brent (1994-02-01). The Age of the Earth. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804723311.”:

    Nevertheless, ancient Archaean lead ores of galena have been used to date the formation of Earth as these represent the earliest formed lead-only minerals on the planet and record the earliest homogeneous lead-lead isotope systems on the planet. These have returned age dates of 4.54 billion years with a precision of as little as 1% margin for error.

    Important note: “In older literature, the Hadean is included as part of the Archean.” So those ores should currently be properly considered Hadean, in the period from Earth’s formation to about 3.8 Gyr ago, not Archean.

    These very old ores are agreeing with the meteoric data, thus it seems they were not affected by the proposed impact and thus are not afflicted with the proposed errors, and are representative of the original material that formed the proto-Earth.

    Of course, we are pretty much in a region where the “accuracy” leaves something to be desired, and arguing between time of formation and time from post-impact seems a bit silly until the dating gets a lot more precise.

  327. kadaka (14:44:37) :
    Yup, a Population I star, metal-rich. But first generation in the sense that there was no predecessor star at this location (in terms of relative position).
    There never was.
    which suggested there were nearby supernovae while our system formed.
    There very likely was a [relatively] nearby supernova. Such explosions often compress the interstellar medium leading to star formation within several tens of light-years.

    The alternate theories primarily suffer from not being able to readily explain the high angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system.
    The best evidence for the collision theory is the identical isotopic composition of Earth and Moon.

    We can accept the young Sun having a very strong solar wind when it fired up, ignition and its subsequent effects were somewhat violent.
    The strong solar wind was a result of strong magnetic fields [resulting from compression of the interstellar field]. No real violence needed. The magnetic field in the solar wind and the Sun were [and are] strongly coupled and acted as a brake on solar rotation [from 1 day to now 25 days period]. If the Sun rotates slower its angular momentum must be transferred to the circum-solar disk causing it to move away from the sun and ending up with 98% of the angular momentum. By moving away, the ‘nebula’ could cool and protoplanets form [hence younger than the Sun].

    These have returned age dates of 4.54 billion years with a precision of as little as 1% margin for error.
    It is important to remember that the ‘age’ is not since the elements were formed [some atoms in your body are more than 10 Gyr old], but since they crystallized out of liquid or gaseous form. So, there is no reason for the meteorites and the Earth to have the same age. If the protoearth was formed from meteorites 5.57 Gyrs old, but was completely vaporized and melted 0.03 Gyr later, we would measure the Earth to have an age of 5.54 Gyr.
    Vaporizing ‘resets’ the age.

    Of course, we are pretty much in a region where the “accuracy” leaves something to be desired, and arguing between time of formation and time from post-impact seems a bit silly until the dating gets a lot more precise.
    Which is why I initially noted that the age difference between the Sun and the Earth was an ‘estimate’. Real-world planetology is messy :-)

  328. kadaka (14:44:37) :
    fired up, ignition and its subsequent effects were somewhat violent
    The solar ‘furnace’ is extremely gentle. It takes a million tons of Sun to produce enough energy to run a hair dryer…

  329. Pamela Gray says:

    I love watching artistic renditions of that theorized collision. Two protoplanets on an eventual orbital collision course. And than WHAM! The combined behemoth mass and gravitational pull wadding up the exploded but orbitally ensnared hot, sticky debris into our moon. Physical science at its best.

  330. michaelozanne says:

    “Steve Goddard (05:57:52) :
    Michael,
    So what you are saying is that snow extent “may” have declined to a decadal record high.
    Make perfect sense in Alice in Wonderland, where up is down and down is up.”

    No not at all I think we are on the same side of this issue if not in exactly the same place. That suggestion along with Mr Tamino’s suggestion that “Absence of Significance is not Significant of Absence” can be properly categorised as Boll.. err Bullsh….err Horse Puc…. err Cra… err not in accordance with the science of statistics as practiced outside the twilight zone. A steaming load of dingoes kidneys, there I knew the correct technical definition would occur to me eventually.

