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.
What is ridiculous is not the suggestion that heavy snows and cold winters are due to “climate change,” but that they are due to global warming.
Please don’t be suckered into letting frustrated warming alarmists change the agenda.
Re
R. Gates (09:48:41) :
Silly Troll saying that kind of thing on this site with all the contadictory evidence that is already on here.
How sad.
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
Very interesting. He’s right, I don’t think the magnitude
of this collapse has registered yet. They may be trying
to ease out of the false markets they’ve created.
I think that WUWT will go down in history as the warning
beacon, where people came together out of a sense that
something was wrong, and wanting to help in any way they
could. Thank you for this forum Anthony.
I don’t think that NWF is actually saying anything which is undocumented – rather they are severely cherry-picking and providing only a small window of visibility into the big picture.
Colorado is definitely not suffering from heat, drought or lack of snow the last few years – quite the opposite – particularly compared to 70-100 years ago.
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.
Obama has declared the government will be run by 28% green power by 2020. If the Republicans would one up him and go for 100% by 2020. I think we could get frequent government shut downs.
No government when the weather is too hot or too cold.
Well it would be a start.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-01-29-whgreen_N.htm
Professor Phillip Stott:
Global Warming: the Collapse of a Grand Narrative
Saturday, 30 January 2010
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/1/30_Global_Warming%3A_the_Collapse_of_a_Grand_Narrative.html
What Will It Mean?
I have long predicted, and in public too, that the Copenhagen Conference could prove to be the beginning of the end for the Global Warming Grand Narrative. It appears that I may well have been right, and, indeed, I may have considerably underestimated the speed, and the dramatic nature, of the demise.
Where this all leaves our politicians and political parties in the UK; where it leaves climate science, scientists more generally, and the Royal Society; where it leaves energy policy; where it leaves the ‘Green’ movement; and, where it leaves our media will have to be topics for many later comments and analyses.
For the moment, we must not underestimate the magnitude of the collapse. Academically, it is jaw-dropping to observe.
And, the political, economic, and scientific consequences will be profound.
R. Gates,
El Nino is already fading. Hansen and The Met office made the same “warmest year ever” predictions during the 2007 El Nino, and were wrong for the same reasons as they will be in 2010.
Remember that January, 2007 was also measured very warm by UAH. A large body of very warm water in the Pacific drives the “average” temperature” up. That tells you nothing about land temperatures though.
OT, but has anyone read Rex Murphys column at the national post today?
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/30/rex-murphy-so-whatever-happened-to-copenhagen.aspx
tour de force as usual
I’m a snowspotter (spotter id J-52 if you look at data link below) for the NWS here in Colorado, SW of Denver.
FWIW, although January has been very dry, up to the end of December, it was the snowiest start to the snow season in 13 years at my location. I have recorded 80.9″ so far this season at my station.
Talking about variability, at my station, I have seen season totals as low as 64″ and high as 160″, with an average of 108″.
Data link for northern Colorado spotter data:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/bou/?n=snowpage
“R. Gates (09:48:41) :
[…]
And by the way, Increased snowfall is one of the initial effects of Global Warming (i.e. more heat = more evaporation), before the temperatures go up so much as to turn that snow to rain…”
I could argue that here in Germany, we have a lot of snow right now, and a winter similar to 1981, but nowhere near the snow masses in 1978/1979. I would deduce that globalwarming is on the upswing (more snow than in say 1998) but it was surely worse in 78/79. Search for “Schneekatastrophe 78 79” – global warming must have been terrible in Germany back then.
Please give up this twisted way of maintaining your cognitive dissonance. It makes really no sense at all.
A.C. Osborn:
Your comment about me seems hollow. My point being: The historic snowpack at Crested Butte Colorado (a state where I happen to live and have done so for 50 years) tells us nothing important either for or against the notion that human produced greenhouse gases are forcing global warming.
I placed my claim and stand firmly by it that unless there is a Mt. Pinatubo 1991 type eruption, it is likely that 2010 will be the warmest year globally on record, I’ve studied this for over 25 years and don’t speak from any political position (unlike others on both sides). I look only at the pure science and statistics of this issue.
Why don’t we just get down to brass tacks with this.
AGW is unfalsifiable pseudoscience.
“The plural of anecdote is not data.”
My new facebook status. Thanks.
Cold keeps Minn. wind turbines from spinning
Wind turbines placed in cities across Minnesota to generate power aren’t working because of the cold temperatures.
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S1390565.shtml
I would like to send a message to Obama. You have kept quite a few promises which is just fine. Re: anymore promises, that’s okay, I’m good. k?
Two things.
1. I thumbed through the most recent issue of the local WWF Panda magazine. The word ‘climate’ appeared 45 times on 24 pages (including cover and advertisements) in a scaremongering context. These people are plainly indoctrinating a gullible audience. The NWF is probably no different.
2. Yeah, yeah, WINC, but we received a fresh 3″ layer of global warming yesterday night, with more expected tonight. This winter is proving to one of the longest and whitest I have ever encountered. One and a half month ago, the weatherman from the national TV warned of less snow cover due to climate change. How wrong he was.
I started skiing in the Sierra in 1955. Snow conditions have varied over the ensuing 55 years. Some years have produced significant snow depths others have not but the skiing remained year after year. El Nino events have occasionally brought in prodigious dumpings of snow. It is easy to predict there will be many more years of excellent skiing ahead especially for my grand children for that I am thankful.
