What NOAA Isn't Saying About Snow and Ice

By Steven Goddard

As reported on WUWT, NOAA is warning of “earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons.”  But what NOAA isn’t saying is that snow is falling earlier and heavier in the Northern Hemisphere.  Rutgers University Global Snow Lab has reported that January was the sixth snowiest on record, and that six out of the last eight Januaries were above normal snowfall.

January, 2008 saw the second greatest snow extent ever recorded.  December was the third snowiest on record in the Northern Hemisphere and seventeen out of last twenty-one Decembers were above normal snowfall.  November was above normal snowfall and fifteen out of the last nineteen Novembers have had above average snowfall.  October was the sixth snowiest October on record and seven out of the last ten Octobers have had above average snowfall.

Source : Rutgers University Global Snow Lab

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nhland12.png

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nhland10.png

The data shows unequivocally that snow is coming earlier and heavier than it used to.  Perhaps the snow season is shifting, rather than shortening?  NOAA’s failure to mention this is negligent at best.

As far as their claim of “extended ice free seasons” goes, Roger Pielke Sr. has reported :

The finding in this data is that there is no clear evidence of a delay in the start of the later summer/early fall freeze up or [an earlier] start of the late winter/early spring melt despite the well below average areal sea ice coverage.

So why isn’t NOAA highlighting the other half of the story?  Do readers have any ideas?

What NOAA Isn’t Saying About Snow and Ice

As reported on WUWT, NOAA is warning of “earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons.”  But what NOAA isn’t saying is that snow is falling earlier and heavier in the Northern Hemisphere.  Rutgers University Global Snow Lab has reported that January was the sixth snowiest on record, and that six out of the last eight Januaries were above normal snowfall.  January, 2008 saw the second greatest snow extent ever recorded.  December was the third snowiest on record in the Northern Hemisphere and seventeen out of last twenty-one Decembers were above normal snowfall.  November was above normal snowfall and fifteen out of the last nineteen Novembers have had above average snowfall.  October was the sixth snowiest October on record and seven out of the last ten Octobers have had above average snowfall.

Source : Rutgers University Global Snow Lab

The data shows unequivocally that snow is coming earlier and heavier than it used to.  Perhaps the snow season is shifting, rather than shortening?  NOAA’s failure to mention this is negligent at best.

As far as their claim of “extended ice free seasons” goes, Roger Pielke Sr. has reported :

The finding in this data is that there is no clear evidence of a delay in the start of the later summer/early fall freeze up or [an earlier] start of the late winter/early spring melt despite the well below average areal sea ice coverage.

So why isn’t NOAA highlighting the other half of the story?  Do readers have any ideas?

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bill

but its all due to global warming,they say ….see here:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1427

Interesting. I did an analysis a couple of years ago studying snow depths in Oslo, Norway since 1897 and found that while that there has been much less snow in April and May in recent decades, October snow has become more common. The earlier winter arrival does by no means fully counter the earlier spring, but there is a slight shift. I didn’t imagine that it could be the same for the rest of the hemisphere.

Graham Jay

OT – apologies. An almost unbelievable final paragraph in this article:
“Met Office blocked role of leading scientist in climate change row”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7178430/Met-Office-blocked-role-of-leading-scientist-in-climate-change-row.html

