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.
News from Stockholm by the official weather agency:
“Not a January day over zero.
January draws to a end and we can see that we in the south had the coldest January since 1987, on the north one needs only go back a few years to find a colder January. But the most spectacular is probably the lack of any larger mild air intrusion. This makes that in Stockholm in a long series of measurements (starting 1756) are not noted any day over 0 degrees, and it has not happened since 1829 for the month of January.”
That’s a while since!
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smhi.se%2Fvadret%2Fvadret-i-sverige%2FVaderoversikt-Sverige-meteorologens-kommentar&sl=sv&tl=en
This is off topic. I was just watching the weather channel and they reported about 3/4 of continental U.S. is covered in snow.
DirkH (09:04:33) :
“Pamela, what’s your position on the IPCC’s numbers that say that the oceans pH dropped by 0.1, in the last 250 years or so, from about 8.2 to 8.1? Phil pointed out on a different thread that this corresponds to a drop of H ions by 30% and he’s right about that. Now that’s quite a lot. Or do you say the IPCC’s numbers are bunkum?”
Just to clarify, I think that was a different Phil. I’m not familiar with those numbers.
Pamela Gray (08:33:30) :
“Phil M, take a look at what leaf fall and other sources of natural debri falling into streams do to ph. The variability in ph from natural sources on a global scale FAR outweighs and overwhelms what rain water does as it captures atmospheric CO2 and dribbles it into streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans. Acidification by rain? Check your understanding. It isn’t the CO2 in the air what does it.”
I didn’t mean to imply that I agree with all water management practices. I was pointing out that the socioeconomic and scientific issues surrounding snowfall and, by extension, water management are very complex.
Too complex, for example, to pick a single snow monitoring station in the central Rockies and draw conclusions about the region, much less the nation, much less the planet.
So complex, for example, that even well meaning, highly trained, environmentally conscious water managers can fall victim to the Law of Unintended Consequences, which has affected too many areas of the world to mention.
BTW, the Wallowa Mountains are one of my favorite places in the world.
“Phil M (11:40:05) :
[…]
Just to clarify, I think that was a different Phil. ”
Oops, sorry. It was here:
Phil. (21:47:30) :
on
http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-and-notes-to-wuwt/
Phil M.,
Thanks for the Lake Powell report link. Since that report came out predicting Lake Powell’s doom, the amount of water in the lake has increased by 65%.
Kevin Kilty (08:36:47) :
“Indeed, CO2 dissolved in water does make it acidic. But the major components of acid rain on land are SO2 and NOx. I don’t know of any trend that one can pin on CO2 definitively.”
Some very good points there. It’s actually calcium carbonate that is found in rock and neutralizes acidity in PPT, but you correctly point out that land masses, and the coincident aquatic ecosystems, should have some resilience to increasing acidity in PPT.
Of course, this isn’t particularly reassuring for oceans, which would presumably absorb the bulk of the PPT, without the benefit of calcium carbonate. Looks like I have some reading to do…
Phil M,
Corals and shellfish evolved during the Cambrian Era when atmospheric CO2 levels were 20X higher than the present. The ocean acidity argument is just another AGW ruse.
Steve Goddard (18:32:36) :
“Corals and shellfish evolved during the Cambrian Era when atmospheric CO2 levels were 20X higher than the present. The ocean acidity argument is just another AGW ruse.”
The Cambrian ended 488 million years ago. I would argue that corals and shellfish and other ecosystems have evolved quite a bit since then in response to changes in atmospheric and marine biogeochemistry. i.e. are now sensitive to rapid changes in pH.
Steve Goddard (12:04:42) :
“Thanks for the Lake Powell report link. Since that report came out predicting Lake Powell’s doom, the amount of water in the lake has increased by 65%.”
You’re quite welcome. I was more interested in the fact that water levels were the lowest they had been in ~35 years, despite the data you argued showed no changes to snowpack for the central Rockies.
R. Gates,
Nice theories, too bad they have all been throroughly debunked. Thanks for revisiting them for us though, provided a nice laugh!
Phil M.
What would you describe as a “rapid change in pH?” Has such a change occurred? If so, has that change been relatively localized, or is it ocean-wide?
Further, if such a change has occurred, have you seen any studies which show concrete evidence of detriment to coral?
PeterB in Indianapolis (10:09:22) :
I don’t believe corals are specifically mentioned in these articles, but they do make mention of ecosystem impacts. As these papers demonstrate, “rapid” is used in a geologic/evolutionary context. (My apologies for only providing citations. While I have access to PDF versions of these articles, my lack of understanding of copyright laws makes me wary of distributing them online).
Impact of Anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 System in the Oceans
Richard A. Feely, Christopher L. Sabine, Kitack Lee, Will Berelson, Joanie Kleypas, Victoria J. Fabry, and Frank J. Millero (16 July 2004)
Science 305 (5682), 362. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1097329]
The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2
Christopher L. Sabine, Richard A. Feely, Nicolas Gruber, Robert M. Key, Kitack Lee, John L. Bullister, Rik Wanninkhof, C. S. Wong, Douglas W. R. Wallace, Bronte Tilbrook, Frank J. Millero, Tsung-Hung Peng, Alexander Kozyr, Tsueno Ono, and Aida F. Rios (16 July 2004)
Science 305 (5682), 367. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1097403]
And in the interest of fairness, here’s a perspectives piece that proposes (albeit cautiously) a negative climate change feedback resulting from dissolution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in oceans. I think this is available for free. Very interesting stuff:
The Fate of Industrial Carbon Dioxide
Taro Takahashi (16 July 2004)
Science 305 (5682), 352. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1100602]
And some review papers which can connect with you with peer-reviewed research into all aspects of the carbon dioxide/ocean pH issues:
Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem
Scott C. Doney, Victoria J. Fabry, Richard A. Feely, Joan A. Kleypas
Annual Review of Marine Science, January 2009, Vol. 1, Pages 169-192
(doi: 10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834)
On the Increasing Vulnerability of the World Ocean to Multiple Stresses
Edward L. Miles
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, November 2009, Vol. 34, Pages 17-41
(doi: 10.1146/annurev.environ.33.041707.110117)
You are flaunting your ignorance again with such guesses. Most of the genera of mollusk existing in the Cambrian are still with us today, and many of those species still survive and/or prosper in seawater and/or freshwater with an acidity of up to ph5. Consequently, you are flogging postmodern science fairy tales in lieu of science.
