Both WUWT and Climate Audit had posts regarding the ridiculous WaPo story about snowfall being a result of climate change.
This is a follow up to those posts done by guest contributor Steven Goddard.
One of the NWF claims about global warming is that snow in the Colorado mountains is diminishing and has become very erratic, as seen in the NWF graphic at left.
In this article I will show that the claim is incorrect – Colorado snowfall has been generally increasing for the last hundred years and that year over year variability has always been extremely high.
Fortunately, there are excellent long term records of snowfall available from NOAA’s Western Regional Climate Center. I chose the Crested Butte, Colorado station because it is centrally located in the mountains (so is representative of a wide region) and has the most complete and continuous snow record of every month for the past 100 years. I have randomly sampled quite a few other stations in Colorado. None seem to have as a complete a record as Crested Butte, and the pattern described for Crested Butte seems to be fairly consistent in the mountainous regions of the state.
Below are graphs showing annual and monthly snowfall totals (in inches) for Crested Butte since 1909. The trend lines were generated using Google Spreadsheet’s linest() function. Note that every month is trending upwards in snowfall and the standard deviation is very high. Also note that there were several very dry years early in the 20th century with very little snow – and the last few decades have seen more consistent snowfall. Since 1981, every year has received more than 100 inches of snow. Prior to 1930, it was not uncommon to have snow years with less than 100 inches of snow. Prior to 1930, the average annual snowfall was 177 inches. Since 1930, the average annual snowfall has been 200 inches – a 10% increase.
Note – the raw data is incorrect for 1910, 1919, and 1924 due to a significant number of missing measurements, so I substituted a calculated annual value based on the trend line. This probably overestimates the snowfall for 1919 and 1924, and is thus conservative.
Click images below for full-sized ones.
Standard deviation = 67 Mean = 195 Trend = +7.7 inches per decade
Mean = 23.4 Standard Deviation = 15.1
Standard deviation = 25.9 Mean = 33.5
Standard deviation = 27.9 Mean = 38.4
Standard deviation = 19.3 Mean = 33.5
Standard deviation = 18.2 Mean = 31.0
Standard deviation = 13.1 Mean = 16.9
In summary, snowfall is increasing annually and we see upward trends in the months of “snowfall season” in Colorado. Year over year variability has always been very high and may actually be lower in recent years. And, the Colorado mountains no longer have extremely low snow years like they did 80 years ago. By the data, it seems the NWF claims are unfounded.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here in Oregon and Washington every conceivable weather event gets spun into evidence of global along with many completely fabricated events, fabricated conditions and concocted links.
Officials at every level, at every institution participate.
The collective mass of misinformation and advocacy is an astounding demonstrate of wholesale deceit.
We have supportive groups like the The Oregon Environmental Council piling on with even worse claims.
http://www.oeconline.org/our-work/climate
“land on the central and northern Oregon coast is being submerged by rising sea level”
Of course there is simply no part of the Oregon coast which has been or is being lost to AGW rising sea levels.
http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/131044
My baloney detector is when they write of “carbon emissions” If they don’t know enoug to wroite “carbon dioxide emissions” they prove they don’t have an honest clue.
Carbon emissions are black for the most part and carbon dioxide emissions are invisible.
Even the mis informed chairman Immelt from GE calls it carbon and not carbon dioxide. We can often go to a different resort in Colorado if one has some new powder over night and another doesn’t.
Indirectly I am referring to the mountains and their incredible disruption of wind patterns. CO2 emissions do not disrupt wind patterns. Wind has incredible impact on over night differences in snowfall in Colorado
Ben D (09:42:17) :
Let that be a kick in their “crested Butte
Boot in the Butte.
Mar 29, 2008 – 06:00 AM
Mt. Hood Meadows Sets Ski Resort Season Snowfall Record
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/News/2008/3/29/Mt.-Hood-Meadows-Sets-Ski-Resort-Season-Snowfall-Record/
Mt. Hood, OR – With a 17-inch 24-hour snowfall total Friday night, Oregon’s Mt. Hood Meadows broke its own season snowfall record of 623 inches.
That season Mt Hood’s Timbeline Lodge had even more over the season with a 246 inch base at it’s peak in early spring.
“Spring snowpack” is a favorite worry of AGW types, but is not a particularly important concept any more – because of large reservoirs on the Colorado River which don’t care if the snow melted in May or June.
I lived in the Birkshires in western Massachusetts 1975 -1977 and remember well the 76-677 down spike. New England was swamped with cowboy hats at the ski slopes. News resport suspected some nefarious climate shift that would destroy Colorado’s ski industry. as you can see, they recovered the next season.
Ric Werme (09:22:13) :
Snow depth water content cannot serve as a one size fits all metric due to significant regional variations. In the Pacific NW rain-on-snow events that result in a high water content are common events. I suspect the same is true for the New England states. Conversely, in the Rockies the snow has a relatively low water content since rain in the snow zone is rare. The result is that snow quantification comparisons are difficult.
R. Gates,
Your claim that “2010 will most likely be the warmest year on record.” has been duly noted. I will remind you of that later in the year, maybe even honor you with an article!
There is an insightful article on the BBC website today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
Why do people often vote against their own interests?
