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
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?
It looks to me that there are clear patterns emerging in the last twenty years — more snow cover during October-January, then markedly less than normal February/March (from earlier spring thaws?). Whatever the mechanisms (and it seems like a worthy area of research — I’ll have to look at the published Rutgers papers), climate change seems to be involved. Eyeballing it (which is rarely a good idea, I’ll admit) I would expect that the positive feedback of less snow cover in February/March, when days are longer and the sunlight in the NH is more direct, will be substantially greater than the negative feedback of more snow cover in the other months, when days are short and the angle of incidence of the sun is so low anyway.
Still, the trends are intriguing. Understanding exactly how/why would be nice.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=10
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=11
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=12
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=2
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=3
And yet these monthly departure charts show a very different story, if you look at months and years other than January, 2010… especially when you look at the entire hemisphere, instead of focusing on the North America.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_vis.php?ui_year=2009&ui_month=11&ui_set=2
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_vis.php?ui_year=2008&ui_month=10&ui_set=2
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_vis.php?ui_year=2008&ui_month=11&ui_set=2
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_vis.php?ui_year=2009&ui_month=1&ui_set=2
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_vis.php?ui_year=2009&ui_month=2&ui_set=2
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_vis.php?ui_year=2009&ui_month=3&ui_set=2
TB,
Snow cover has been decreasing from March through summer. February is pretty much of a wash, and clearly is going to be well above average this year.
The meteorological winter is December through February.
TB,
All of the graphs and discussion in this article are for the Northern Hemisphere, not North America. Please don’t try to claim otherwise.
Of course this wouldn’t anything to do with which phase of the PDO we are in?? Would it? Naturally.
http://www.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
Steve Goddard:
I understand your article deals with fall and winter ice and I have no argument with your argument, as far as it goes.
However, consider the radiation budget significance of northern hemisphere ice, including “permanent” and seasonal snow cover, throughout the year. Most of the reflectance occurs during summer, when the sun’s rays are most direct. Now, with the sun so low in the sky, or even below the horizon, additional snow cover doesn’t reflect much more light, compared to bright summer sun reflected off of ice and snow.
I’m suggesting there is a greater negative impact on the albedo caused by less summer ice than a corresponding positive impact caused by an equal area of additional snow cover.
SG,
Sorry, I didn’t mean at all to imply that your post focuses on NA. But people, particularly Americans, do tend to do so. I just wanted to make sure that people didn’t just look at/focus on our continent.
I would argue with the statement that “February is a wash,” however. 3 of the past 8 years show more snow cover (a lot more), but it’s those same 3 out of the last 23. 3 out of 23 hardly points to much of a trend.
The big picture also looks very different (and this excludes February/March):
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1
John Freeland,
The Arctic ice minimum occurs in September when there is almost no solar insolation in the Arctic.
During the bright months of May, June, and July – Arctic ice extent has changed very little during the last 30 years.
Thinkingbeing
Your many entries are all respectful, so I will stop the as hominems, (but you really ought to pick a pseudonym that does not imply that you think more or better than others at this site—-most entries at this site are thoughtful and exhibit an attempt to stay in the realm of science.)
My point on the water vapor as heat conveyor from ocean to upper troposhpere is that I do not believe there is either substantive empirical evidence or evidence grounded theory to put numbers on the relative value of increased GHG-effect from increased H2O in the atmosphere versus changed reflection of solar energy from increased clouds (from increased H2O in the atmosphere) versus increase rate of radiation into space from the H2O conveyor of heat from ocean to troposphere (leaving out the difficult calculation of the effect on Earth’s albedo from changes in snow cover at various seasons.) Weather is understood as a chaotic system because so many important variables are unknowable (at least with present science, maybe not in the future.) So how can any GCM be given serious credibility for predicting the future climate of the earth in the next centuries. And how can anyone have respect for those who claim that the science is settled, or that global warming is not only imminant, but will on the net be bad for us and life on Earth in general.
KW
ThinkingBeing (09:24:44) :
“It looks to me that there are clear patterns emerging in the last twenty years”
The Egyptian Sphinx may have originally stood in lush grassland, now it stands in desert. Evidence suggests that the Sahara is shrinking again, so maybe climate change in 2000 years will mean it stands in lush grass once more.
Thats the sort of pattern I recognise in relation to a planet over 4 billion years old.
Looking at the Rutgers site, the graph for annual extent(click “see timeseries”) for the N Hemisphere shows what amounts to a step change to lower extents overall in the mid 80’s. These step changes are curious. Definitely show a change in weather patterns/climate.
Speaking of step changes, wonder when the Geomagnetic A-index is going to respond to the increase in Sun activity. It still remains low.
