Guest post by Steven Goddard
As we have been discussing on WUWT, three of the last four months have seen top ten Northern Hemisphere snow extents and the decadal trend has been towards increasing (and above normal) snow extent during the autumn and winter. It appears that this month will achieve snow extent among the top two Februaries on record.
As you can see in the Rutgers University maps below for mid-February, the excess snow cover is necessarily found at lower latitudes. Snow cover radiates out from the pole, so the only place where snow extent can increase is towards the south.
The implication of the observed trend towards increasing snow extent is that the Northern Hemisphere autumn/winter snow line is moving southwards over the last ten to twenty years.
Daily Departure – February 13, 2010 (Day 44)
Source : Rutgers University Global Climate Lab
Daily Snow – February 13, 2010 (Day 44)
Source : Rutgers University Global Climate Lab
We see southern snow cover this year in places like Greece, Northern China, and Alabama that are not normally covered with snow in mid-February. The map below shows the “normal” snow extent measured since 1966.
Daily Climatology – February 13 (Day 44)
Source : Rutgers University Global Climate Lab
Some people have been claiming that the anomalous snow this winter is due to warming temperatures. The New York Times reports on the record snow :
Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense that warming temperatures would cause the snow line to move south. Lower latitudes normally receive rain rather than snow, because the air is already too warm for snow. Further warming would be expected to move the snow line north – not south – and that is exactly what the climate models predict. Indeed, Time Magazine claims that this has already happened: “large-scale cold-weather storm systems have gradually tracked to the north in the U.S. over the past 50 years.”
As far as snow depth goes, Washington D.C. recently broke their 1899 snow record of 54.4 inches and now has a new record of 54.9 inches. We are told that the new record is due to “extreme weather” caused by “global warming.” If so, what caused the nearly identical “extreme weather” over a century ago? Alarmists tell us that heavy snow used to be caused by cold, but now is caused by warmth. The 1899 record was set long before the hockey stick brought temperatures to “unprecedented levels.”
Now lets take their poor logic one step further. Ice ages occur when the snow line moves very far south. If “most climate scientists” are claiming that global warming is causing the snow line to move south, then the logical corollary is that ice ages are caused by further warming temperatures. Clearly that is not true.
Wikipedia map of the last ice age
Furthermore, Hansen correctly tells us that as the snow line moves south, the earth’s albedo increases causing further cooling.
The sensible theory is that the snow line moves south when the climate is cold, and north when the climate is warm. And the record snow we are seeing this winter is due to cold, not warm temperatures.
Today’s NBA All-Star game in Dallas is covered with snow. Last time I checked, Texas was in the South.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
jack,
Monarch has five feet right now. Bring your boots if you come back!
Curiousgeorge (04:22:02) : “skill technicians”…with an easy money making attitude.☺
Hi Icarus
Sorry, Icarus, but I don’t even believe global warming is possible at all!
Follow my thinking on these easy steps:
1) the higher the temp. of the oceans, the more water vapor rises to the atmosphere,
2) the more water vapor rises from the oceans, the more difference in air pressure, the more wind starts blowing
3) the more wind & warmth, the more evaporation of water (evaporation increasing by many times due to the wind factor),
4) the more evaporation of water the more humidity in the air (atmosphere)
5) the higher the humidity in the air the more clouds can be formed
6) Svensmark’s theory: the more galactic cosmic rays (GCR), the more clouds are formed (if the humidity is available)
7) the more clouds appear, the more rain and snow and cooler weather,
8) the more clouds and overcast conditions, the more radiation from the sun is deflected from the earth,
9) The more radiation is deflected from earth, the cooler it gets.
10) This cooling puts a brake on the amount water vapor being produced. So now it is back to 1) and wait for heat to start same cycle again…
Now when I first considered this, I stood in amazement again. I remember thinking of the words in Isaiah 40:12-26.
I have been in many factories that have big (water) cooling plants, but I realised that earth itsself is a water cooling plant on a scale that you just cannot imagine. I also thought that my idea of seeing earth as a giant (water) cooling plant with a built-in thermostat must be pretty original….