“For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win”
WWF generates stories not facts and you can’t argue with stories. Urban legends persist, superstitions persist, myths persist (and some of those even become religions). This is why we need science. Too bad the science in this field has been infiltrated by story tellers.
Sorry for the mis-keyed entry. To continue, this is worse than mere cherry-picking data. The alarmists are good at ‘disinforming the public by proposing that anything off ‘average’ is a trend. The true ‘odd-ball event’ would be average weather, every day, every year. No doubt the NWF thought Anthony cherry-picked the November and December 2009 temperature record setting low lows and low highs (literally thousands). Since both cold and warm, drought and flood foreshadow climate “Change,” they will never run out of material until the real “Odd Ball Event”, “Stagnant Average” occurs. Meanwhile, experts agree that temperatures will soar above 100F in many US locations by the end of June. Unless we act NOW, at that rate, rivers will be boiling this time next year.
OT, but please everybody go and read Prof Philip Stott at:
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/1/30_Global_Warming%3A_the_Collapse_of_a_Grand_Narrative.html
Alexander,
The interesting thing for me in this exercise was to see that the late 1990s drought still saw lots more snow than many years the early part of the 20th century.
Two researchers at Oregon State University in 2006 published a study predicting much less snowfall in the Oregon Cascades in the future due to global warming, but since then the opposite has happened. Commenters above have noted recent record snowfalls.
Whistler, site of some of next month’s Olympics, has already had nearly 400″ of snowfall for the season, close to its seasonal average.
http://www.whistlerblackcomb.com/index.htm#
Kinda reminds me of Garrison Keillor’s, “Lake Woebegon, where all of the children are above average.” I think some of these folks took that seriously.
I hope all of you realize your comments identify you as “enemies of the state”. If you lived in Venezuela, Hugo would already be knocking on your doors. The EPA has officially declared the government’s position on this general matter and whether we have more snow or less snow makes no difference to that political reality.
We can drag our collective feet until they smoke, this wagon is headed resolutely toward ruinous CO2 regulation and forced “green power” regardless of the economic consequences. Not to be left behind in the rush, a California State Representative just introduced legislation in Sacramento to ban free parking everywhere! He denied the proposal constituted a tax and insisted it would encourage “better behavior” by encouraging (forcing) folks to walk, ride bicycles and use public transportation.
Big Brother is watching YOU! (In order to see that you to behave.)
I find it strange that a statutory body is allowed donate taxpayers funds to a Non Government Organization for no apparent service.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
$25,000-$49,999
2008 Annual Report
http://www.nwf.org/About/Annual-Report.aspx
I agree. A scatter plot is a better method of showing an incomplete data series, when missing data is not a key ingredient to trends, which in the case of highly variable data, is true.
Steve, I’m curious to know if you’ve tried contacting the NWF to confront them with this analysis. Doubtful you will get a response, or a best a defensive display of chaff, but they really ought to be held accountable for misinformation.
R. Gates,
We desperately need some warming — so, if there is some (unlikely, so far it existed only on paper in the corrupt and self-serving governmental institutions), please don’t try to stop it!
We have the likelyhood of a La Nina for the summer, allowing cold air to be driven over the states via a ride on the Jet stream, so I don’t see 2010 having “hottest year on record” potential. In addition, that pesky AO continues to bounce down into negative measurements, allowing cold air in from the North. My forecast is that 2010 will be average to cool due to summer weather. Great year for peas and other cool weather crops.
Gary,
I’d love to confront NWF, but have had too much snow and ice in the driveway to get out of the house. (Just kidding.) Sounds like a good idea.
Toto,
“For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win”
While that point may be true, that site is a terrible example to prove it. Mr. Frank is the consumate story teller, convinced that voters are too stupid to vote in their best interest. Rather, they are being reminded of the follies of history and standing up to say “not only No, Heck NO! They feel the same about Climate change as they do public mandated health care. They see Liberties being trashed by power hungry Zelots, both in Congress, the Whitehouse, and the UN.
Steve Goddard:
I welcome it. We can all track the progress of how warm 2010 is here:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
January has been remarkably warmer and with the La Nina of earlier in year of 2009 and the solar minimum now behind us, and CO2 and methane now at record levels, there is nothing preventing 2010 from really cooking (short of, as I said previously, a major volcanic erpution of the level of Pinatubo in 1991.)
Let’s put it this way, if I were a betting person, I would bet there is far better than even odds chance that 2010 will be the warmest year globally on record. (as measured at sea level up to about 46.000 ft.)
Re
Phillip Bratby (10:18:47) :
OT, but please everybody go and read Prof Philip Stott at:
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/1/30_Global_Warming%3A_the_Collapse_of_a_Grand_Narrative.html
It is a lovely summation of the current state of play, so is the link to the Timesonline piece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article7008635.ece
I wonder how many of the Timesonline pieces actually get in to print?
Has the ‘mole man’ checked in yet and refuted with fact, with analysis the substance and the detail in this post?
I thought not …
Probably yucking it up with his chums over at (David) “Fenton media” – Environmental Media Services (EMS) affiliated RC (realclimate.org) for the ‘damage’ he thinks he ‘inflicted’ here yesterday.
Truth about RealClimate.org
The now defunct Environmental Media Services history now known as the Science Communication Network (SCN)
.
.