    Now the data assessed on the decadal scale shows no reason to divert from the null hypotheses that snow extent is randomly hovering about a stable mean, although we have identified some concerns with variability (In winter snow only (periods 12,01,02)) The question still remains as to whether there are shorter period trends or particular years that are unusual.

    In the world of washers and widgets we would test that with a mean and variance chart a la the relevant ANSI standard.

    So let’s be boring again :-

    Looking for statistically aberrant behaviour in the northern hemisphere snow extent data

    Introduction
    Standard Industrial statistics method particularly a mean and variability (X-Bar and R) chart will be used to examine the “Process” of winter snow extent in the northern hemisphere.
    Method
    The period 1967 to 1987 will be used as a baseline to generate the capability benchmark for this process, NB this time period is being arbitrarily chosen from its relation to a relatively flat portion of the GISS global temperature anomaly chart rather than by proper shopfloor assessment criteria. The mean for each winter will be calculated as the arithmetic mean of Dec, Jan and Feb in each year. The Grand mean will be calculated from the average of the winter means. The range for each year will be the difference between the maximum and minimum values of the three winter periods. 1981 will be excluded as on inspection it seems to be an aberrant point.
    The Mean Range will be calculated and the standard factors for ANSI control charts used to calculate the Range control limits; and in conjunction with the Grand Mean, the lower and upper Mean control limits.
    The chart will be plotted and examined using standard industrial criteria.
    Results

    Capabilty Calculation:
    Year Winter Mean Winter Range
    1967 46072701 5474596
    1968 44442349.67 2534117
    1969 46297133.67 4397930
    1970 45242413.67 4876778
    1971 46315551 1282701
    1972 46517476.67 4745268
    1973 45632660.67 1790136
    1974 44977140.33 1790246
    1975 42902865.33 5398008
    1976 44193418 3153827
    1977 44957337.67 6676508
    1978 48401983 6343339
    1979 46730553.33 5470955
    1980 43845123.67 10535361
    1981 40818640.67 6196657
    1982 45810383.33 4463569
    1983 45198443.67 3781045
    1984 45089016.33 2101285
    1985 46726720.33 7771010
    1986 46578984 1651032
    1987 44872522 5823326
    Grand Mean 45540238.87 4503051.85
    R(u) 11590855.46
    R(l) 0
    X(u) 50146860.91
    X(l) 40933616.82

    Data to be graphed:
    Year X-Bar Range X-UCL X-LCL R-UCL X-Mean
    1967 46072701 5474596 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1968 44442349.67 2534117 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1969 46297133.67 4397930 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1970 45242413.67 4876778 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1971 46315551 1282701 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1972 46517476.67 4745268 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1973 45632660.67 1790136 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1974 44977140.33 1790246 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1975 42902865.33 5398008 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1976 44193418 3153827 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1977 44957337.67 6676508 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1978 48401983 6343339 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1979 46730553.33 5470955 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1980 43845123.67 10535361 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1981 40818640.67 6196657 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1982 45810383.33 4463569 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1983 45198443.67 3781045 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1984 45089016.33 2101285 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1985 46726720.33 7771010 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1986 46578984 1651032 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1987 44872522 5823326 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1988 44862964 4833078 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1989 43581924.67 4562448 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1990 44471979.67 2141723 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1991 45096895.67 2002991 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1992 44015979.67 3171496 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1993 45701485 1592322 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1994 44816110.67 1889408 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1995 43877959.67 3406431 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1996 45096536.33 2788638 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1997 44499508.67 4759492 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1998 44813952.33 1762057 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    1999 43844289.67 963027 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    2000 44738855 4698555 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    2001 45034486.67 2726359 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    2002 44512401.67 3956045 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    2003 46829439 2628742 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    2004 45134885.33 4402515 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    2005 45559808 3378163 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    2006 45526618.67 3532290 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    2007 43817340 3037615 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    2008 46909030.33 5694332 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    2009 45028342 3694968 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87
    2010 47508592.33 2531736 50146860.91 40933616.82 11590855.46 45540238.87