But it was only soon after that I stumbled on a paper from someone who had already been there, done that …. well, God bless him for that!
i.e. if you want to prove a point, you always do need at least two witnesses!
Look here (if you have the time):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
But note my step 6. The Svensmark theory holds that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) initiate cloud formation. I have not seen this, but apparently this has been proven in laboratory conditions. So the only real variability in global temperature could be caused by the amount of GCR reaching earth. In turn, this depends on the activity of the sun, i.e. the extent of the solar magnetic field exerted by the sun on the planetary system. We are now coming out of a period where this field was bigger and more GCR was bent away from earth (this is what we, skeptics, say really caused “global warming”, mostly).
But apparently now the solar geomagnetic field is heading for an all time low.
Look here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/07/suns-magnetic-index-reaches-unprecedent-low-only-zero-could-be-lower-in-a-month-when-sunspots-became-more-active/
Note that in the first graph, if you look at the smoothed monthly values, there was a tipping point in 2003 (light blue line). I cannot ignore the significance of this. I noted similar tipping points elsewhere round about that same time, for example from about the same time an increase is noted in earth’s albedo. To me it seems for sure that we are now heading for a period of more cloudiness and hence a period of global cooling. If you look at the 3rd graph, it is likely that there wil be no sun spots visible by 2015. This is confirmed by the paper on global cooling by Easterbrook:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/
In the 2nd graph of his presentation, Easterbrook projects global cooling into the future. These are the three lines that follow from the last warm period. If the cooling follows the top line we don’t have much to worry about and the weather will be similar to what we had in the previous (warm) period. However, indications are already that we have started following the trend of the 2nd line, i.e. cooling based on the 1880-1915 cooling. In that case it will be the coldest from 2015 to 2020 and the climate will be comparable to what it was in the fifties and sixties. I survived that time, so I guess we all will be fine, if this is the right trendline.
Note that with the third line, the projection stops somewhere after 2020. So if things go that way, we don’t know where it will end. Unfortunately, earth does not have a heater with a thermostat that switches on if it gets too cold. Too much ice and snow causes more sunlight to be reflected from earth. Hence, the trap is set. This is known as the ice age trap. This is why the natural state of earth is that of being covered with snow and ice.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data
However, man is resourceful and may find ways around this problem if we do start falling into a little ice age again. As long as we are not ignorant and listen to the so-called climate scientists who really have other agenda’s. A green agenda is still useless if it has the wrong items on the agenda… Obviously: As Easterbrook notes, global cooling is much more disastrous for humans than global warming.
Note that in Easterbrook’s projection graph, the line showing the increase and decrease in global temperatures of the northern latitude is dashed. It looks like the northern hemisphere is always getting the brunt of the extreme weather.
So if you get tired of all that ice and snow, you may know that you are always most welcome to come and stay with us here, in the southern hemisphere!
Henry from South Africa
R. Gates:
“Especially take a look at the trend line of anomolies…”
Translation: Down is up, black is white, evil is good, and global warming cause global cooling.
You want anomalies? I’ll give you anomalies. 1928 -2008 December anomalies: click
Note the trend line.
Seems to me that increased snow fall in north temperate zones in fact IS a consequence of global warming (HEY I’M A FREAKING SKEPTIC STOP SHOOTING AT ME!) and note I said warming not AGW.
Look at any temperature data set broken down by latitude, and you will see that variance in the temperate and arctic zones is much higher than the quatorial. The south hemisphere tends to lag but due to preponderance of land mass in northern they oscillate together. When equatorial is up a bit, arctic is up a lot, and vice versa. Here’s a plot using nasa/giss (yeah I know, suspect data, just look at the pretty lines for a moment a bear with me) of global vs arctic means:
http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/global-versus-equatorial-versus-arctic1.png
This has what to do with snow? Convection processes are driven by temperature differential. Now the earth spinning in circles etc messes up the nice neat convection circulation we would otherwise get, but it is still there. So, in a warming cycle (like we just had) the increase in temperature differential between poles and equator would speed up convection processes. Cold air moving south would pick up more moisture due to more air moving plus higher temps, convect up at equator, spill back toward poles, and as it cools on the way… drop first more rain, and then farther north/south, more snow.