Note to somebody writing about “ocean acidification”:
Does everybody know that the salt of a weak acid in solution [with neutral cation] is basic in solution?
Does everyone know that the equilibrium between carbonate and bicarbonate in solution is a buffer (resits changes in pH)?
Would anyone believe there is more than enough CALCIUM in the ocean alone to neutralize all the CO2 that is in the air?
And THEN we start with the alkali and alkaline earth metals …
This one floors me completely, it is bizarre to say the least
funny how the link at MSNBC has been taken down!
jvp
Phil M,
The chemistry of Aragonite shells hasn’t changed – besides which Monterey Bay shows no change in ocean pH.
http://sanctuarymonitoring.org/regional_docs/monitoring_projects/100240_167.pdf
D. Patterson (05:04:05) :
“You are flaunting your ignorance again with such guesses. Most of the genera of mollusk existing in the Cambrian are still with us today, and many of those species still survive and/or prosper in seawater and/or freshwater with an acidity of up to ph5. Consequently, you are flogging postmodern science fairy tales in lieu of science.”
As I posited earlier, species resiliant to a pH of 5 might still be sensitive to pH 4.9. Would they not? Furthermore, one should also take into consideration the numerous species sensitive to much less acidic and precipitous changes in pH.
In any case, judging by the vitriol in your last post, I have deduced that you not only feel very passionately about the topic, but have an extensive background in the field of global biogeochemistry. Please let me know if you have plans on plans on publishing comments to the literature I cited earlier. I have no doubt AAAS would take great interest in your work. All the best.
Steve Goddard (10:44:47) :
“The chemistry of Aragonite shells hasn’t changed – besides which Monterey Bay shows no change in ocean pH.”
Is there some reason to believe that Monterrey Bay is representative of all oceanic conditions?
Brian G Valentine (07:42:52) :
“Would anyone believe there is more than enough CALCIUM in the ocean alone to neutralize all the CO2 that is in the air?”
I’ve read this also. As one of the papers I cited points out, only a limited amount of that calcium is close enough to the surface to buffer changes in acidity. I believe this is a function of the “layering” of ocean water due to temperature differences. I would suggest reading the numerous peer-reviewed articles that have been published, that make various arguments regarding ocean acidification, for a more detailed explanation, as this conversation has devolved to repetative back-and-forths and personal affronts.
I have read them, and the phenomenon of plain old diffusion in a medium that is not stratified by a temperature gradient that balances a density gradient caused by a salt concentration gradient compels me to reject the notion outright.
Perhaps you could read them and come back and explain it to us.
[This “cop-out” answer from a sixty year old very skeptikal chemyst, as the great Robert Boyle called himself]
Phil M,
The atmosphere is a very thin layer of diffuse gas molecules containing less than 0.0004 concentration CO2. By contrast, calcium is one of the most common elements in the earth. There is no shortage of Calcium to mix with CO2.
[Note we are referring to binary diffusion in a medium here; not the apparent anomalous reversal of concentration gradient that appears over certain composition ranges in multicomponent diffusion.]
There was no vitriol in my post. I simply stated an obvious observation of your gross ignorance in erroneously suggesting the corals and shellfish of the Cambrian had no substantial communities of surviving species with equivalent environmental requirements for seawater ph conditions.
The atmospehere during the past 550 million years has usually included some 4 to 20 times the amount of atmospheric CO2 as it does at the present time. During the vast majority of this time the corals and shellfish have thrived, including species which existed in the distant past which are still with us today. Alarmists have pointed to some major extinction events and attempted to attribute the extinctions of these forms of sea life to ocean acidification events. Absent from their commentaries are any explanations for the far greater periods of time during which the atmosphere included vastly greater concentrations of CO2 with thriving communities of coral and shellfish, including species still with us today. Instead, these Alarmists distort the paleontological records by selectively ignoring the mammoth contraindications of their Alarmist claims and collude to deny funding and peer review publication of research having the potential for debunking the Alarmist publications.
If anything, the corals and shellfish are limited and endangered by the present low concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and extremely low air temperatures of the present ice age and interglacial period which have a negative impact upon the growth of food supplies in the food chain.
The Alarmists are claiming a change of 0.1ph in the past 200 years with and acceleration to an accumulated change of 0.3 by 2100, from a nominal 8.0ph for seawater up to 8.3ph for more acidified seawater in 2100. The Alarmists claim such a 0.1ph to 0.3ph change cannot be the result of natural variability while also claiming catastrophic consequences to those particular communities of sea life and the entire food chain of life. Yet, nowhere is there any reasonable explanation for how the coral and shellfish not only survived past CO2 levels 4 to 20 times present levels, but they also proliferated and thrived in such conditions now being claimed as catastrophic sea acidification conditions by the Alarmists.