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.
There is a good article by Thomas Fuller on this story here:
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m1d30-Global-warming-Fighting-on-too-many-fronts
Anthony, you the man!
Mike Ramsey
By the way, anecdotal events of cold/hot weather is what determines plant variety zonal designations. Plants grown for a certain climate zone have to withstand the very anecdotes mentioned here. So I disagree. A series of extreme anecdotal weather events, whether spread apart of sequential, can indeed be data used in climate-related plant development.
I think the plural of anecdote is probably consensus.
“Varco (15:02:32) :
Off topic, but apparently the Stern report was ‘changed’ after pubishing because of dodgy data dources….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111618/Stern-report-was-changed-after-being-published.html
”
So the telegraph needs only one week to read WUWT and put up it’s own take of events.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-purge-continues/
At least they did notice it.
Phil M (15:04:33) :
“…other GHG contain carbon, e.g. methane. So one could correctly refer to those gases as ‘carbon’ for brevity’s sake.”
Really? Polliwogs and soot and people contain carbon too, but we don’t refer to them as ‘carbon’ for brevity’s sake.
Face it, it’s a scientifically illiterate term for carbon dioxide, which naturally appeals to people like Al Gore and other demonizers of that harmless and beneficial trace gas.
And I don’t care what Wikipedia says about it.
Mike D. (13:19:02) :
> 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.
Well, except that “normal” has multiple definitions. One is for the “normal force” – the component, perpendicular to the surface of contact, of the contact force exerted by, for example, the surface of a floor or wall, on an object, preventing the object from entering the floor or wall. (I wouldn’t have written it that way but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_force did.)
The weight of a duck sitting on a frozen pond equals the normal force between duck and ice. Not only is it normal, it’s perfectly natural! Except today, the air temperature was about 10F (about -10C) (Okay, nitpickers, it was between 10F and and -10C!) and the ducks were in the water because it was warmer there. That’s not normal, and since people feed the ducks on the river bank, not very natural either.
——–
Gail Combs (13:42:49) :
If January is so warm how come I am looking at four inches of snow, for the second time this winter, here in central North Carolina? It is so blasted cold I am wearing a down parka!
At least Joe D’Aleo warned this would happen, though I didn’t expect the storm track to work its way so far south. It was a gorgeous day up here in New Hampshire, bright sun, not as windy as yesterday. I only have 3″ of snow on the ground, which is a bit disappointing, but I’m glad to share, especially in this Winter of the Warmists’ Discontent.
*BREAKING NEWS*: National Wildlife Federation found to be as reliable as WWF
I’m shocked
Michael Larkin (14:17:54)
…But he goes on to claim that the Commission is powerless to bring charges, thanks to a loophole in the law – “because the legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place”.
Careful examination of the Act, however, shows that it says nothing whatever about a time limit. The Commission appears to be trying to confuse this with a provision of the Magistrates Act, that charges for an offence cannot be brought more than six months after it has been drawn to the authorities’ attention – not after it was committed…
If the people who prosecute offences, choose not to, the case goes away.
Maybe there was a little pressure not to prosecute by someone influential.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/prince
wayne
I see the Silverlite image includes the ice around the North Chinese ports as mentioned in an earlier post. That might explain the difference, as IARC-JAXA covers Arctic Ocean only.
Veronica (England) (15:53:48) :
“I think the plural of anecdote is probably consensus.”
Wouldn’t it be more like a synonym?
UK time 23:30. Entertainment channel BBC24. Location, central Scotland.
Tomorrows headline in the Graundian will be that the UK climate change minister is declaring war on climate sceptics.
This is a very important man. He has a very important brother. I think that they may be invertebrates. Millipedes? Dunno, they all look alike to me.
As far as I understand they have the full backing of the UN.
Resolution CO15?
Not sure but I think it’s something to do with a WMD that’ll melt the Himalayas at 20:35. That may be ten to midnight though. It’s all very confusing!
What’s even more confusing was that two blokes, on the BBC, said that the recent events strongly indicated that ‘sceptical’ opinion was correct.
Whom should I believe?
The Graundian so beloved of Gorgeonus Moonbeam?
Environmental deities such as GreenWWFPetaPlanetWTF that will save my grand-pianos from premature mistuning for only £3 per month?
Chitinous invertebrates armed with unarguable dossiers?
The BBC?
Should I go for the “None of the above” option and spoil my ballot-paper with “WUWT-Now that’ll do nicely!”
PS -rearrange
stone, back, millipede, crawl, your, under
Smokey (16:02:37) :
“Face it, it’s a scientifically illiterate term for carbon dioxide, which naturally appeals to people like Al Gore and other demonizers of that harmless and beneficial trace gas.”