So warming should in fact, cause more snow. What’s the time delay between the warming and the snow? Dunno. But the increase snowfall would result in an an increased negative feedback as more sunlight is reflected out by the snow. Increased temp rise in the arctic zones would cause increased radiance at arctic zones out of proportion to over all earth warming, hence also a negative feedback. As the momentum of these things exceeds the momentum is the factors inducing the warming trend, we enter a cooling trend. As the differential between temp at equator and poles drops, convection starts to slow down.
So yes, warming should cause increased snowfall. Which should cause cooling. whats the time lag? again I dunno, but probably years if not decades and certainly complicated by all other sorts of factors.
Steve Goddard (08:06:04) :
“The graph you linked shows an upwards winter trend over the last 20 years, and the autumn graph shows an even stronger upwards trend over the last 30 years.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1 ”
A little sleight of hand, Steven! You’re not showing a plot of winter or spring extents, you’re just picking a single month, January. The other winter months show quite different trends. To get anything statistically significant you need to aggregate the data.
There’s no statistically significant trend in either the winter or fall data, but spring and summer both show snow cover significantly decreasing over the past decades.
Slightly OT, but gore has been found:
http://i45.tinypic.com/t64it5.jpg
For those who think global warming is causing more snow: click
Have been looking into the blizzards of 1888. There were at least TWO – one on Jan 12, centered around the mid-west (also called the schoolchildren’s blizzard, and 500 people died), and a second paralyzed the East Coast in March 9 (also called Great White Hurricane, and 400 people died – 200 in NYC alone) .
So let the climate scientists explain how those were caused by increased CO2.
Steve Goddard (07:31:31) :
Increased precipitation + increased warmth = more rain at low latitudes. Not heavy snow in the deep south.
Global warming so far is around 0.7°C in the last half century. This is far smaller than the seasonal temperature range and far smaller than the temperature range of normal weather variations.
Let’s suppose that you occasionally get a spell of weather down to -10°C in New York – I have no idea whether this is realistic but it’s just to illustrate the point, so bear with me. You might expect, with the influence of anthropogenic global warming, to see -9.3°C instead. This is still cold! If it snows at -10°C, it will still snow at -9.3°C. It will not rain instead. In a warmer world you will tend to see *heavier* snowfall when it does snow, as we all know by now.
Global warming isn’t going to stop the weather from happening, so you will still get unusual cold spells as well as record-breaking warm spells – it’s just that the cold spells will become less frequent, and the warm spells more so. I’m sure you’ve seen the evidence that record high temperatures now outnumber record low temperatures 2 to 1 in the US.
So, 0.7°C of global warming does not preclude the occurrence of heavy snow in the deep south. We still have weather, and the weather still has large natural variability.
Does that makes sense?
Vincent (and many others). Forget the “ice-age” references in this article, they are nonsense. Ice ages are caused by changes in the shape or our orbit around the sun – primarily caused by the pull of other planets in the solar system – called the Milankovitch cycles after the man who discovered them.
They make it quite possible to predict an ice age, and we are not yet at the position in the cycles to indicate an ice age just yet. Just type Milankovitch into a Wikipedia search to get a fairly mind-boggling explanation.
It is quite true that ice ages are marked by a move south of the snow line, but the important snow line is the SUMMER snow line.
The point was that snow and ice from the winter did not melt in the summer because it was too cold. First of all there was permafrost and then permanently lying snow that lasted the year round. If most of the snow from the winter melts in the summer, it has to start from scratch each year and the ice age never gets a chance to progress.
Right now we are seeing dramatically reduced summer snow, particularly an early spring melt in March and April. 35 years ago there was on average 4 million square kilometres of lying snow in the Northern Hemisphere by August each year. Now there is less than 2 million square kilometres.