Ceri Phipps

The importance of ice melt for the AGW argument is that water absorbs more sun light than ice and consequently ice loss acts as a positive feedback.
Looking at the record sea ice loss in 2007 (since satellite records began), most of the above average loss was at latitude of around 80 degrees north. This is important as the albedo of water increases rapidly as the angle of incidence of sunlight decreases.
This got me thinking: How would the additional energy absorbed due to loss of sea ice in the worst month (September 2007) compare with the reduction in absorbed energy from the increased northern hemisphere snow cover in December 2009. Would they be of a similar magnitude?
I quickly realised that it is impossible to calculate this accurately so I had a stab at a rough estimate. In order to try to reduce my own bias, I have tried to ensure that all my estimates favour more energy being absorbed by ice loss.
I looked at data for September 2007 and calculated that the ice loss above average to be 1.1 million square kilometres as compared to the period 2002-2009
According to the Rutgers University Global snow lab, the snow cover for December 2009 was 2.66 million square kilometres above average (assumed to be from 1966 to present).
I estimate the ice loss to be mostly above 80 degrees north for September, but I will call it 80 degrees.
I estimate the additional snow cover to be at an average of around 40 degrees north.
The average day length for the Arctic in September I will say is 12 hours and that for 40 degrees north in December is 9 hours.
The angle of incidence for 80 degrees north in September is approximately 10 degrees; the albedo for water at this angle is about 0.35.
The maximum angle of incidence for 40 degrees north in December is about 26.5 degrees, however, the albedo of land does not increase at the same rate as for water so will be ignored.
Wikipedia gives the albedo of sea ice as 0.5 – 0.7. However we are looking at the high Arctic so it would probably normally be snow covered so lets increase this to .85
The albedo of fresh snow is about 0.8 and the albedo of the ground this snow is covering at 40 degrees north I estimate at 0.3
The difference in albedo for our two locations is therefore approximately the same.
The difference in day length is three hours. I am going to assume a linear comparison here.
As the albedo difference is the same for our two locations, we can ignore it. Therefore we are left with area and number of hours so the energy absorbed due to lack of ice is 1,100,00 units and the energy reflected due to extra snow is 1,995,000 units (2,660,000*9/12)
Now I realise that this is just one month and has no real meaning, but in doing this very simple exercise it highlights just how many unknowns and (with today’s technology) impossible to knows there are. For example I have ignored cloud cover which will obviously have a large impact: is it sunnier in the Arctic in September than at 40 degrees north in December? Sea Ice moves; how can you accurately calculate the albedo of the land that is covered in snow etc.
I could spend a lot of time and effort trying to make better estimates of all these things, but I doubt it would make a huge improvement to the outcome.
All this just goes to show how incredibly complex feedbacks are and yet somehow we are led to believe that these are all correctly accounted for in Global Climate Models. Either the modellers are incredibly clever, or they have made some very broad assumptions.

daveprime

Um, It doesn’t fit in with their agenda?

Michael Bowler

NOAA is an arm of the federal govt. Their findings are colored by govt policy that global warming caused by man is a problem and that we can stop it. They will not issue any statement that directly proves otherwise or even hints at it. The progessive era is upon us. For further explanation read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand. The ends justify the means without regard for honesty or ethics.

RockyRoad

The NOAA is just another propaganda mouthpiece for the Global Warmers. Otherwise they’d be reporting the facts rather than their belief system. Time to expose these people with the FACTS!
Thanks, Anthony! Keep up the good work!
A bit OT (and maybe it’s been discussed and I missed it), but why are practically ALL of the terrestrial temperature data sets in the world (Madagascar reported on recently is yet another in a long string of examples) adjusted to fit the AGW hockey stick mantra? Who is sending out the “adjustment memo”?

Well, yeah.
Whatever fits with the relevant paradigm gets publicized.
Earlier snowfall, heavier snowfall, and more extended snow cover do not fit the paradigm (AGW). Therefore these subjects will not be mentioned. To do otherwise would set grant money at risk.
Fear not. There will be a new Federal Department for Global Warming. This Department will set us all straight.
Meanwhile…waiting for the next shoe to fall concerning the IPCC is like living downstairs from a centipede. The stunning tergiversations [you could look it up] in the IPCC 4 report have already choked a horse. The more one looks, the more unsubstantiated claims from amateurs and the WWF are found.
FACT: significant point-to-point variations in climate swamp any attempt to look for long-term variations. Error bars, anyone? Pinpointing a global average is not possible, given the extant distribution of instrumentation.
And the best correlation of CO2 and temperature remains that from the ice cores: CO2 lags behind temperature by about 800 years.