Obviously we disagree on semantics. But as long we’re getting technical, carbon dioxide is toxic to humans in high concentrations. More germane to your reply: anthropogenic carbon dioxide has been shown to raise the pH of things like rain and ocean water, which has all sorts of negative consequences for carbon – I mean – people. The argument could be made that you are using the term “harmless” incorrectly but, again, we’re digressing into semantics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid
(Another) work of fiction from Pachauri?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111068/Revealed-the-racy-novel-written-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-climate-scientist.html
“Toxic to people in high concentrations” – in the same way that a rope tied around someone’s neck and tightened is “toxic,” death is suffered the same way
“Toxic” nooses
“Toxic” neckties [some in fact are!]
Phil M (16:22:01):
“But as long we’re getting technical, carbon dioxide is toxic to humans in high concentrations.”
So is oxygen. And water. And nitrogen. And penicillin. But we’re talking about a tiny trace gas, only 0.00038 of the atmosphere. If it was doubled and squared, you wouldn’t notice it.
It’s Saturday evening & Mrs Smokey’s waiting to be taken out to dinner. You get the last word.
Peter Plail (16:09:56) :
Good point. Now looking for explicit definitions on both. (To see if a certain latitude is their limiting factor or explict surrounding minor seas, interior bays and inlets are listed to include or exclude.)
“Phil M (16:22:01) :
[…]
The argument could be made that you are using the term “harmless” incorrectly but, again, we’re digressing into semantics.”
Yeah, our governments should keep us from staying indoors with closed windows! CO2 concentrations make you tired first, then kill you in your sleep! And even worse, every one of us constantly outgasses CO2!
I could become a news editor… or maybe a snakeoil salesman… hmmm….
Concering Oddball erratic Weather patterns:
If we did have Global Warming, and things went erratic, we would be having a preponderance of warmer regions with randomly placed cold outliers. We do not have this.
We have widespread N. Hemisphere colder regions with randomly placed warm outliers.
So, that is why you have yet another colder plunge into the Deep South this year, Ice all over N. China, cruise ships stuck in ice, and people everywhere wanting to stuff the weather forecasts into Great Predictors of Climate Oddball Warming in unmentionable places.
So, go ahead, keep it up, but don’t be surprised to be on the receiving end of teachable moments when walking around with a Kick Me sign.
Smokey (16:31:32) :
I have worked in places where the oxygen level was down to 19%. You just sweat a lot and get tired faster. You go back the next day with no ill effects.
That’s 20000 ppm C02.
It amazes me that some are whining about 385 ppm.
Moderator
[Anthony says no more embedded Hitler spoofs. Post the URL and people can click on it if they want. This particular one has been around for a while. ~dbs, mod]
I did post the URL, so I was surprised when the video appeared. it looks like ’embed’ is coded on the YouTube entry, and this ‘Comment’ software obeyed! I plead innocence/ignorance.
__________________________________
Trying again :
Wonderful Glaciergate/Hitler spoof on YouTube, probably mentioned elsewhere but really nicely done and worth watching if you have not seen it :
It can be indirectly accessed via :
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/it-aint-over.html
Phil M,
I have a homework assignment for you. Go to Lake Powell, pull out a bucket of water, and tell us what month, year and location it melted from.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/31/ed-miliband-climate-change-scepticism
Looks like Ed Miliband (our esteemed UK secretary of state for Climate change) has decided that the Observer is a good place to write his own obituary.
Looks like he’s nailed his colours to the mast despite the fact that the good ship global warming has sprung a serious leak and is sining fast.
PS, it’s snowing again! The last lot hasn’t melted yet…
Thank you, my bestest ever left-leaning pacifist newspaper, for supporting Eco-war.
Yes, you were right to attack the US for ridding the world of an illiberal tyrant.
Some say that Sadaam was bad but at least he wasn’t anti-UN!
Sarcasm off.
Global warming is not a political issue. Global politics is. The environment is not up for taxation. It is for preservation but if we fail, let it not be said that we didn’t try.
However badly the science is distorted, let us recognise this.
We. mostly. on the big things agree. It’s just that we get hung up on the details and then we make fools of each other!
Smokey (16:31:32) :
“So is oxygen. And water. And nitrogen. And penicillin. But we’re talking about a tiny trace gas, only 0.00038 of the atmosphere. If it was doubled and squared, you wouldn’t notice it.
You seem to be giving me a moving target. If you had said oxygen or water was “harmless” I would have pointed out the ambiguity of your meaning in that context also. As a just pointed out, a measurable decrease in pH of rain and ocean water has already been documented as a result of increased carbon dioxide. So, in effect, we have all “noticed” it.
Phil M,
Are you claiming that Crested Butte is not “centrally located in the mountains?” BTW if you want to criticize, you might want to quote the entire sentence in question.
Crested Butte is the best site for this analysis because it has the most complete data set, and because of it’s geographical location. I looked at dozens of sites, but most had very incomplete records.
The San Juan Mountains in Southwest Colorado would not be a good choice because they pick up excess moisture from the Pacific and tend to get very deep snow. The Front Range would not be a good choice because it is influenced by Great Plains weather and is in the rain shadow of the Rockies. Crested Butte on the other hand is in the central Elk Range and in the heart of ski country. Try not to “explode your head.”