The combination of a rising winter snow cover with a falling summer snow cover is an odd (probably) natural phenomenon and needs further research – but it is NOT an indication of an ice age.
Now I get it !!! Since record cold is caused by increasing warmth, that is why as hades gets hotter, hell will freeze over! Brilliant 😉
Smokey, that graph you posted above to R.Gates, could you give us chapter and verse please on where it comes from?
thanks
V
Steve Goddard (08:30:50) :
“The 205,000km2 number I just quoted isn’t accurate.”
You’ve messed up more than that. Your plot doesn’t overlay the Rutgers’ data:
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/2466/goddardvsrutgers.png
Please try again.
Slightly OT, if we are entering a Dalton Minimum, what, if anything, happened to sea level heights during the last one?
On the Phil Jones discussion, some people are suggesting that cold spells did not occur during the MWP. So you see, this warming is unprecedented!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/
Will the real sophists please stand up?
Thank you
Tom P, you make some interesting counter points. I think interest should focus on the North American continent as that appears to be most affected by a negative AO. What are your thoughts on what would happen under a strongly negative AO oscillation, cold Atlantic oscillation, cold PDO oscillation, and El Nino-like jet streams? I ask this because it seems intuitive to say that the Jet Stream has to be wet enough to produce precip. It has to collide with cold air masses to dump that as snow, and it has to be in a Southern track to dump that load so far south. And it has to maintain this pattern, off and on, for decades.
davidmhoffer (08:40:33) :
I agree. Your explanation is a bit different and I can see that. We are both saying increased water vapor will cool and I agree there too. You say snow fall and I said increase in the evaporation/ condensation cycle due to a warmer oceans. NASA did state the temperature of the top 700 meters of all oceans have increased since 1955 by 0.18 degF. How long it takes to shed that excess energy if irradiance stays low and the earth is warmer than that irradiation level will support, I don’t know.
Earth’s incoming heat energy has far more influence on the climate warming / cooling than any CO2 or other greenhouse gases’ effects. Albedo is the important factor that influences incoming heat energy. Anything that reflects sunlight is important, such as ice, snow, high altitude dust or other reflective particles, and of course white clouds. Except for Chu’s white rooftops. Those are laughable due to the very small area involved and the high cost to make them white.
Tom P,
Again, the Rutgers data for December-February (meteorological winter) showing a strong upwards trend in snow extent over the last 20 years.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdHFzTFVnTlVrYnV0bEpxLWt5aXE2UEE&oid=1&v=1266251373996
I’m not sure what it is going to take to keep you from thinking that you are being fooled.
My apologies to the list for an OT entry. Unfortunately, when I try to enter the Tips thread it crashes my browser.
On Accuweather; Joe Bastardi has a video topic explaining his thoughts on the PDO, AMO, forecasting temperatures, and AGW. “The “American Pie” February: Food For Thought”
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?channel=VBLOG_BASTARDI&title=Joe Bastardi
A I said before:
Time magazine / CNN is still with AGW
because this is where the big money is still flowing
THE SNOW IS BECAUSE OF AGW!!!
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962294,00.html?artId=1962294?contType=article?chn=sciHealth
Onset of a new Dalton Minimum goes mainstream:
By David Archibald
http://www.icecap.us
Anthony:
Given that The Guardian has just posted a piece which, surprise, surprise, trumpets Menne’s paper and trashes your work, perhaps it’s worth doing a posting on the subject to catch the eye of any Guradian readers coming here as a result – possibly for the first time.
“Scientists dispute climate sceptic’s claim that US weather data is useless”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/climate-sceptic-us-weather-data
Tom P,
I don’t know what dates the Rutgers plot uses for winter. I plotted their raw data for (December+January+February)/3
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/files/moncov.nhland.txt
You can see the spreadsheet here.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tqsLUgNUkbutlJq-kyiq6PA&single=true&gid=0&output=html
Plot it yourself if you think you are being fooled. Both graphs show warming.