Stephen Wilde

Interesting to note that the switch in snowfall from below average to above average appears to have commenced a little before 2000 for the January chart.
For several years past I have been asserting that I first noticed the mid latitude jets starting to move back equatorward in 2000.
Snowcover statistics would be more a reflection of the position of the interface between polar and sub tropical air masses rather than absolute temperature and the more equatorward that interface the more continental land masses would fall under the influence of polar air and thus be available to receive more snowfall.
It seems likely that ice caps would start to build when heavy snowfall is induced from a combination of warmer equatorial ocean surfaces combined with a strongly negative Arctic Oscillation. In that scenario the jets would be more equatorward than warm tropical oceans would normally allow so that the temperature differential across the mid latitude jets would increase leading to more precipitation in the form of snow on the northern continents especially. Just as has happened this past winter but for many thousands of years at a time.
All fitting nicely with my suggestion that a weak sun reduces the rate of energy loss to space thus encouraging a more negative Arctic Oscillation so if the phasing of long periods of a weak sun changes to more often coincide with warmer ocean surfaces then the result may be a warming of the troposphere as a whole (as witness this past January) at the same time as one gets a huge snow dump year after year in continental interiors.
Only when the phasing changes again with a strong sun coinciding with warmer ocean surfaces will the jets move poleward again allowing less snowfall as energy is allowed to leave for space faster once more and the Arctic Oscillation reverts to a longer term more positive mode.
In contrast cooler ocean surfaces with a strong sun would result in fast tropospheric cooling but cooler ocean surfaces with a weak sun would result in only a slow rate of tropospheric cooling. In both ocean surface cooling scenarios there would be less precipitation than during ocean surface warming spells.
So for fast cooling one needs cool ocean surfaces and a more active sun.
For slow cooling one needs a cool ocean surface and a less active sun.
For a fast warming of the troposphere and greatly enhanced snowfall one needs warm ocean surfaces and a less active sun.
For slow warming one needs warmer ocean surfaces and an active sun.

C Shannon

“Do readers have any ideas?”
I think the obvious answer is advocacy winning out over science. Perhaps it is a bit cynical to jump right in and point to that but if we’re just making a list of possibilities it certainly should be on the list.

John Hooper

Yes, the following organizations at the very least are implicated in a massive conspiracy:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
It’s like Watergate, except this time the water is frozen.

Rhys Jaggar

Well to be fair, we’d better say that Arctic Sea Ice is tracking a bit lower this year. It’s not clear to me whether that is smaller area of high density ice (i.e. 100% not 30%) or merely a reflection of warmer oceans within normal amplitudes of extremes. NSIDC’s February statement reflects all that. Probably fair to say that they point out declining January sea ice the past 30 years. Again, in my opinion, that’s not long enough to say it’s a progression which will continue or something which will spring back due to a 70 year oceanic modulation…..
I suspect early snow, particularly October, is more dependent on air oscillation patterns, since you’ll need the precipitation to either hit cold air or, more likely emanate from northern latitudes and pass straight south to drop the snow. In the european Alps, that’s happened the past 3 years – northerly/northeasterly blizzard in October. It happened once in July in 1981!!
In December/January, I suspect warmer oceans begets stronger depressions which, when they hit land, produce more snow. The question arising is: does the solar reflection by snow balance out the greater oceanic absorption due to less sea ice?? Upon that calculation will, I suspect, a spring-like return to normality or a self-perpetuating warm cycle be decided upon.

jinki

When looking at NOAA’s standing, it reminds me of a poor cousin to the IPCC, looking to make a step up the UN social ladder.
If they had any foresight, they would see the impending doom and start reporting how science should report.
Accurately without agenda.

wolfwalker

What exactly are those graphs graphing? The y-axis doesn’t make any sense. How can you have a negative number for “land area covered?”

Rob

OT,
The Guardian media group controls the majority of local newspapers in UK,
Not any more, might get more balanced reporting in locals now.
Guardian Media Group (GMG) this morning sold its regional newspaper division, including the flagship Manchester Evening News, to Trinity Mirror for £45 million, ending an 85-year relationship.
The group, which publishes The Guardian and The Observer, will receive £7.4 million in cash for the regional division’s 32 newspapers and associated websites.
GMG will also be released from a long term printing contract with Trinity Mirror worth £37.4 million. The sale will be completed on 28 March, Trinity Mirror said.
The sale comes with Guardian News and Media, GMG’s national newspaper company, losing £100,000 a day.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article7020351.ece

>> So why isn’t NOAA highlighting the other half of the story? Do readers have any ideas?
Who pays for NOAA? Follow the money perchance?

