Guest post by Steven Goddard
According to Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, last week’s Northern Hemisphere winter snow extent was the second highest on record, at 52,166,840 km2. This was only topped by the second week in February, 1978 at 53,647,305 km2. Rutgers has kept records continuously for the last 2,227 weeks, so being #2 is quite an accomplishment.
Daily Snow – February 13, 2010 (Day 44)
Source : Rutgers University Global Snow Lab
According to Rutgers University data through mid February, Northern Hemisphere winter snow extent has been increasing at a rate of over 100,000 km2 per year.
As discussed on WUWT, the implication is that Northern Hemisphere snow cover has only extended this far south one other time, since Rutgers University started keeping records. Additionally, North American snow extent broke its all time record last week. Canada is normally completely covered with snow in the winter (except for Olympic venues) so the implication is that the US had more snow last week than has been seen in at least the last 44 years.
Two of the fundamental precepts of global warming theory are that the tropics are supposed to expand, and the Arctic is supposed to warm disproportionately and shrink.
Expanding tropics ‘a threat to millions’
By Steve Connor, Science Editor The Independent
Monday, 3 December 2007
The tropical belt that girdles the Earth is expanding north and south, which could have dire consequences for large regions of the world where the climate is likely to become more arid or more stormy, scientists have warned in a seminal study published today. Climate change is having a dramatic impact on the tropics by pushing their boundaries towards the poles at an unprecedented rate not foreseen by computer models, which had predicted this sort of poleward movement only by the end of the century.
Arctic Ice Melting at Alarming Pace as Temperatures Rise
New studies show that the region is warming even faster than many scientists had feared
By Thomas Omestad
Posted December 16, 2008
New studies being released this week indicate that climate change is exerting massive and worrying change on the Arctic region—reducing the volume of ice, releasing methane gas into the atmosphere, and dramatically raising air temperatures in some parts of the Arctic. The findings will give fresh urgency to international deliberations on the next global climate change pact planned for December 2009 in Copenhagen. The studies also will likely intensify international pressure on the incoming Obama administration to embrace major cuts in the emission of greenhouse gases in an effort to help stabilize global temperatures. NASA scientists will reveal that more than 2 trillion tons of land ice on Greenland and Alaska, along with in Antarctica, have melted since 2003. Satellite measurements suggest half of the loss has come from Greenland. Melting of land ice slowly raises sea levels.
The World Meteorological Organization, a United Nations agency, is also reporting that ice volume in the Arctic this year fell to its lowest recorded level to date.
Experts from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado will further reveal that temperatures this fall in some Arctic areas north of Alaska were 9 or 10 degrees Fahrenheit above average. The long-predicted phenomenon is known as “Arctic amplification.” As global air temperatures increase, the Arctic tends to show greater changes because the ice pack that once reflected solar heat is reduced in scope. More heat is therefore absorbed. The study is being discussed at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.
The last time that snow extended this far south was in the 1970s, when climatologists were worried about the onset of an ice age, and some suggested that we needed to melt the polar ice caps by covering them with soot.
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
Time Magazine Monday, Jun. 24, 1974
Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
During the 1970s the southern snow cover was seen as a sign of an impending ice age, and the solution was to melt the polar ice caps. In 2010, the nearly identical snow cover is a sign of out of control global warming and the solution is to shut down modern civilization.
Ice age or a fiery tipping point? What do readers think?
Sponsored IT training links:
Complete 642-832 prep course with 70-646 dumps and EX0-101 practice exam to help you successfully complete your certification.
Expanding snow and ice coverage. It is observable and in no way supports the claim of melting and sea level rising.
Looks like a hockey stick coming up. A dangerous looking one if it continues. Catastrophic snow increases. The governments will know how to stop this global cooling.
As anyone who has seen “The Day After Tomorrow” knows, a sure sign of runaway global warming is a complete global freeze.
Obvious, in’it?
2010-44 = 1966.
Guess that puts it right back into the last cooling period.
That was quick.
So much for barbecue weather in winter.
AGW ran up the hill to roast a pair of Ice Caps,
AGW fell down, and broke it’s crown, and snow came tumbling after.
Here in Lincoln, NE, we’ve had continuous snow cover since the first week of December, over 10 weeks. This is the longest stretch of snow cover in the 18 years I’ve lived here.
And since snow cover limits daytime warming, it hasn’t gone above 45 F in that period (most of the time, of course, it’s far below freezing).
… do you have any data on snow depth? We haven’t had much snow this winter in Newfoundland (so far).
Cities along the Colorado Front range have had snow cover most of the time since the first week in October. My favorite UEA mail below:
Just wishful thinking: “Breaking News: Al Gore’s house collapses after a giant snow storm completely covered the Nobel Peace Prize laurate’s residence”
The Gore Effect.
Steven,
Imagine the entrenched bureaucratic arrogance had we in 1975 put our climate fate in the hands of “scientists.” Their trillion dollar efforts would have apparently yielded such great success by the 1990s we’d be facing dangerous warming. Except this time they’d have had decades of power consolidation with which to implement their will. Thus more trillions later we find ourselves with smug super EPA types taking credit for the last decade of climate stability.
Anthony,
Wouldn’t it be the ultimate irony if your LED hall lights were suddenly illegal?
jon,
According to Accuweather, Europe is buried in unusually deep snow.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&article=8
You almost the that the weather comes in cycles with extremes followed by reversion toward the mean.
Looks like panic has set in over at RealClimate…read the comments
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/
Surely this was retrospectively forecast as part of AGW-theory. Or if it wasn’t it soon will be.
And if it really wasn’t, then its weather…not climate.
Remember : more snow = global warming
Less snow = less precipitation = drought = global warming
Simples!
I don’t know but I keep dreaming of an image of Al Gore surrounded by people pelting him with snowballs…
Maybe this is how ice ages come about.
Haven’t you heard? More snow is a sign the planet is warming!!
This is preciesely what my True Believer(tm) friends telling me. I wish I was kidding.
It’s really incredible how they rationalize….
Let’s keep checking for the onset of spring as evidenced by ice breakup in rivers and other signs. Will the extensive snow cover delay it this year?
Warming: The snow line moves North.
Cooling: The snow line moves South.
Easy to understand.
And next to impossible to justify the idea that Global Warming means more snow farther south.
Is there an equivalent chart to dec-feb_snow_ext.png for the Southern Hemisphere?
Perhaps this is the beginning of a runaway global cooling effect. The interglacials lasted normally 11,500 years and this interglacial is excactly 11,500 years old.
Ice age is coming and all we can do is put more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere to compensate its devastating effects.
Precisely what is expected from Global Warming.
“According to Rutgers University data through mid February, Northern Hemisphere snow extent has been increasing at a rate of over 100,000 km2 per year.”
Dear God! How long do we have, before Global Warming pushes the snow line down to the equator?
After big snows big melts and big floods follow..unless it happens an improbable repetition of a “year without a summer”.
Let’s wait and see. Any forecasts?
realclimate have posted a thread on the UK TV coverage about-face. Instead of getting their usual support they seem to be getting some stick for not correcting the ridiculous warming scare stories of the past. Join in! http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/comment-page-3/#comment-160840
You would almost think that weather comes in cycles with extremes followed by reversions towards the mean. Its a radical idea I know.
