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.
As with most AGW supporters Mr. R. Gates doesn’t appear to look at the situation logically. 2009 had 6 months of El Nino conditions while 2010 is likely to experience no more than 3 months. Anyone who has looked at temperature anomalies should know that El Nino is much stronger than any possible GHG effect. In fact, the recent El Nino was no more proficient at raising temperatures than any other in the 21st century.
I would expect we will continue to bounce over and under the +.2 anomaly value as we’ve done for the last 10 years until some other major event occurs.
@R. Gates
“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 agree, however, neither does the global average temperature for a single year – 2010 or any other.
More to the point, the author’s article was not offered as a rebuttal to the theory of AGW. It was offered as a rebuttal to the arguments made by the WWF on this single snowfall issue.
R. Gates (11:28:30) :
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).
Pointing to activist nonsense will not convince the scientists on this site of anything. We already know that the models that project this kind of nonsense are worthless. We also know that nothing proves a hypothesis. Maybe you should try and “really understand the science”. It appears to me you have just blindly accepted all pro-AGW articles as fact. Did you read the article referenced above?
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
I doubt it very much.
Slightly OT, and I am sure the guys are aware of this paper. I just find it amusing that the “scientists” are very quickly “discovering” that their models did not anticipate/include these “surprising” findings From http://www.sciencemag.org/
Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming: Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3
“Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.”
I’d like to see the correlation of snowfall to the PDO, but it would probably be more meaningful to simply correlate to total precipitation.
Also, snowfall in areas where temperatures stay sufficiently cold would seem to correlate principally to a combination of air moisture content and cloud/ice crystal condensation nuclei concentration….and local electrical characteristics (said with idea in my head of what that is)
I am most intrigued about possible variations in quantity and types of condensation nuclei and if there is difference (for snow precipitation ) between the types. Is a speck of airborne bacteria, different from a sand speck, different from a cosmic ray ionization induced speck, different form a carbon soot speck, different from a spore speck, etc. in its snow making potential? if so, the drivers of specific speck type concentration variations might be an interesting course of study.
It also might turn out that this study was already done, and documented in that peer reviewed song about the the rain in spain, the plains and the drains? Maine might have been involved also.
…(said with NO idea in my head of what that is)
Further slight narrowing of the LWIR iris (bracketed either side by WATER VAPOR absorption anyway) does what now?
Ever heard of the atmospheric window at/near 10 um?
.
.
Here is another measurement for you, from the Sierra Nevada mountains at Mammoth Mountain.
It only goes back to 1968.
http://www.mammothmountain.com/MyMammoth/
There is a stream gauge at Yosemite that should give some good numbers on the western slopes of the Sierra.
KPO – {{Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change}}
So if this is added to the results of the paper about 1C outgassing 7.7ppm of CO2, which which I believe some smart person showed equaled about 1C less positive forcing, then combine with above quote of 30%, again about 1C, does this not bring total CO2 positive forcing to about 1C per doubling?
Pamela Gray:
Really? Is that what you think I should do and study? Well thank you, but that sounds like what the local weatherman or woman might be interested in…maybe…if they’er not too busy messing with their hair or makeup…
Far more important to climate change, and the central issue as to whether or not human activities are forcing global warming would be:
Solar-terrestial connections
Paleo Climate
Greenhouse gas chemistry
Cosmic ray variations and climate
Atmospheric heat transport
El Nino/La Nina cycles
Strataspheric coolilng (very important)
I’ll study these things, but Pamela Gray…thanks for your suggestions!
I should point out that Colorado started getting snow very early this year, though it has not been as substantial as the past few years (other than the southern mountains). In fact, Colorado Springs got its first snow on the last day of summer (was not the record, however), and we probably have had between 20 and 30 days of snow this year already (just not much each snow).
That Wolf Creek has a 114 inch base really doesn’t mean much since that’s packed down from the whole year and they make snow there now, too. That they got seven feet of snow just last week, however, and have already gotten 273″ this year is significant.
Mark
Steve Goddard (09:58:24) :
Spring snowpack is still important because much of the losses during winter are not due to melting but due to sublimation.
Water management in the West is very complex. The word “normal” is not really appropriate when describing weather here. I have lived most of my life in the Salt Lake City area and I can’t remember any year being much like another.
All N Hemispherical weather right now, at any altitude, appears to be most strongly influenced by the interaction of the PDO and NAO.
Everything is consistent with that, but why didn’t the NOAA advertise this so people could prepare more effectively for the winter?
D’Aleo (and me) are hugely “disappointed” (read: “angry”) about the US agencies that have become political machines.