Pamela Gray

I kept trying to type what I thought might be the reason. And I kept deleting what I typed. I was left with this:
The only thing I can think of is that the current administration truly believes that creating jobs by encouraging and subsidizing green inventive and entrepreneurial business will pull us out of the economic slump we are in, for all time, and we will be so grateful that we will keep them in power for decades to come. So I think that it is possible that internal memos have been sent to these agencies to continue to beat the warming drum, for the good of the nation. FOI it and see if this theory holds true.
This is the same mistake made by Bush in his lead up to the Iraq invasion. These people in power get wrapped up in their blind to anything else vision of how things should be, and want to be a savior to their beloved country. Trouble is we get sent down the prime rose path with them.
Bush didn’t listen. Now Obama isn’t listening. Great. Just great.

Slabadang

Its so sad!
Last summer i went trough all my old toys.I especially appriciatet my old Apollo shuttle and moonlander.Nasa for me was the symbol of the best and most fantastic example of the human capacity science freedom and adventure.Now its occupied and infiltrated by asctivist and has changed its symbolicy of man kind to be the hart of misantrophic propaganda. I never expected that among choices between nuclear veapons,biological warfare,laser,military forces,dictatorship,kommunism,faschism and all the possible potential tools to take power, the control and manipulation of temperaturdata could turned out to be the most powerful one.
According to which political systems and ideaologies is gouvernmental institutions allowed to spread propaganda?
Whats happening to America? The land of the …….what?? Im a surpressed Swede living in a country that built its konstitution influensed by DDR 1973.

rob m.

“and that six out of the last eight Januaries were above normal snowfall.”
What is ‘normal’ in climate or weather?

ThinkingBeing

Good example of climate change, Steven! Increased temperatures mean increased moisture in the air, hence more snowfall.
At the same time, snow forms at altitude, where the temperature drops. Right now we see global warming of about 0.5C, but in the atmosphere, you only have to go up 50 meters to see an equivalent drop in temperature, so when it comes to things being warm or cold enough to form snow, global warming isn’t going to have a lot of influence.
The difference is, of course, that an October or November without snow would have had dry air. Ones with snow had wet air… and that is being fed by global warming, and so it’s on the increase.
Decreased temperatures would have decreased snowfall, but temperatures aren’t dropping, they’re rising. This is a good example of how rising temperatures will change the climate in surprising, counter-intuitive ways.
Of course, forty years from now, when temperatures have risen another degree, we will see the snow line shifting northward, but those above the snowline will could still see record snow, or much less due to persistent drought that robs nearby areas of moisture year round. It’s hard to say. But the 0.5C warming we see right now is absolutely nothing compared to what we’re in for, so jumping up and down about a change in snowfall one way or the other right now is rather silly.
Thanks for another good example of climate change (except for those who will be so simple minded that the thought process will be “snow = cold = global cooling”, but there’s no way to argue with ignorance).
Reference:
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=79547
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031106052121.htm

Steve Goddard

ceri,
I did an analysis of polar albedo changes last year which concluded something that might surprise you. Polar ice changes are actually cooling the earth, when considering both poles.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/
Rhys,
You can’t infer much about summer Arctic ice from looking at February extent. Note that 2006 was lower in February but had the second highest minimum in the AMSRE record.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
Thickness is more important than extent at this time of year. The current “missing” ice is in areas that don’t ever retain ice in the summer.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent.png

Jan

I would think this is another example of the latest Orwellian logic: “There is snow? What snow? it is warming though. Cold is hot!” Or maybe an example of an elaborated cargo cult: “We are the supreme masters of our little landing strip and we expect John Frum, oh sorry James Hansen deliver all the profitable heatwaves, drought, famine, hurricanes and plagues, for finally save the planet from the indeed evil man, so what snow, there is no snow dumbass!…or maybe just a little bit, never mind…”

Varco

Off topic – sorry.
Bishop Hill has good report of contributor comment regarding teh executiv3 summary of IPCC AR4 Chapter 9.
Colleague of James Hansen:
“There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
Chaper authors response:
“Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.”
I’d laugh if it wasn’t so serious….
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/9/hansens-colleague-eviscerates-ar4-chapter-9.html

Harry
Steve Goddard

TB,
The increase in snowcover is due to increased snow on the ground at lower latitudes. This is definitely not something that has been predicted by climate models, and is an indication of cold temperatures.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_daily.php?ui_year=2010&ui_day=39&ui_set=2

Henry chance

From The Independent on 20 March 2000 we got the headline: “Snowfalls are
now just a thing of the past”. According to Dr David Viner, a senior
research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of
East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and
exciting event”.
Both lying and wrong.
We are required to discard models that are so wrong.