“Man is making the earth too warm, Threat of melting polar caps”, it quoted a prominent physicist as saying that the levels of the oceans could rise 12m and flood vast areas of the Earth in the next half century unless atmospheric temperatures were controlled.
Dr Joseph Kaplan, professor of physics at the University of California. Dr Kaplan said the melting of the ice caps was being speeded by man’s tremendous use of oil and gas which was “changing the Earth’s atmosphere”.
Source: The New Zealand Herald. The year: Tuesday, April 9, 1957
The 50 years have come and gone but his predictions have come to naught.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10626802
Anthony
The good guys are definitely winning.
I have just read Real Climate’s weekly blurb and a lot of the accompanying comments.
Not a sniff of real science or facts, as in your posts. Just abuse, whines and hysterics.
It is well worth a read, because it really is a little sad.
@rbateman
2010-44 = 1966.
Guess that puts it right back into the last cooling period.
Also the year England won the World Cup. Here’s hoping more than climate goes in cycles!
The snows will end when spring will come, and it will be soon.
I bet nobody can debunk this: “winters have been getting shorter — spring arrives 10-14 days earlier than it did 20 years ago”
http://bit.ly/aqQ7d4
Kevin Trenbeth is a blatant liar:
“Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.
“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes …. snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined. ”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
Steven Goddard:
“According to Rutgers University data through mid February, Northern Hemisphere snow extent has been increasing at a rate of over 100,000 km2 per year.”
Not if you plot all the data:
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/396/snowextent.png
or look at the summer extent:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=3
The overall effect is shown here:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1
Everyone knows it is snow volume that is important – not area.
(It is a rotten snow anyway)
Has anybody run any tree ring proxies on this?
8>)
It’s déja vu all over again…
The global climate fraud being exposed these days is mind bogglingly overwhelming. I first heard about the previous topic about the Antarctic ice extent being underestimated by 50% on the Alex Jones radio interview with Lord Monckton. This revelation is huge.
Let me make a relevant observation concerning planetary pollution.
If the US manufacturing base was not shipped overseas to China and other 3rd world countries, The current pollution level of the planet would have been significantly reduced. 3rd world countries do not have pollution control laws in place like the US does. We have laws that require scrubbers on smoke stacks as well as laws that require pollution control devices installed on automobiles such as catalytic converters.
So let me be very clear about this observation;
SHIPPING US MANUFACTURING JOBS OVERSEAS CAUSES MORE PLANETARY POLLUTION, NOT LESS!
“Ice age or a fiery tipping point?”
Or maybe just weather?
Is it Alaska??
Nah, its North Carolina…..LOL
http://www.highcountrywebcams.com/webcameras_Beech_Charlies.htm
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
According to Rutgers University data through mid February, Northern Hemisphere snow extent has been increasing at a rate of over 100,000 km2 per year …”
And in Antarctica
“Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade.” (4/09)
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=838
Snow coverage increasing in the Northern Hemisphere and sea ice increasing in Antarctica, yet the National Snow and Ice Data Center reports:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews
“February 3, 2010
Despite cool temperatures, ice extent remains low
Despite cool temperatures over most of the Arctic Ocean in January, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below normal. By the end of January, ice extent dropped below the extent observed in January 2007. Ice extent was unusually low in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, the one major area of the Arctic where temperatures remained warmer than normal.
Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for January 2010 was 13.78 million square kilometers (5.32 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data.
Arctic sea ice extent averaged for January 2010 was 13.78 million square kilometers (5.32 million square miles). This was 1.08 million square kilometers (417,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for January, but 180,000 square kilometers (69,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in January 2006.
Ice extent remained below normal over much of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, including the Barents Sea, part of the East Greenland Sea, and in Davis Strait. The only region with above-average ice extent was on the Pacific side of the Bering Sea”
Is the “problem” that “normal” is based only on a 12 year average?
I realize we need many decades of data to see the effect of all known and to be discoverd factors that determine ice extent.
Isn’t there a data base of Arctic Ice extent going back further in time using shipping records and ice research vessels?
welcome to the cold PDO.
enjoy your 30 year stay.
JonesII (10:41:31) :
I haven’t heard of his literal house collapsing yet.
However…
Can you picture Al with a snow shovel? Say ‘cheese’.
I think the late Scots poet Hugh McDiarmid (who is unlikely to have been a warmist), best described it thus:
Lourd on my hert as winter lies
The state that Scotland’s in the day.
Spring to the North has aye come slow
Bot noo dour winter’s like to stay
For guid,
And no’ for guid!
O wae’s me on the weary days
When it is scarce grey licht at noon;
It maun be a’ the stupid folk
Diffusin’ their dullness roon and roon
Like soot
That keeps the sunlicht oot.
Nae wonder if I think I see
A lichter shadow than the neist
I’m fain to cry: ‘The dawn, the dawn!
I see it brakin’ in the East.’
But ah
– It’s juist mair snaw!
kyle (11:20:49) : Wrote
“The snows will end when spring will come, and it will be soon.
I bet nobody can debunk this: “winters have been getting shorter — spring arrives 10-14 days earlier than it did 20 years ago”
http://bit.ly/aqQ7d4”
Winters are arriving much earlier in the year now too. This is because of the 3 year long solar minimum. Snow storms were wide spread across the US this past October, Snow on many pumpkins if you could find one. Pumpkins were in short supply last year because of the early winter and crop failures.
Do a little research Kyle.
Broomfield CO snow storm in late October 2009
Tom P,
My bad. I meant to say “winter snow extent has been increasing at 100,000km2 per year” which is the latest value on the spreadsheet since 1989.
I suggest that we spray soot over some specific spot, that way all the heat will go there. I mean after all they were going to spray soot on the north pole to fend of the oncoming ice age back in the 70s. Using the science developed and reported in several beer-reviewed journals it may be possible to concentrate all global warming on to the uninhabited island of Rockall if we spray enough soot on it. President Obama is currently readying a plan which he will submit to Congress which will request 800 bn for a soot jobs stimulus package. The inhabitants of Rockall (primarily seagulls) were unavailable for comment.
Nick B.
Dec-Feb in the Sothern Hemisphere is the season of Summer, so one would hope that snow and ice extent in the Sothern Hemisphere for Dec – Feb is not all that great. Perhaps winter snow and ice extent for the Southern Hemisphere would be more appropriate?
AGW is rumored to be considering a move to Venus.
Reason given: Homesick.
That’s funny, I could have sworn the War of the Worlds didn’t end like this.
DMI shows current Arctic ice extent as highest in their record for the current date.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Kyle,
Spring HAS BEEN coming sooner than it did 20 years ago; however, I doubt that that is what you will see in the Spring of 2010. Heavy snow-cover over a large extent of the Northern Hemisphere will delay spring. Snow cover increases albedo, and melting snow takes up energy which would normally cause heating. It is possible that spring will come early this year, but it isn’t very likely.
PeterB,
There is very little land in the Southern Hemisphere that ever accumulates snow, outside of Antarctica and high mountain peaks. The southern continents are too far away from the pole.
Checklist for all SH visitors travelling to the NH.