It’s hard to be a global-warming-skeptic when other skeptics behave this bad. What’s wrong here should be self-evident: you are cherry picking start dates to make improperly magnify a trend. It’s wrong when Al Gore did it in his movie, it’s wrong when you do it now.
– six out of the last eight Januaries were above normal snowfall
– seventeen out of last twenty-one Decembers were above normal snowfall.
– fifteen out of the last nineteen Novembers have had above average snowfall.
– seven out of the last ten Octobers have had above average snowfall.
If you use “21 months” for December, you have to use 21 months for all of them. On balance, it does seem it’s getting snowier, but the trend is less pronounced.
Robert,
All of the months show contiguous upwards trends leading to the present, and all are statistically significant.
Cherry picking would require choosing both a start date and an end date, which is not being done here. The upwards trend is just longer for some months than for others.
KW,
I won’t argue that there are many, many variables, and the climate is a system which makes experimentation and empirical evidence difficult. As to each of your specific points, though:
(1) “substantive empirical evidence or evidence grounded in theory…”
Empirical evidence, no, not yet, partly because it is “early in the game”, but also because of this:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/09/nasa_shelves_climate_satellites/
but also see here:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Increase_In_Atmospheric_Moisture_Tied_To_Human_Activities_999.html
Evidence grounded in theory is another story. The GHG effect of water vapor can’t be argued. I do remember one plausible argument that the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere is founded on the premise that the overall relative humidity will stay constant, which could be a point of debate (it might not). But unless there is a strong negative feedback from increased albedo from clouds, then the GHG effect is real and will kick in.
(2) “changed reflection of solar energy from increased clouds”
The argument about clouds is also viable, although neither Lindzen nor Spencer nor anyone else, in 15-20 years of trying, have been able to produce empirical evidence that clouds do provide a negative feedback, nor do they even provide a specific physics based mechanism to make it seem likely. Their arguments often sound (to me) like wishful thinking. Anyone who claims to be a “skeptic” on other issues (saying they are “uncertain” or “unproven”), but then clings to a negative could feedback as an argument is, to me, trying to have it both ways.
Given this, while it might be possible that eventually we will see a negative could feedback, it seems more likely (again, to me) that we will instead see a stronger positive GHG feedback. Either way, I’m not willing to bet my daughter’s future on the planet on a wish and a hope for clouds to save her. It will kill me if she is not able to enjoy the pampered modern lifestyle that I’ve enjoyed, and I’d rather cut back a little now and simply modernize our energy infrastructure than see the entire economy and my way of life destroyed for her 25 years from now (because I was too selfish to make small sacrifices as an investment).
(3) “Weather is understood as a chaotic system”
As far as weather being chaotic… weather is, but climate is much less so. I like to equate it to flipping a coin. If you want to bet that the next six flips will come up H-T-H-T-H-T, you have a one in 64 chance of winning. But if you want to bet that between 45 and 55 of the next 100 flips will come up heads, the odds are very much in your favor. The first is weather, and the second climate, and equating the two is a mistake.
I’ll certainly never accept the argument that it’s too complicated to understand, so it can’t be understood. It may take a while, but science will get there, and is already pretty far along right now (and we’d be further along if the Bush White House hadn’t canceled and sidelined climate science projects). To me, within my own understanding of the science, I believe that while it is possible that nature has prepared some magical negative feedbacks to save us from ourselves, the long history of climate on the planet instead hints at something less pleasant, and I’m not willing to gamble my daughter’s future on it.
(4) “but you really ought to pick a pseudonym…”
As far as the choice of moniker…. it isn’t meant to imply that anyone else is unintelligent or less intelligent, and I’m not sure why anyone would react that way. It is meant to imply that man distinguishes himself from the rest of the animal kingdom through his ability to reason, and to reason thoroughly and completely, not merely as far as it is convenient to do, or until the next meal time. My only wish is that people would study more, and more, and more, and make up their own minds, instead of reading something that appeals to them and then repeating it over and over without thinking for themselves.
And this does not mean that the people that disagree with me don’t think! It just means that many people don’t think, and that applies to many things other than climate, and to people on both sides of any argument. I don’t care what people decide, as long as they make an effort to decide for themselves, and don’t give up on the process the moment they hear something that merely confirms their initial beliefs.
This could end up being a much better lay-indicator of climate than temperature is. White/not white is a much easier distinction than hundredths of a degree in temperature.
Steve Goddard: Arctic Sea ice has declined steadily. Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Illionois.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100203_Figure3.png
I’m skeptical of both of your statements. What are your sources?