It's always Marcia, Marcia

They are the government. After seeing people yelling at politicians at the Town Hall meetings how they didn’t want Obamacare and then seeing the election results in Massachusetts where the man who won ran on how he would be the vote that stopped Obamacare, yet seeing some politicians still saying they will pass Obamacare, it’s more of the same type of thing to have the NOAA say we are going to all die from global warming even though the real world doesn’t agree with them.

John Hooper (04:58:05),
You gave your list of alarmist scientists [including the wacked out John Holdren] who are living on public taxpayers’ grant money, so I will give you just one list of scientists totaling triple your number; the signers of the OISM Petition, which states:

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Nice try there, John. Thanx for playing, and Vanna has some wonderful parting gifts for you on your way out.

A C Osborn

Steve Goddard, I don’t know whether you have seen it, there is a post on Tips & Notes where someone was trying to get in touch with you.
Richard Woolley (09:07:34) :
I am trying to get in touch with Steve Goddard.
Trying to find out more information about the CRU normals data set that COLA is using the their maps.
We here at Weather Trends run a worldwide MOS using actual observed data and gridded NCEP reanalysis data combined with the 00Z GFS forecast.
Seems most of our trends follow the COLA site very well except for Africa and S. America. Looks like the normal we use is lower than the CRU normals. Hence the lack of significant cold anomalies in those regions, The footprint looks right so I think the forecast is similar so it must be in the normals.
Does CRU interpolate daily normals and so forth and roll it up into a week?
Anyway feel free to contact me, you guys and Anthony do a wonderful job keeping the other hacks honest…

Claude Harvey

Q: “So why isn’t NOAA highlighting the other half of the story?”
A: “Funding.”

A C Osborn

ThinkingBeing (05:27:50) :
So the 59.9″ in Chicago in 1929/30 and the 66.4″ in 1951/52 were also evidence of AGW were they?
What about before 1928?

Stereo Behind EUVI 195
2010-02-09 13:46:19
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/beacon/latest/behind_euvi_195_latest.jpg
Confused Sun ?

RockyRoad

John Hooper (04:58:05) :
Yes, the following organizations at the very least are implicated in a massive conspiracy:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
It’s like Watergate, except this time the water is frozen.
————-
Reply:
I’d say you’re right, John. All that has to happen is for the hockey stick adjustment be applied to all the terrestrial data sets (for which we have example after example after example) and people (yes, even “scientists”) will go running around screaming like chickens with their heads cut off that the earth is about to die from a fever.
Utter nonsense.
The earth is warming gradually after the Little Ice Age and i’m glad it is, although this may just be the precursor to the next Ice Age (which they’ll blame on anthropogenic CO2 too when it comes around; just wait and see!)
And when that happens, we are in such deep doo doo you can’t begin to imagine. THAT will be truly catastrophic!

jaypan

it’s worse than I thought … looking at climatewatch.noaa.gov.
This doesn’t look at all like a gov-Website but like greenpeace or any other propaganda site, a bad one.
The good news, it’s not my tax money wasted there.