1. Thermal underwear. 2. Snow boots. 3. Crampons. 4. Ice hammer. 5. Thermal snow suit. 6. Beach towel. 7. Sun block (+100). 8. Baggies. 9. Umbrella (sun/rain). 10. Heater. 11. Fan. 12. Balaclava. 13. Sun hat. 14. Hot chocolate. 15. Kool Aid – Check
Tom P (11:25:23) :
Steven Goddard:
“According to Rutgers University data through mid February, Northern Hemisphere snow extent has been increasing at a rate of over 100,000 km2 per year.”
Not if you plot all the data:
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/396/snowextent.png”
So Rutgers included data from 1965 and the author chose data only from 1990??. Is this true?
As I have previously said, despite the cool PDO, negative AO, AMO heading south, low solar activity, volcanic activity- winter temps and winter length just are no where near what they were in my youth (1960-1980). No 30 below nights, snow cover in April, whole weeks that struggle to get out of the single digits above zero. I came to this site years ago, hoping to find evidence that global warming was not real. Still looking.
BillyBob (11:25:15) :
“Kevin Trenbeth is a blatant liar”
No, Kevin Trenbeth was correct when he stated “…snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1
As for Steven Goddard, please read his own comments at (11:53:28).
Greensboro, NC – Our local weatherman last night showed the average temp for February is running 5.7F below normal. We’ve had a run of about 3 weeks of temperatures not reaching average levels. Makes me wonder where Al Gore is hanging out these days!
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/reports/EXECSUM
Looks like California agriculture will be around for at least one more year (sorry Secretary Chu).
🙂
Antarctica is climactically isolated from the rest of Planet Earth.
Unfortunately for the N. Hemisphere, the same is not true for the Arctic.
It’s blowing down on top of us.
In a zero-sum game ( the rosiest scenario) we are the zeroes buried under the x-flakes of snow.
Have you had your hot bowl of AGW Chowder today? No?
Better get a move on, then, because Lisa is fixing to appropriate your heating fuel, and she doesn’t take Arctic Express.
I find myself in need of some info and, of course, I ask here and here alone.
The vaunted ghg/co2 catastrophe scenario postulates a warm Arctic.
Why?
To keep this in perspective, it is very important to look at the snow cover anomalies over the past 44 years:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1
Do you see a trend? It certainly isn’t up…
Where did all that moisture for the snow come from? Warmer, not cooler, oceans. Warmer oceans are part of AGW models, not some pending Ice Age.
January 2010 also saw record warmth in the troposphere. Is there pattern here? Yep…warmer oceans, warmer troposphere, more snow in Winter, all part of AGW models, until winters in get so warm that the precip falls as rain. But of course this will fall on deaf ears as some will get thier laugh at the thought of warmth and snow combined as they fail to understand the finer nuances…
http://portal.fma.fi/sivu/www/baltice/ice_forecast
We can now WALK from Sweden to Russia if it wasn’t for the
pesky icebreakers .
//Lars
Michael,
“So let me be very clear about this observation;
SHIPPING US MANUFACTURING JOBS OVERSEAS CAUSES MORE PLANETARY POLLUTION, NOT LESS!”
The passage of Cap and Trade would result the acceleration of that transfer, of course.
Steve Goddard (11:53:28) :
My bad. I meant to say “winter snow extent has been increasing at 100,000km2 per year”
Cherry picking?
The snow is likely the result of the El Nino pumping more moisture into the air coupled with strong negative oscillations of the NAO, pushing storm patterns a bit further south over land areas. Satellite temperatures globally are still very warm and the global sea ice extent is below average. Nothing here is surprising or evidence of significant climate change one way or another.
All of this snow can only have a negative impact on temperatures (increased albedo), but the amount of land covered above the average is still small potatoes compared to the total area of the planet surface, so the change in albedo will be small.
The satellite data is still the way to go for following global atmospheric temperatures and it is running warm right now, but I bet it will drop quickly as the El Nino begins to fade.
I don’t know if this has been seen here at WUWT yet but it was inevitable that the infamously recycled Hit|3r video would have yet another climate spin take. This one is quite good. Don’t drink anything while watching. You have been warned… 8^)
[Snip. Anthony’s policy is no more embedded Hitler videos. The hot link to this one has been posted a couple of times, though. ~dbs]
When something proves everything, it really proves nothing. A theory must be falsifiable in order to be scientific. Part of the way the AGW alarmists have tried to insolate themselves from criticism is by refusing to define the circumstances under which their theory can be falsified. Then when the falsifying data arrive and are obvious to all, they suddenly claim that their theory explains that too.
Looking merely at the behaviors of the alarmists in this matter of theory falsifiability, even if you know little or nothing about the content of their arguments, you can tell that something is wrong, terribly wrong.
Does anyone know of a source for near term planetary albedo data? it would be interesting to see if the recent NH weather is having a detectable effect on the albedo numbers.
I visited Realclimate to check out the warmista’s current views and I learnt something – a credibility thingy named ‘the Overton Window’ which, apparently, causes swings in the public’s interests. I went to Primary school with the Overton girls and they were cute but feisty – and no boy peeked through their windows, as Old Man Overton woulda killed then skinned alive any boy who did.
Seriously, the game is up over there when they start using pop Sociology to justify their maunderings.
JonesII (11:06:44) :
Forecasts? Hmm.
Sadly I have it on good authority that we have been extremely fortunate with the timing of the climate and Climategate. The go-to-guy ’round here says 2010 warm, 2011 warm, 2012 warm, 2013 warm… but then watch out. And for decades. Cold. We have to push home our advantage, fast, because the shrieking and rending of hair will resume.
How’s that for a forecast. If he hadn’t been right 95% of the time since perfecting his system a couple of years ago I wouldn’t give him the time of day, or WUWT his predictions. Especially as it would seem highly unlikely given our current perspective.
I wonder what the expanding ice sheets in the Antarctic and increasing snow coverage in the Northern Hemisphere mean to the earth’s global ‘climate’. Are these factors more important than than the increasing average temperatures that we have seen over some centuries since the LIA?
What I am asking here is why we almost solely equate the climate with the average temperature, which is only one parameter amongst the many which define climate. The parameters which are relevant to biological life include air temperature, wind speed and direction, rainfall, extent of snow, ocean temperatures, ocean current circultion, sunshine hours, cloud cover, atmospheric chemical composition, dust in the atmosphere, humidity, air pressure, and many others.
Climate must mean different things to different people. A cereal farmer in North America might be more concerned with snow extent and persistence than temperature, if it meant that too much snow delayed the start of the planting season. If you are a recreational yachtsman, then wind speed and direction patterns define your definition of a suitable climate; temperature has little to do with yacht performance.
We measure air temperatures by averaging a daily temp max and a temp min. But what if the max temp is only achieved for a few minutes of the day in one area, but is sustained over some hours in another? They may have the same average, but the second area would have been exposed longer; a different experience. Should we not measure total daily energy input changes instead?
So what is climate? Not the simple long term aggregating of reported weather parameters surely, because they are not adequate descriptions of energy changes going on in the atmosphere, ground and the oceans. The definition of a Climate must also include the objects upon which has its effects. Thus there are at least a human climate, a plant life climate, an oceanic life climate, and a climate with influences on the geology of the earth.