This is just what happened with Stalin’s “Farm Bureau” etc – the incapability of being objective just demolished the whole regime
I like words. Words are important and – when you are fighting for the hearts, minds, and energy cost dollars of people who listen to and make decisions based upon “quickie slogans” – words are *really* important, then.
Your post begins:
“Both WUWT and Climate Audit had posts regarding the ridiculous WaPo story about snowfall being a result of climate change.”
And the WaPo article itself is headlined:
“Harsh winter a sign of climate change!”
Well, duh?
Climate change is what climate does. Don’t let the AGW folk co-opt the words “climate change” as secret code meaning “man-made global warming.”
Just as they deny responsibility for the Time and Newsweek cover stories in the 1970’s predicting a coming ice age – It was all media hysteria; “real” scientists were publishing peer-reviewed papers predicting global warming instead…. – by allowing these weasel words to slip by unchallenged, we are allowing William Connelly to write a decade from now: “Well, no one was seriously thinking about global warming in 2010. See, it was all about climate *change*. And, yep, the climate’s still changing!”
..Lady in Red
PS: Has anyone seen, written about, Annie Leonard’s piece on Cap and Trade? I like her “The Story of Stuff,” but, as a greenie who has swallowed the AGW hook bigtime, this is very interesting — and right on! AGW isn’t about saving the planet: it’s about Goldman Sachs making more money trading a Brand New Commodity!
It’s here:
http://www.storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/
Dubious statistical climate assertions aside, there is glaring inaccuracy in the NWF article. A caption in the graphic shows that the start location for the 2002 Iditarod Sled Dog Race was moved 200 miles north due to “lack of snow and encroaching development” and that the change “was made permanent in 2008.”
The race’s ceremonial start is held in downtown Anchorage. The official restart (when the timed competition really begins) is held nearer the trailhead of the 1000+ mile course. The restart location has varied since the race’s origin in the early 1970’s but in general has been in or around Wasilla, Alaska, a community about 40 miles north of Anchorage recently made famous for political, not dog, races.
In 2003 (not 2002), the race restart was relocated from the Wasilla area to Fairbanks (a distance of about 300 miles north, not 200) due to lack of snow. The race restart has returned to the Wasilla area every year since (and, it goes without saying, every year before). There is as much likelihood that the Anchorage based event would be interested in permanently relocating the race start to its rival city Fairbanks as the Tour de France would be in relocating its finish to Berlin.
In 2008, the Iditarod officially moved the restart from Wasilla to Willow, Alaska, about 25 to 30 miles up the highway. As Willow is farther up the Susitna River Valley, farther from the variable coastal weather that buffets Cook Inlet, it consequently has a more reliable snow pack in March.
The NWF has conveniently conflated the two issues to manufacture yet another dubious impact of unprecedented global warming. Imagine that!
Ah, nice topic!
I just returned from the slopes (Eldora), where it was a pretty nice day and the snow is excellent. Eldora does a great job in its snowmaking. Even though the natural snowfall has not been much of late in this part of Colorado, the Eldora staff adapts to nature’s variability. I’m looking forward to late Feb/March when we tend to receive our biggest snowfalls.
I agree with R. Gates on one point. Localized weather and events mean almost nothing in the long run. Of course it is the AGW proponents that will jump on any event out of the ordinary as proof of “climate change.” The problem is that weather is not climate change, but neither is variability. Even if 2010 is the warmest on record (which I doubt), this would not be proof of anything either. Climate is just as variable as weather. Nothing has happened to the climate in the last hundred years that hasn’t happend in the last two hundred.
And I agree with Henry Chance, that the use of the term carbon by AGW proponents is ignorant. CO2 is the correct term.
I guess excess snow is anomalous weather if you compare it with the predictions of global warming – in other words, if the weather doesn’t follow the predictions of AGW, it is anomalous, and therefore does follow a prediction of AGW!
There must be a logical flaw there somewhere 🙂
KPO (11:58:34) :
Leo G (12:11:21) :
I am no atmospheric scientist, but does this not raise the question of what causes water vapor levels to fluctuate and therefore influence temps? It also points to what everybody here has been saying all along – that atmospheric water vapor is a far more driving influence in temp changes than CO2. The paper is being discussed over at RC – it is interesting to see how they now appear to be a lot more subdued (so the science is not so settled)
Andrew Parker (12:20:11): The word “normal” is not really appropriate when describing weather…
Oh Andrew, you have pushed my pet peeve button. You are 110% correct. The word “normal” should never be used, and yet it is used constantly. What is meant is the word “average” or “mean”, and those are weak, too. The “average” daily temperature, precip, etc. does not exist in reality, anymore than a baseball player whose batting average is .333 can possibly get a third of a hit.