RichieP

@Rob (05:09:32) :
“The Guardian media group controls the majority of local newspapers in UK,
Not any more, might get more balanced reporting in locals now.”
Not so sure Rob, as Trinity Mirror is the owner of the Daily and Sunday Mirrors, both of which are staunch Labour supporters. It’s hard to believe they will diverge seriously from NuLab policy on AGW, which is rabidly anti-sceptic and anti-science. A scatologically (and fundament-ally) profane phrase comes to mind, which uses the adjectives “same” and “different”. 🙂

keith in hastings UK

Did I read somewhere that albedo in the far IR, where CO2 “works”, is different from that in visible spectrum and much closer to Blackbody?
This was in the context of calculating from 1st principles what the Earth’s temp would be with no atmosphere ie if a blackbody in radiation equilibrium to incoming solar radiation… the result was – 35C or so , which I was concerned about because of emissivity prob less than 1 and internal heat source (it’s hot down there!) which I haven’t researched tho’.
Just mention it because of the calculations higher up the thread using assumed albedo numbers…. sceptics need to be ultra careful, unlike alarmists?

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1
Note the running mean in this Rutgers snow anomaly graph. It includes snow cover for all four seasons. It is predominantly negative since about 1986.

joe

This will surely melt the glaciers.

Buck Smith

Doesn’t all this increased snowfall ( & increased precipitation in general) itself act as a negative feedback? Heat energy moves from the ocean to the atmosphere in water vapor , is released in the atmosphere as snow or rain falls back down.

RR Kampen

How about February, March, April? Bad news there?
Anyway, warming should imply more precipitation.
If warming goes from -10° C to -1° C, that means more snow.

Vincent

Thinkingbeing,
“Of course, forty years from now, when temperatures have risen another degree. . .”
Here, allow me to correct a typo for you:
Of course, forty years from now, if temperatures have risen another degree. . .

RockyRoad (06:16:09) :
————-
“Reply:
The earth is warming gradually after the Little Ice Age and i’m glad it is……”
Recorded UK temperatures have oscillated, during last 300 years with a period of about 50+ years. While in the long term winters’ temps have risen (0.4C/century), summers’ have hardly moved (0.05C/century).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETt.htm
The bottom half of the graph shows de-trended temp changes (upward trend removed from the data). It is obvious that both summer and winter temperatures show similar natural oscillations (sometime in phase and sometime out of phase – that is another story) plus linear (but different) upward trends, which I think are due to a slow recovery from the Little Ice Age.
This corresponds well with plenty of the anecdotal evidence of the very cold winters (frozen Thames etc), but very little about unusually cool summers.
More temps graphs at: http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm

Herman L

Steven,
NOAA devotes a large amount of material — available to the public — on snow and ice trends: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ussc/index.jsp
Did you read this and consider including it in your post? Why or why not?

Steve Goddard

John Freeland,
The graph you referenced includes summer snow extent. This article is discussing the increase in autumn/winter snow. Note the blue lines in the graph (winter) are showing strong positive anomalies.

Roger Knights

Pamela Gray (05:20:40) :
I kept trying to type what I thought might be the reason. And I kept deleting what I typed. I was left with this:
The only thing I can think of is that the current administration truly believes that creating jobs by encouraging and subsidizing green inventive and entrepreneurial business will pull us out of the economic slump we are in, for all time, and we will be so grateful that we will keep them in power for decades to come. ……..
Bush didn’t listen. Now Obama isn’t listening. Great. Just great.

Bear in mind what FDR said, “Nothing in politics happens by accident. If something happens, it was planned that way.” From a “political” perspective, Obama is not making a mistake. He has more to lose by changing his course.
It’s very simple. Obama is trapped. He promised the greens they’d get what they wanted if they backed him. If he backs off, they’ll turn on him, or at least turn away from him, and the Dems will lose monetary, foot-soldier, and editorial support in 2010 and 2012. The greens might even run a competing presidential candidate and sink the Dems in 2012, the way Nader did before. Obama can’t dismount this tiger until well into his second term.

wayne

Are there any reports that all of these abnormal conditions are affecting NH specific parameters at all? Are there sites tracking hemisphere specific temperatures and data? Specifically hemispheric albedo.

Steve Goddard

Henry chance,
I don’t think anyone was lying about that prediction. Winters in the UK were very warm 10 years ago and it was easy for people to trust Hansen and believe that it was just going to get warmer.

Bart Nielsen

Why don’t they report the earlier onset of snow, you ask?
Well, that would fall under the rubric of “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Sorry, I know it’s pretty old, but I couldn’t resist.

Slabadang

National Opptrunistic Oral Abnormities?

Slabadang

National Organized Abnormal Adjustifications