I’ve looked at earlier El Niño years with similar patterns, and the 1941-42 El Niño was somewhat similar, with a very strong winter in Europe. 1941-42 was approximately at the top of the previous warm period, after that the world saw more than three decades of gradually cooling temperatures. I think we may be in for 30 gradually cooler years, and that politicians should finally start worrying equally about a scenario for an abnormally cold 2040 than they now worry about a warm 2040. Or preferably, worry MORE about that scenario, since it’s much, much more scary. It’s a scenario where food supplies get really scarce because of cold and dry weather in large parts of the world. A first step would be to stop the dangerous experiments with bio fuel immediately, and rather support research into real long term energy solutions, like Thorium nuclear power and, ultimately, fusion power.
Here’s a nuance: 4 of the top 6 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extents measured since 1979 have taken place in the last 5 years:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png
As temps at the South Pole continue to decline …
We know, we know … cooler South Pole, more sea ice, but warmer continent, bright red, etc.
Michael (11:51:44) :
“Winters are arriving much earlier in the year now too. This is because of the 3 year long solar minimum. Snow storms were wide spread across the US this past October”
Ski areas in Vermont opened weeks later than usual this year due to temps too warm to get or make snow.
Well I would say that there are in fact many of us who DO associate more precipitation with warmer ocean temperatures. But the AGW enthusiasts have insisted that global warming leads to droughts and water shortages; that has not been the claim of skeptics.
See Frank Wentz et al, SCIENCE Jul-7 2007, “How much more Rain will Global Warming bring ?” They say 7% per deg C rise in mean global surface temperature.
Also not all of us deny that there may be, and have been recently warming of the oceans. We just don’t blame it on either CO2 or humans.
As to snow coverage increase; my understanding is that “ice ages” are associated with increased snow and ice coverage; not necessarily with lower global temperatures. A steady increase in northern hemisphere winter snow coverage, would be quite expected with any onset of an ice age; not that I am suggesting that is the current situation.
Many of us don’t doubt that the collection of thermometers presently used (and those used in the past) to represent surface temperatures (lower atmosphere) have shown recent periods of “warming”; that being defined as an increase in the output numbers derived from that collection of thermometers.
As to whether that thermometer assemblage does or ever did represent the near surface temperature of the entire earth; that is an entirely different issue, and at least some of us say it does not.
It’s the insistence that recent weather and climate changes have been shown unequivocally to be the result of human activities, that some of us disagree with.
Well i will agree without reservation that the somewhat recent submergence of the City of New Orleans; was a direct consequence of human activity; namely building a swimming pool around the entire city; and then waiting for Gaia to come along and fill it for us.
Gavin “lets one through the gate” at surrealclimate. Probably so he can snipe at it. Trouble is I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the absurdity of the…..
“[Response: You are confusing alarming with alarmist. And I note that your entire argument is based on your perception of the presentation, and not any actual statement of fact. – gavin]”
Any facts in the article? Not that I could see. More like an op-ed in defence of a rumour wrapped inside a dream.
It’s having severe adverse effects on wildlife too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_8520000/newsid_8520300/8520306.stm
“Thousands of deer in Scotland are at risk of starving to death because of this year’s cold winter.
Deer mainly munch on grass and purple heather growing in the area.
But, because the weather’s so cold food is buried under snow and ice – meaning the deer can’t get to it and so huge numbers are dying of hunger.
Every year there’s a cull of female red deer, but many estates stopped it for this season when they realised lots of deer were dying.
Walkers in Scotland are being advised not to go near herds of deer as if the animals run away they might use up what little energy they have left.
Wildlife experts are hoping the weather gets better in the coming months. They’re worried that if there’s a cold spring even more deer could be lost.”
R. Gates (12:25:50)
“Where did all that moisture for the snow come from? Warmer, not cooler, oceans. Warmer oceans are part of AGW models, not some pending Ice Age.”
Are you saying its a previously unpredicted negative feed back?
North American snow cover, 16 Feb 2010:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/ARCHIVE/USA/2010/ims2010047_usa.gif
Northern Hemishphere snow cover, 17 Feb 2010:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/ARCHIVE/NHem/2010/ims2010047.gif
Northern Hemisphere ice, 17 Feb 2010:
http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/data/analysis/350_50.gif
Observed reality puts the lie to “scientific” hyper-speculation.
Imagine the tree-ring divergence problems the lingering snow
cover is producing for future Climateers.
The Independent newspaper’s “Expanding tropics ‘a threat to millions’” should be taken with a fistfull of sea salt bearing in mind they reported 10 years ago that “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” They were given the information from(CRU) of the University of East Anglia in which Dr David Viner said that within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
How rare has snow been in the last 3 years in the northern hemisphere?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
R. Gates (12:25:50) :
When we get snow in the UK like we had earlier this year it comes from the East. This is cold continental air, not warm maritime. When we get snow with a southerly wind, as we did also recently, it was returning maritime air that had picked up moisture and collided with cold air. Maritime and Returning Maritime
is always wet. Where is the cold air coming from?
Rather than look at the anomalies, I found the total ice extent by season to be more helpful.
Click on each season and you can make up your own mind.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
Very Interesting …. and complex.
Or should I just quote a famous scientist and say “Fascinating”‘?
“”” The OtherDan (12:09:06) :
Tom P (11:25:23) :
Steven Goddard:
“According to Rutgers University data through mid February, Northern Hemisphere snow extent has been increasing at a rate of over 100,000 km2 per year.”
Not if you plot all the data:
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/396/snowextent.png”
So Rutgers included data from 1965 and the author chose data only from 1990??. Is this true?
As I have previously said, despite the cool PDO, negative AO, AMO heading south, low solar activity, volcanic activity- winter temps and winter length just are no where near what they were in my youth (1960-1980). No 30 below nights, snow cover in April, whole weeks that struggle to get out of the single digits above zero. I came to this site years ago, hoping to find evidence that global warming was not real. Still looking. “””
Well if you search for the wrong thing you are bound to not find it. So did the anecdotal experience of your youth show that humans were not making global warming back then, like they are now.
If you want some anecdotal climate observations, I can give you one from just 30 minutes ago, as I went for my lunchtime walk in San Jose CA.
Normally, when I do that in February, it is already summer time in California; and the trees have had their blossoms, and now have new leaves.
In fact the set of trees that usually show me that behavior, have yet to sprout either blossoms or leaves; it looks like dead of winter foliage to me.
I must admit, that the daffodils have been showing for a couple of weeks now; but they are the exception.
As for proving there hasn’t been any man made global warming; we aren’t out to prove that; we just haven’t seen the proof from those who say that is and has happened. The onus of proof is on them; not us.
Now something isn’t going the way it is supposed to. Global Warming has stopped! What on Earth happened?
Big Al & Co., LLC, with financing from UN-known doners have probably been out seeding the clouds in the Northern Hemisphere since early December, trying to save us from ourselves. Soooo UN-Brilliant! Sooo UN-sell-fish! What a UN-man! What a classic UN-hero! Let’s kiss his UN-feet and nominate him for another UN-Nob-El Peas-prize.
R. Gates (12:25:50) :
To keep it in perspective, the nuances were named, the theory published, and the results didn’t match up with reality. Changing the theory in mid-stream to fit the cooling that could not be accounted for counts for nothing.
You either get it right the 1st time, or you get sent to the back of the line.
“You’ll be sorry” and “You can’t possibly understand” replies are not get-out-of Hypothetical Jail cards.