But NEVER normal!!!!! Guass spins in his grave like a top.
Every weather report should include the average and the range, and call them that, and present the previous measurements graphically, and say so, and not be coy about it.
As it stands, though, every day the weatherbabe tells me that today deviates from normal, ie. is abnormally deviant, like that weirdo in a trenchcoat near the playground. They do it for effect, because evidently Joe Shlub is so narcoticated that he needs electrodes hooked to his brain to jolt him awake.
Yes, today DEVIAAAATES FROMMM NORRRRMALLLL!!!!!!!! with echo and reverb, like Boris Karloff in a cave.
But there is no hope that weather reporting will ever adopt proper, scientific, statistical terminology. What would be the shock value in that? And shock sells. Excuse me while I weep over the dearth of rationality and go back to bed.
What virtually everyone seems to miss in this “weather is not climate” kerfuffle is that no one ever gets to experience “climate”. No matter where you choose to call home, all you’ll ever get to see is “weather”. Over any given year the temperature on the planet ranges -90 to-100 in the Antarctic to 120-130 or more in various desert climes. If the mean of that more than 200 degree range shifts a degree or two the weather in any particular place will most likely still spend most of its time well within the range that it always has. Indeed, recent trends seem to indicate that weather extremes are actually declining. There was a post on this here a while back, but I don’t have time to look it up. The last year is an almost perfect example of my point. The AMSU sat temps have been relentlessly at or above the 20 year avg. line since early last July, meanwhile most of the NH has been experiencing weather at the bottom of its normal range. Mr. Gates may indeed prove correct about this being a warm year, but so what? By all the metrics catastrophic weather is either flat or declining. Sea levels aren’t doing much of anything. If precipitation is increasing that would seem to be a good thing. Arctic sea ice may be declining, but I’ve yet to see a really cogent argument why we should be overly alarmed about that.
What history is very clear about is, that when it comes to dealing with the hazards that weather presents,the best predictor of how well a human society will cope when faced with inevitable catastrophe is that society’s relative wealth. Given that, even if we were to stipulate to the worst case alarmist scenarios, diverting vast sums of the world’s finite financial resources to a mostly futile effort to avoid it would still guarantee much more misery and death than doing absolutely nothing.
“The plural of anecdote is not data.”
I hope this sentiment will be echoed here when the “weather is not climate” department makes its inevitable return, and folks begin piling on about how cool it has been in their area.
D. King (09:19:17) :
From the NWF website
“Oddball winter weather is yet another sign of how uncontrolled carbon pollution amounts to an unchecked experiment on people and nature,” said Dr. Amanda Staudt, climate scientist, National Wildlife Federation. …”
—
But wait…there’s more!
MORE EXTREME WAVES: GLOBAL WARMING’S WAKE UP CALL
By National Wildlife Federation, August 2009, 16 pages.
http://www.nwf.org/nwfwebadmin/binaryVault/8-25-09_NWF_PSR_Heatwaves.pdf
“More extremely hot summer days are projected for every part of the country, details the report. ―Global warming is bringing more frequent and severe heat waves and the result will be serious for vulnerable populations said Dr. Amanda Staudt , climate scientist,
National Wildlife Federation. ―That means air pollution in urban areas could get worse, bringing increased risk of heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks. Children, the elderly, poor, and people of color are especially vulnerable to these effects.”
—
So, you see, Dr. Staudt and the NWF have both bases covered. More cold = GLOBAL WARMING! More heat = GLOBAL WARMING!
It is interesting to contemplate, that if a lot of people didn’t have sympathy for Al Gore losing the presidential election, then anyone making the statement “there is no observable evidence of a connection between CO2 in the air and the climate anywhere on Earth …”
would be considered a “crank” for saying obvious and meaningless things
Gauss. As in the gaussian distribution, a parametic function of mathematics, a way to play with numbers, and not a map of reality. Nothing in nature is normal.
For what it’s worth, I was also quite amused by this NWF assertion. I would remind readers that the NWF is an advocacy group, not a true scientific body, but in either case is entitled to their opinion, just like Anthony and everyone else here who is neither a climate scientist, or scientist of any kind for that matter.
“I chose the Crested Butte, Colorado station because it is centrally located in the mountains (so is representative of a wide region)…”
That unsubstantiated claim almost made my head explode (figuratively speaking). Furthermore, this entire “analysis” completely ignores changes and improvements to data collection methods in the field of snow monitoring/measurment, which have been substantial over the last 100 years. Lastly, without a verification of the data collection location and possible biases, how can one be certain these are “good” data?
I only point this out because elsewhere on this website, Anthony and others have gone to some pains pointing out the importance of such things.