    The Graph

    Chart Interpretation
    1) 1981 seems to be an aberrant point (mean is below the lower control limit) indicating a particular disturbance to the process for that year.
    2) The process seems to have run at lower than normal mean between 1988 and 2002 (Two period of more than 8 points below the grand mean)

    Conclusion and critique
    This year’s snow extent although above the long term mean and part of a decade mean also above the long term mean should not be considered as exceptional or abnormal
    The period prior to and including 1981 should be examined for meteorological and geophysical events that might produce dramatically lower snow extent
    It is obvious by inspection that 1982 to 2004 would be a better period to establish capability, and indeed in an industrial setting that’s what I’d do. This yields
    Year X-Bar Range X-UCL X-LCL R-UCL X-Mean
    1967 46072701 5474596 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1968 44442349.67 2534117 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1969 46297133.67 4397930 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1970 45242413.67 4876778 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1971 46315551 1282701 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1972 46517476.67 4745268 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1973 45632660.67 1790136 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1974 44977140.33 1790246 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1975 42902865.33 5398008 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1976 44193418 3153827 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1977 44957337.67 6676508 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1978 48401983 6343339 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1979 46730553.33 5470955 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1980 43845123.67 10535361 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1981 40818640.67 6196657 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1982 45810383.33 4463569 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1983 45198443.67 3781045 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1984 45089016.33 2101285 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1985 46726720.33 7771010 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1986 46578984 1651032 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1987 44872522 5823326 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1988 44862964 4833078 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1989 43581924.67 4562448 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1990 44471979.67 2141723 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1991 45096895.67 2002991 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1992 44015979.67 3171496 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1993 45701485 1592322 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1994 44816110.67 1889408 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1995 43877959.67 3406431 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1996 45096536.33 2788638 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1997 44499508.67 4759492 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1998 44813952.33 1762057 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    1999 43844289.67 963027 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    2000 44738855 4698555 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    2001 45034486.67 2726359 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    2002 44512401.67 3956045 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    2003 46829439 2628742 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    2004 45134885.33 4402515 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    2005 45559808 3378163 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    2006 45526618.67 3532290 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    2007 43817340 3037615 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    2008 46909030.33 5694332 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    2009 45028342 3694968 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49
    2010 47508592.33 2531736 48472759.96 41545129.03 8715406.65 45008944.49

    And charts as :

    As, however there is an open question concerning the influence of warming; choosing that period might be contentious in some quarters. Under these circumstances the lower mean period of ’88-02 disappears and we pick up extra aberrant points at 1979(Infringes upper limit on mean) and 1980(Infringes upper limit on range).
    This method operates at higher confidence limits than the previous work I’ve put on this thread (.03% as opposed to 5%)
    The base line is still being selected by eye rather than more rigorously, and it’s still from Hansen which will still be contentious in some quarters. In this case “rigourous” would require selection of a period that is mostly after significant “warming”
    I’ve dropped 1981 from my first capability test run, although the standard industrial practice permits this.

    End of boring bit……

    So again record high winter snow decade that can be ascribed to natural variation. But i’ll 99.7% agree with you that its snowier if:
    1) 2010/11 mean winter snow coverage exceeds 48473000 Km2
    2)Mean winter snow coverage exceeds 45000000 Km2 for the next 5 years
    3)2010/11 mean snow coverage exceeds 45000000 Km2 and the differnce between the lowest and highest winter coverage exceeds 8700000 Km2

    Chances are it will continue to bobble on as normal. The usual 5 Qatloos on the outcome…?

    One for the warmers is the question of why the output seems more regular and less variable after 20 years of AGW than before. I thought we were driving climate out of control…..?….:-)

Comments are closed.