AGW, Global Warming, Climate Change, Day After Tomorrow, Global Warming causes Global Cooling…and whatever else gets dreamed up tomorrow… these things are less than convincing, and that is why they are being rejected.
Tom P,
I plotted the weekly data for the entire year (not just winter) and it turns out that for the last twenty years there has been an upwards trend of almost 14,000 km2/year.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdHBkREJtSmNlbm9xNnlza0JEcXUwZ2c&oid=1&v=1266440928003
Dr. Robert (10:44:55) :
Ever seen this page?
“The Al Gore Effect: Theoretical Basis”
http://brneurosci.org/gore.html
Leif,
Snow falls in the winter. Right?
Regardless, like I just posted the trend for the entire year is also upwards since 1989.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdHBkREJtSmNlbm9xNnlza0JEcXUwZ2c&oid=1&v=1266440928003
George E. Smith (13:07:21) :
“So Rutgers included data from 1965 and the author chose data only from 1990??. Is this true?”
Steven Goddard will confirm that he only chose data from 1989 in his plot. But only he can tell you why.
High precipitation would be a consequence of warmer oceans but as this season shows us for high snowfall it is necessary for there to be a strong negative Arctic Oscillation at the same time so that the warmed maritime air meets plenty of cold air in the mid latitudes and especially over the northern continents.
It seems to follow then that ice ages could develop when there is a long term persistence of warmer ocean surfaces and negative Arctic Oscillation. Probably for periods of thousands of years.
The AGW theory allows for warmer oceans and for the air circulation being pushed poleward with widening of the tropics. It also proposes more storms hence more precipitation in the tropics and mid latitudes but at the same time the subtropical dry regions are supposed to widen hence the fear of droughts.
The AGW theory does not allow for warmer oceans trying to widen the tropics but failing to do so because the negative mode of the Arctic Oscillation pushes back against it.
Under AGW theory the present scenario is impossible. A warm globe but the warmth failing to cross into the mid latitudes.
It’s interesting to note that the Arctic Oscillation is so very negative at the same time as the sun is less active. It was generally positive during the late 20th century when the sun was more active.
Coincidence or not ?
R. Gates – you pointed to the same graph I found.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1
This certainly does not agree with Steve’s plot. If you discount 2010 (for which data is still incomplete, but it is clearly going to be a “banner year” in terms of NH snow cover), then from 1989 through 2009 there is essentially zero trend.
Someone here asked if there are any predictions for this summer. Joe Bastardi has one….warmer!
” I will give the warming crowd a bone here.. you will probably have more summer than last year in populated areas so you can start banging home that drum and an uptick in global hurricane activity, especially the Atlantic, is on the way. So there hold your fire for now, you will get what you want to make your point, even as the overall temp starts to cool….”
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather
… and in our little corner of Ohio, it appears in February 2010
we will bury the February 1918 record for days of snow cover:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ussc/USSCAppController?action=snowcover_me_bymonth&state=33&station=HIRAM&coopid=333780
Now that’s Global Warming !
I see that Joe Bastardi puts the strength of the negative AO down to sulphur pollution in the upper atmosphere from volcanoes.
I think that might be wrong but time will tell.
With that much snow cover in the Northern hemisphere, we should expect a very low temperature anomaly from GISS. Wonder how they will hide the decline this time?
kyle (11:20:49) :
The snows will end when spring will come, and it will be soon.
I bet nobody can debunk this: “winters have been getting shorter — spring arrives 10-14 days earlier than it did 20 years ago”
http://bit.ly/aqQ7d4
The UK Daily Telegraph has a try:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7250517/Spectacular-spring-to-follow-the-big-freeze.html
O/T I’ve just seen the following post which reveals that SkepticalScience.com have released an “App” for the iPhone to enable users to rebuff any of us nasty “Deniers”
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/59845,news-comment,technology,climate-change-believers-fight-global-warming-sceptics-with-iphones
Keven Trenbeth is still a liar …. despite his defender here.
The last 7 January’s looks to me to snowier than any since the mid 1980’s
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1
December looks like no change has occurred
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=12
October looks quite robust:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=10
I’ll give you November
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=11
Feburary … the oughts look quite robust
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=2
Admittedly the mid 1970’s were snowier. But thast when they were predicting a little ice age.
kyle (11:20:49) :
“The snows will end when spring will come, and it will be soon.
I bet nobody can debunk this: “winters have been getting shorter — spring arrives 10-14 days earlier than it did 20 years ago””
Last I heard, Winter started on Dec. 21 and Spring starts on March 21. Did I miss a meeting or something?
I’m not sure why everyone is getting so excited. This past Autumn and this Winter we’ve seen a rather rare combination of El Nino and a negative AO. Why the AO went so low could perhaps be blamed on volcanic activity. In any event, these 2 oscillations helped build 2 strong areas of stubborn high pressure (one over Greenland and eastern Canada; the other over the Pacific Northwest). The large trough of low pressure in between has been the catalyst for the cold, snowy North American winter weather. For Europe, the Greenland block has assisted in providing the cold wet conditions over Western Europe.
If this pattern persists for another 4-8 weeks over North America, it could set up for quite an active severe weather season for the Southern Plains and Southeast; but, the Cornbelt could see pretty dry conditions for the planting season. El Nino is suppose to weaken by summer, which could mean a northern retreat of the southern branch of the polar jet during the hot months of June and July; this would equate to plenty of rain for the Northern Plains and Canada during the later half of summer.
Of course, all of this is mute if El Nino conditions persist through August. What is fascinating is how extensive El Nino is during its peak months. If you subtract the amount of warmth El Nino provided to the globe during January, this would have been one 20 coldest January’s since 1979. But, the distribution of cold air would have been different -especially in the SH.
I certainly hope it is NOT an ice age.
On the other hand, I do hope for enough prolonged cooling so that AGW is permanently put on ice.
I guess I’m kind of a Goldilocks: Not too hot, not too cold…just right.
O/T
The dawn of the Electric Monk: “Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency”
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/skeptical-science/id353938484?mt=8
“Thanks to an Australian solar physicist by the name of John Cook, you can access those skeptics’ arguments, and the science-based counter-arguments, on your iPhone.”
Once someone comes out with the skeptical version of the Good Book and with a bit of video game AI and Bluetooth we could simple put the phones on the table beside each other and have beer while the phones endlessly argue about whatever they have been programmed to believe.
I would expect that there will be a deeper book (deeper moves, better opens, and better end games) from the skeptical scientists shortly, then another from believers, and so on.
Electric Monks expounding on their beliefs.
Tweny years ago today I made a snowball and threw it at one of my kids, knocking him down. I repeated the experiment today. I stood in the exact same place, threw it just as hard, and I even checked in advance to ensure that it was the exact same kid. Despite all control factors being the same, the kid did not fall down, he didn’t even notice. This was an effect of global warming I did not expect, the density of snowballs dropping alarmingly. I was going to cut the snowball open and count the rings for future reference, but the kid was busy washing my face with it, another unexpected consequence of global warming.
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Spring coming sooner? Not according to the BBC who had me choking on my cereal this morning as they announced that spring was three weeks late “owing to the very cold winter”… shome mishtake shurely?