“R. Gates (09:48:41) :
[…]
And by the way, Increased snowfall is one of the initial effects of Global Warming (i.e. more heat = more evaporation), before the temperatures go up so much as to turn that snow to rain…”
“DirkH (11:11:51) :
[…]
Please give up this twisted way of maintaining your cognitive dissonance. It makes really no sense at all.”
“R. Gates (11:13:01) :
Your comment about me seems hollow. My point being: The historic snowpack at Crested Butte Colorado (a state where I happen to live and have done so for 50 years) tells us nothing important either for or against the notion that human produced greenhouse gases are forcing global warming. ”
I see you took my point and changed your position already. And it only took you 2 minutes. Now that’s what i call quick.
Hey, this site is supposed to be at least a little bit meteorological, so let’s go back to Snow 101.
“Inches of snow” means nothing. Some snow is fluffy, some dense. For the last 100 years the measurement of choice is snow-water-equivalent (SWE). Take a known volume of snow, weigh it to find the H2O content, and convert that to “inches of water”. That is how “snowpack” is measured, anyway. With aluminum tubes and hanging scales. Like ice cores. Capice?
The US Army Corps of Engineers measures SWE at “snotel” stations up in the mountains to determine how much snow is up there, so they know what to expect in terms of runoff when it melts. The USACE manages dams and reservoirs, so that info is critical.
Since 1918 snowpack has been measured at “snotel” locations in the Snake River watershed, which includes most of Idaho and portions of Oregon and Nevada. The snowpack has been measured in snow water equivalents (SWE) at over 700 snotel locations at monthly intervals during winter.
Not all locations have been measured for 90 years; some have been measured for fewer years than that, and some have small to large gaps in the record. Measurements at any particular station have not always been taken in every winter month, although remarkable efforts have been made to measure maximum annual snowpack at most stations.
I selected the 20 longest, continuously measured snotel records from 3 US Army Corps of Engineers databases containing 745 snotel records from the Snake River watershed. Of those selected, the shortest record was 75 years long. I extracted the maximum (recorded) annual snowpack (MASWE) for each selected snotel station. I graphed those MASWE’s together with the 20 station average and a linear trend (regression) line.
There has been, however, absolutely no trend in the average MASWE for these stations from 1933 to 2007. The linear regression line through the annual averages has a slope of zero.
Maximum snowpack in the Snake River watershed has neither increased nor decreased over the last 75 years. Although there has been annual variation, there has been no trend toward more or less snow. The trend line is flat, meaning there has been no trend. The Snake River watershed is not getting more snowier or less snowier.
In terms of maximum annual snowpack, there has been no detectable, much less statistically significant, “climate change” in the Snake River watershed over the last 75 years!!!!
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2008/11/21/no-trend-in-idaho-snowpack-over-the-last-75-years/
Snowfalls, Floods, Downpours & Global Warming:
For a very basic primer on why global warming can INCREASE snowfall, see these articles:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-3.html
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=79547
Some of you should put your political blinders aside, and really understand the science behind this. Greater snowfall at Crested Butte could actually PROVE global warming (though I don’t think it’s actually relevant at all).
R. Gates, I recommend that you also study weather pattern variation. Gather a clear understanding of the hydrological water cycle and its impact on topography (IE GPS address). Follow pressure gradients, jet stream, oceanic and atmospheric oscillations and conditions, and other sources of both short and long term weather pattern variation. Do this every day. Predict what you think will be the highs and lows, precip, etc for a number of locations, one in each climate zone is best, and you will add greatly to your knowledge fund.
Downstream of the Rocky mtns., there is Lake Powell.I have an aquaintance
who is drooling at the possiblity of the American South West becoming a desert
due to AGW.He’s always cying about the lack of snow in the Rockies.Hence,
no lake powell no power,or recreation.No Vegas,no LA, everyone goes back north and-east.I will show him this article….
JLawson (09:12:17) :
(Looks at funding appeal from NWF that came in the mail. Shoves into recycling bin.)
Wait, hold on!
Did that come with a Business Reply Mail (BRM) envelope or card? Organizations MUST pay for and accept them, if they try to refuse then the mailman tries the next day but will now charge twice (two attempts), and will repeat until accepted.
Thus comes the proper procedure for expressing extreme displeasure that is quickly noticed by the offending organization. You send BRM back. No money of course, no information, just drop the empty envelope or blank postcard in the mailbox. It is effective, as it costs them money, and it is done very anonymously. Annoyingly anonymously.
Now merely sending back said blank card or empty envelope may be sufficient for mildly irritating organizations, as far as the irritated person is concerned. But more effective for demonstrating outrage, you stick it to a brick first. That’s right, glue or tape it to a spare old brick and send it out. The assembled package will have all the BRM info on it, and the organization will have to accept and pay for it. Check with your local post office if they want the brick wrapped. Writing a message on the brick, painting it gold, etc, is something you may decide to do but of course is not necessary.
This can also be done, far as I know, to a box instead. You could, for example, send them a box of sand. Don’t forget to include the required note, “Pound This!” However, I would advise against sending them a box of “processed organic matter” in return for the symbolic load of it they sent you, as the post office may frown on the unidentified shipping of “bio-hazardous waste,” at least the real kind.
Mike D.,I followed your link over, good work. I found it amusing that in your comments section someone kind of accused you of cherry picking stations but totally ignored that the whole thing was about snowpack (climatron)… that is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy about AGW folks. Ignore and redirect. I appreciate you had the patience to not just say… “Hello… SNOWPACK.”
Steve Goddard, what about sending this piece to WAPO as a rebuttal piece?