John Freeland (11:41:53),
Why is the emphasis exclusively on the Arctic? Because the Arctic is losing ice.
But the Antarctic is gaining ice: click
Show us that CO2 is the cause, rather than natural variability.
Take your time. You’ll need it.
John,
You sent me a link to a graph showing that January extent has decreased through the 30 year satellite record. I was discussing May-July. Look at the current NSIDC ice deficit. Does it look like anything to worry about?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent.png
The sun sets at the north pole on September 21 and stays below the horizon until March 21. At 80N, the sun is only 10 degrees above the horizon on Sept 21.
JohnFreeland – NSIDC is not the University of Illinois. -http://nsidc.org/about/expertise/overview.html
It is sponsored by the University of Colorado. While I am sure both have great football teams, no one would mistake Buffalos with the Fighting Illini.
20 years? So what? Climate cycles are longer than 20 years. Extrapolating from a 20 year trend is a meaningless, futile endeavor.
Once we have satellite data for an entire climate cycle, then we will have statistically useful information.
Determining exactly what duration a climate cycle has will be left as an exercise for the reader.
Much as they keep extending the range of the running average to keep the 98 el-nino in the data set I would suspect that they are holding off on adding new data until we get a good melt year. Of course with teh NAO going negative they will have to wait for another 40 years.
Back at Steve Goddard:
The north pole is a single point on the surface of the earth. Here is a NASA table of insolation for 2009, according to latitude. I believe the Arctic Circle is about 67 degrees north.
http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/srmonlat.cgi
The insolation at 70 degrees north (inside the Arctic Circle) is listed at 179 and I assume the units are W/m2. The average annual insolation at that same latitude, according to the table, is 197.8. September insolation is over 90 percent of the annual average. The September insolation at 70 degrees north is higher than insolation at 45 degrees north in November. Last I checked, the sun still rises and sets in Petoskey, Michigan in November.
Back at Smokey:
The Arctic sea ice “deficit” is much larger than the Antarctic Sea ice “surplus.” The current global sea ice anomaly is abut 1 million square kilometers below the 1979-2008 mean.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg.
Back at Phil Jourdan:
You’re right! I was thinking of UIC’s Polar Research Group. Also worth a look.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Sorry ThinkingBeing
Your saying it doesn’t make it that way!
We know that increased CO2 causes plants to be more drought resistant and it is a large effect. If water vapor in the atmosphere is not significantly increasing than the whole positive feedback high sensitivity thing is totally dead. Higher water vapor is fundamental to the idea of
CAGW and higher temperature and humidity means at least the likelihood of it rising higher. This can in no way be rationally assumed to mean increased drought in continental interiors. Certainly not in the American West where the height of the mountains to the west is partly responsible for the low rainfall. (By the way there is good evidence that increased CO2 is significantly greening the American West)
You may not see rapidly shrinking deserts with warming, but thinking they will grow is in direct contradiction with the claimed underlying mechanism in your theory. Deserts may not shrink but if they don’t that is very strong evidence that the positive water vapor feedback idea is totally wrong. you can’t have it both wasy no matter how much you want to.
By the way I assumed you meant the American Southwest, as the Southeast is not particularly “water starved”.
Wondering Aloud —
Your model is overly simplistic. You seem to be treating water like something that has to be evenly spread everywhere.
The water that will cause the increased GHG effect is water vapor, which will be fairly evenly distributed through the atmosphere and has little to do with precipitation.
The water (or lack there of) that will cause droughts is part of the weather, and can come from altered wind and ocean circulation patterns, altered water sources (such as the loss of glaciers or dried up lakes and rivers, due to cumulative excessive local evaporation) or any number of other effects.
What is most important here is that while the distribution of increase in water vapor through the atmosphere and its global effect will probably be pretty uniform, the distribution of temperatures around the globe will not. Some areas will see little change, some (like the poles) extreme warmth, some warmer winters but cooler, drier summers, etc. It’s not nearly as simple or one dimensional as “everything gets warmer and drier (or wetter).”
So yes, it can be both ways. An overall increase in global temperature will cause a proportional overall increase in water vapor content in the atmosphere as a whole, with the corresponding temperature increase. At the same time, the Amazon could well begin to suffer more frequent and severe droughts, as will the Southwest US, while the Northeast US will see more rainfall. Southeast Asia may well see increased spring rainfall, but drier summers and winters, which could in turn lead to major crop failures. I believe that I read that the Sahara would see more precipitation, and some day it could again be a lush area, but something that will take thousands of years. Topsoil isn’t created overnight, but it can be lost pretty quickly.
[Yes, I did mean the Southwest in the previous post. Thanks.]