You can’t fool mother nature. Or is it you can fool the mothers at Nature. The socialist frauds that inhabit the MSM, academia and government will not be easily swayed to change their political thinking about the collaspe of the AGW fraud. I wrote congresswoman (D) CA. explaining the AGW CRU scam and she wrote back that it has not changed her mind one bit. The only way to defeat these non american socialist democrats is to vote their rears end out of office in the next elections.
Please note “Kyle” is a troll..
Last Spring/Early Summer, Utah had unusually wet spring which increased the relative humidity in dry climate. With the higher humidity, there was a cooler summer. It seemed to me that there was the same solar heat input, but the humidity kept the temperatures cooler than normal. More energy is required to heat the water in the air.
If the northern hemisphere follows the same pattern of increased humidity because of increased snow cover, it seems a cold summer is coming in the north.
PC (10:49:13) :
Looks like panic has set in over at RealClimate…read the comments
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/
Post 19 gives the game away, I reckon.
Steve Goddard (13:17:04), BillyBob (13:45:23) :
Here’s the annual northern hemisphere snow extent for the whole Rutgers’ dataset:
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/9341/annnhsnow.png
The trend is a statistically significant snow loss of 40,000 +/- 11,000 km^2 a year.
Actually, to report more accurately, snow cover showed no trend from 1989 through 2002. The increasing snow cover trend is manifest only in the last 8 years, pretty consistent with warming that stopped about 12 years ago. If all of the warming biases in the surface record were corrected there has probably been a cooling trend since about mid 1997, logically followed with some delay by increasing snow cover..
” shut down modern civilization ” Why is it that climate skeptics who totally distrust climate models freely accept the output of economic models?? Way back about 1993 Nordhaus started forecasting the economic disaster that would result from climate mitigation efforts. His work was renewed about 2007, before Kyoto, and picked up by other economic modellers, with testimony before Congress in 1998. In 1998 I had a running discussion with one of the modellers who testified, and learned that there were two fundamental, but unstated, assumptions underlying the models. The first was that there was no possibility of efficiency gains because possible efficiencies would already have been implemented by rational economic man (people don’t leave $10.00 bills lying on the sidewalk). The second treated the USA economy as a closed system, without taking into account the trade balance benefits of reducing fossil fuel imports. That is to say, the output from the models was meaningless. I have no idea how the referenced model is constructed, but I sure wouldn’t believe the output of any economic model until it had undergone the scrutiny that skeptics have applied to climate models.
The problem is that most climate skeptics want to believe that measures to address global warming (even if it did exist) would be disastrous. Actually, actions aimed at energy efficiency, nuclear and renewables would have major economic benefits. Be consistent you guys, distrust economic models too.
“dave ward (13:42:14) :
O/T I’ve just seen the following post which reveals that SkepticalScience.com have released an “App” for the iPhone to enable users to rebuff any of us nasty “Deniers”
”
Does it automatically fudge data? So you need no climatologist to fudge it?
BTW i have a new name for the AGW cult: Climatepunk. It’s not really science, it’s sort of punk, Climatepunk, like Steampunk or Cyberpunk.
Damn damn damn! Someone beat me to it:
Climatepunk
http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2009/11/04/the-next-big-punking/
Why did I choose 1989 as the start date? Because that is when the upwards trend started. It is also the period of time when we have experienced “unprecedented global warming” and have been told repeatedly that snow is disappearing at an alarming rate.
I don’t know if you’ve noted this yet: Christopher Horner of the CEI finally received the FOI response from NASA, originally requested in Aug. 2007. (only after his Notice of Intent to Sue). His Part 1 of a 4 Part Series can be found today at:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-—-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-—-part-one/?singlepage=true
leftymartin,
Look closer at your graph. The blue lines are winter and show a strong upwards trend.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1
The entire year also shows an upwards trend since 1989.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdHBkREJtSmNlbm9xNnlza0JEcXUwZ2c&oid=1&v=1266440928003
Hey, what do you bet that if it is shown that we are in a cooling phase, and more than just a “blip” in Global warming, that:
a) it is still caused by fossil fuel burning
b) the solution is the same whether we are warming or cooling….
Well, lets face, if Al Gore is expecting to make $$billions trading Carbon credits.
Presumably, as an even handed sort of guy, if we are cooling instead of heating it will make sense (to Al) to trade the credits back the other way and so Al can rake his share off the top whichever way the trade goes.
So carbon is not an actual root cause of anything, its just a means of keeping score. And that means that even if we prove to everyone’s satisfaction that CO2 has only a minor effect on the climate, it will have become our new eco-standard currency. (Just like most currencies were originally backed by gold but now the gold is unnecessary).
Incidentally, when burning fossil fuels, how much heat is contributed to the atmosphere from combustion and how much from CO2? does anyone know?
Ray,
You are correct. GISS shows a much smaller spike in January temperatures than UAH or RSS. I think the TLT satellite data at 14,000 feet is tainted by the strong negative AO, which created warmer air at higher elevations over Canada and Greenland. Satellites also showed a much larger spike than GISS during the 1998 El Nino.
Sam the Skeptic (14:20:29) :
Direct link to the comment in question:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/#comment-160576
Wow, I’m kinda surprised that one got through. Really hits the nail on the head doesn’t it?
davidmhoffer (14:12:23) :
Give this guy at least 100 additional mod points.
Just looking at John Steward. Making fun of Global Warming, Al Gore and scary stories.
Thats a tipping point.
R. Gates (12:25:50) :
To keep this in perspective, it is very important to look at the snow cover anomalies over the past 44 years:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1
Do you see a trend? It certainly isn’t up…
Where did all that moisture for the snow come from? Warmer, not cooler, oceans. Warmer oceans are part of AGW models, not some pending Ice Age.
January 2010 also saw record warmth in the troposphere. Is there pattern here? Yep…warmer oceans, warmer troposphere, more snow in Winter, all part of AGW models, until winters in get so warm that the precip falls as rain. But of course this will fall on deaf ears as some will get thier laugh at the thought of warmth and snow combined as they fail to understand the finer nuances…
R. Gates
The statement you make could very well be a true one. I keep hearing this in the Media. Global warming has increased the moisture content in the air and thus in winter it means greater snowfall. I do not mind such conjecture but in order to be science you must provide some data. There are thousands of weather stations in the United States. They not only record daily temperature but also relative humidity. If you wanted to prove your theory then shouldn’t you provide some data proving that the air moisture content has actually trended up? Recording stations overall should show more moisture content. Relative humidity combined with the temperature of the day will give the actual moisture content of the air at that time. One should be able to prove it this theory is correct. Without the evidence to support it you should not declare it as a certainty.
Well this all makes sense and you have certainly presented the evidence in a logical and reasonable fashion. But I still believe in global weirding.
There’s no need to call liar, if the long term data supports Trenberth’s claim. But it is also useful to point out (as Steve has) that the last 20 years have shown a slight incline. If, in Trenberth’s case he is using declining snow cover as an indication of GW, then Steve has shown that for 20 years there’s been nothing to really get excited about. You can’t exactly prove ‘accelerating’ GW with this data. I think that’s the point.
Steve Goddard (13:11:39) :
I plotted the weekly data for the entire year (not just winter) and it turns out that for the last twenty years there has been an upwards trend of almost 14,000 km2/year.
Care to put an error bar on that trend?
To put the second week of Feb, 1978 into perspective.
Jan 25-27, 1978 (from wiki)
Late on January 24, the surface maps revealed a moisture laden Gulf Low developing over the southern United States while a separate, and unrelated low pressure system was present over the Upper Midwest. In about 24 hours, the merger of the subtropical (containing a wind max of 130 knots) and polar (containing a wind max of 110 knots) jet streams would lead to an unusual convergence of these two low pressures over the Ohio Valley, known as “phasing”. Such a phenomenon usually leads to explosive development of the surface low and the Great Blizzard was no exception. The low over Gulf States underwent bombogenesis as it moved rapidly northward during the evening of January 25 (record low pressures were logged across parts of the South and Mid-Atlantic).[1] Bombogenesis events require a storm’s central pressure to drop more than 24 millibars in 24 hours; the Great Blizzard deepened by a remarkable 40 millibars in that span of time.[1]
As the storm headed for Ohio, this resulted in a “storm of unprecedented magnitude”, according to the National Weather Service, who categorized it as a rare severe blizzard, the most severe grade of winter storm. Particularly hard hit were the states of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and southeast Wisconsin where up to 40 inches (102 cm) of snow fell. Winds gusting up to 100 miles per hour (161 km/h) caused drifts that nearly buried some homes. Wind chill values reached −60 °F (−51 °C) across much of Ohio where 51 of the total 70 storm-related deaths occurred.[2] The lowest atmospheric pressure ever recorded in the United States, apart from a tropical system, occurred as the storm passed over Cleveland, Ohio. The barometer fell to 28.28 inches of mercury (958 mbar) on the morning of January 26. Nearby Detroit, Michigan fell to 28.34 inches of mercury (960 mbar).
Feb. 5-7, 1978
The storm’s great power was made apparent by its sustained hurricane-force winds of approximately 86 mph with gusts to 111 mph and the formation of an eye-like structure in the middle of the storm.[5] While a typical nor’easter brings steady snow for six to twelve hours, the Blizzard of ’78 brought heavy snow for an unprecedented full 33 hours as it was blocked from heading into the North Atlantic by the strong Canadian high pressure area.[3]
An atypical vertical development of storm clouds brought unusual thundersnow to southern New England and Long Island. These storms resulted in lightning and thunder accompanying the snowfall as it fell at 4 inches (10 cm) an hour at times. Boston received a record 27.1 inches of snow, as did Providence, Rhode Island with 27.6 inches of snow.
NickB. (13:13:02) :
The Gore effect is mindboggling.
I’m not superstitious, but this man carries a curse with him.
You do not want this guy speaking in your area in winter unless you are in the snowplowing business.
It’s bad news.
Al Gore’s Weather (AGW).
“There probably has been something of a sceptical wave regarding climate change, and I think we’re possibly caught up in that.”
“*And Pachauri?”.
…-
“Setting the climate record straight (IPCC co-chair “discusses recent criticisms.”)
A co-chair of the IPCC’s beleaguered second working group discusses recent criticisms.
Climate researcher Martin Parry at Imperial College London co-chaired the second working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the group charged with assessing the effects climate change is likely to have and how these might be mitigated — for the IPCC’s fourth assessment. During the past month, the IPCC has corrected an error about the amount of melting anticipated for the Himalayan glaciers and defended its estimates of the financial costs of damage caused by natural disasters. Nature talks to Parry, who has been busy juggling…
–snip–
Why do you think all of these accusations are bubbling up now?
There probably has been something of a sceptical wave regarding climate change, and I think we’re possibly caught up in that. Which is unfortunate, because I fear it leads the public to a view that climate science may be less reliable than it really is.
I think the IPCC should be open to any scrutiny and should respond by clarifying any queries. Now, that clarification can take time. Science can’t shoot from the hip, and it’s not about making statements to meet 24-hour news time lines.
There has been some criticism of the IPCC, and of Chairman Rajendra Pachauri in particular, for the way in which the affair has been handled.
The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it’s preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to decide whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its five-year assessments or being the source of information and being able to respond, on an ongoing basis, to enquiries.
And Pachauri?
Yes, I certainly have confidence in Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC, and in the IPCC itself.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2453631/posts
…-
“*And Pachauri?”.
“THE HINDU(sic)
“No doubt, Himalayan glaciers are melting fast: Pachauri”
http://beta.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/article107810.ece
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi
Sam the Skeptic (14:20:29) :
PC (10:49:13) :
Looks like panic has set in over at RealClimate…read the comments
I read them over a beer at the pub, (OK that marks me as a hopeless recidivist), “not a leg to stand on” it appears.
First time I’ve visited that website, probably the last too, is that really the mind set of the catastrophe brigade?
Good Grief!
Weather is not climate and more snow is proof of Global Warming. Really, you people should know this by now.
PC (10:49:13) :
Looks like panic has set in over at RealClimate…read the comments
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate
———-
Reply: Here’s my contribution to their navel-searching “Whatevergate”:
All I know is that the IPCC is a joke. They’ve got so many “gates” they’re like a giant slalom course at the Olympics. I’m a geologist so I’ve been skeptical about the whole hysteria aspect of the IPCC for years. Maybe now we can get down to some serious science. But I’m not holding my breath; for that to happen, we’d have to have some DATA, but Jones says it is nowhere to be found. Oh well, next crisis!
Sam the Skeptic
Looks like panic has set in over at RealClimate…read the comments
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/
Post 19 gives the game away, I reckon>
Post 19 is worth a read because it is well said and accurate. The panic, though, I think was better summed up in Post 2:
“2.Unfortunately, I think the only thing that will turn the public back towards reality is a few globally really hot years”
Yes… all we need to prove global warming to the skeptics is for the globe to actually warm. They’re just too dense as a group to believe in global warming when the globe doesn’t actually warm. Morons, every one of them. Too stupid to understand that the globe doesn’t actually need to warm to prove global warming. If only there was some way to convince these idiots the truth of global warming without the temperatures going up. We tried showing them data with higher temperatures and they’re so dumb that they actually demanded actual temperatures from actual measurements instead. This planet is doomed to be destroyed by global warming unless the globe hurries up and warms enought to convince them.
“”” Tom P (13:18:58) :
George E. Smith (13:07:21) :
“So Rutgers included data from 1965 and the author chose data only from 1990??. Is this true?”
Steven Goddard will confirm that he only chose data from 1989 in his plot. But only he can tell you why. “””
Well that Rutgers Quote is certainly not from me; maybe it was from something somebody else said that I excerpted; but I definitely did not say that; nor did I comment on what Steven said about it.
So i’m not sure what your point is.
I am watching a movie filmed in 1964 in NYC. There is about six inches of snow on the ground in Central Park, and it looks like it had been there for a while, judging by the number of footprints and the way they had gone through a freeze and thaw and freeze. I think I noticed the same thing in the Movie “Hair”, but I could be remembering that wrong.
I welcome skate boarders to Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics to enjoy the city streets with the tropical weather we are enjoying as a result of the alleged AGW hypothesis that has the tropics moving north… it’s a good nature trick that the tropics pulled off skipping over the USA and hitting Vancouver! Sweet way to hide the decline of cooling. Thanks for that one Mann. [:)]
pwl
http://PathsToKnowledge.net
” davidmhoffer (16:07:29) :
We tried showing them data with higher temperatures and they’re so dumb that they actually demanded actual temperatures from actual measurements instead. This planet is doomed to be destroyed by global warming unless the globe hurries up and warms enough to convince them.”
David… this is the funniest thing I’ve read in a while! Thanks for the laugh.
Tom P,
When Hansen writes of “unprecedented warming” why doesn’t he include the MWP? Why doesn’t he include the Jurassic?
When scientists write of “unprecedented Greenland melt,” why do they only study the years 2003-2007? Talk about cherry picking.
I was reading an article on the history of Star Trek and was surprised to learn that in the first episode they got the model of the ship upside down and so had to stick with it that way for the rest of the series. I just realized that this applies to global warming. They’ve got the effing hockey stick on the graph upside down and now they have to stick with it. You really have to feel for them. Can you envision how hard it would have been for the producers of Star Trek to turn the model the right way after presenting it wrong for the first time?
Looks to me like ALL science fiction writers have a similar problems with first presentations….
Lake Erie freezes over, for 1st time in 14 years.
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2010/02/17/news/mj2316036.txt
Man I hate this Global Warming, must be the extra moisture falling down as ice on top of the lake. I’m sure GW scientists anticipated this on their global warming PC games.
Norman said:
” If you wanted to prove your theory then shouldn’t you provide some data proving that the air moisture content has actually trended up? Recording stations overall should show more moisture content. Relative humidity combined with the temperature of the day will give the actual moisture content of the air at that time. One should be able to prove it this theory is correct. Without the evidence to support it you should not declare it as a certainty…”
The trend toward increasing water vapor in the troposphere is well documented and of course represents another GH forcing. Many great charts out there but to begin, especially for water vapor anomalies, see:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/images/water_vapor.jpg
Water Vapor levels rise with warmer oceans and create a positive-feeback loop much like methane seeping from the melting permafrost. There is more evidence now that CO2 also has a positive feedback loop in the release of CO2 from the soil with increasing temps.
Despite the excitement here, the extreme snow events of this winter are more consistent with a warming earth, not a cooling one. The coldest place on earth, Antarctica, is also one of the driest…though this would seem counter-intuitive to many.
As much as I enjoy pushing AGW noses into the snow (as it were), it is important for skeptics to remain aware that while records are an important part of the evidence that refutes the AGW creed, there are still important parts of their unproven hypothesis that still need to be broken.
The positive feedbacks that make the models unstable, for instance. I know there has been recent evidence showing neutral to negative feedbacks (Lindzen & Choi, etc.), but these are yet only weak evidence with little or no funding to allow more thorough testing.
Still, I am greatly enjoying the present weather “climate” in the press.
Hmmm. So the UK is completely snow free????
Ref – R. Gates (16:37:19) :
“…Despite the excitement here, the extreme snow events of this winter are more consistent with a warming earth, not a cooling one”…
____________________
I’ve been curious for sometime about where all the ice in an ice age comes from. As far a we know, at this time (it would seem) we’ve got two choices (well three or four if you want to think of something wierd like a comet or an intragalactic dust/gas cloud).
OK, number one is it comes from snow falling from the sky and pileing up for eons — how does that happen? Number two, it’s not snow but ice that comes from the North and South Poles, spreading toward the Equator. How does that happen?
It would seem that the most obvious is a combination of the two. For that to happen we need a lot of water vapor to come into the equation somehow. How does that happen?
R. Gates (12:25:50) :
To keep this in perspective, it is very important to look at the snow cover anomalies over the past 44 years:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1
Do you see a trend? It certainly isn’t up…
To be fair, you have to read the history of their data collection. Simply looking at the data there is an apparent step function at 1980-85ish. The changed landmasks circa 1981, and claim neither the old nor the new are exact. So simply plotting all the data and declaring a change in trend is not looking at the data.
However, I would tend to agree with their plot, knowing the beginning was the cooling period 40s-70s. Now we’re back into 30 years of cooling so we should see the anomaly go positive. That would be a meaningful plot if it started at 1920 or earlier to get in the first warming cycle of the 20th century.
RE: Norman (15:11:19)
You might also consider that increased moisture (absolute humidity not relative) due to higher water temperatures would generally cause more clouds which increases reflected sunlight and is thus a negative feedback mechanism. Not that the real mechanism is that simple but hey looks like everything might just be normal afterall!
APE
Purely on Science terms and based on “hope and promise” we are left with reality.
The issue is Stewardship and I’d like to hear from any (the world would like to hear from any) “Scientist” who can currently prove that we are going about this in the “RIGHT” way.
“The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it’s preaching”
Isn’t there a cartoon to go with that?
R. Gates – moisture without cold is called rain.
Murray (14:23:57) :
” shut down modern civilization ” “Why is it that climate skeptics who totally distrust climate models freely accept the output of economic models?”……………. “The problem is that most climate skeptics want to believe that measures to address global warming (even if it did exist) would be disastrous. Actually, actions aimed at energy efficiency, nuclear and renewables would have major economic benefits. Be consistent you guys, distrust economic models too.”
Uhmm, not sure about the modeling. I don’t buy into any of it, I look at it as a cost/benefit and practical application perspective. It is correct to assert efficiencies will occur without an outside forcings(regulatory mandates). It is the nature of man to use less energy to accomplish more.(We’re lazy.)
Windmills are a great example. It has been mandated for my electric coop to purchase %25 of our energy from qualified renewables. Living in Kansas, wind energy is the presumptive source. So, windmills have cropped up all over the state because of the mandate. Given that the wind will not blow at the times we wish, (THERE IS NO MAGICAL BATTERY TO STORE AC POWER.) we have to maintain a separate generation plant. It has to be natural gas because of immediate load switch necessities. These have to be built also because traditionally we have relied on coal and nuclear. Further, transmission infrastructure has to be rebuilt because the wind and gas generation plants will necessarily be built in other locations as the coal and nuke plants.
So far, we’re only building, we haven’t even addressed cost of production. (Let me know when you see any efficiency in this mandated efficiency upgrade.) I’ve been told, that it emits 42 metric tons of CO2 to build one of those windmills. I’ve also been told that it is expected to save 62 metric tons of CO2 per windmill.(any real study is very difficult to cite or sight) The life expectancy for the windmills is 20 yrs. Given all the construction, steel fabrication, lubricant use, ect., we’re not really doing much for the stated goal. So why proceed? Perhaps savings? No, not really. As it is now, we’ll buy the wind generated electricity at about 9 cents kwh. Of course, we’ll have to charge our members significantly more than that to remain in existence. Gas generated electricity is worse, its running us about 12 cents/kwh. Of course, that evil coal and nuke come in at about 2-3 cents/kwh. Given the current lack of disposable income for many Americans, exactly how is this helping anything? Where is the efficiency? Redundant use of our natural resources?(In the form of steel, copper and aluminum and fuel necessary for construction, ect.)
Don’t even get me started on the asinine Automatic Meter Reading and the tech cycle most of us COOPs are now on. (newer faster better computer techs every 4-7 yrs) as opposed to the one meter can last 20 yrs and longer.
Sigh, I apologize for the length of the rant and lack of citations, but almost all are burdened with very heavy bias’ one way or the other, you’ll just have to accept my practical application experience or perhaps find someone else with a different perspective.
“Despite the excitement here, the extreme snow events of this winter are more consistent with a warming earth, not a cooling one. The coldest place on earth, Antarctica, is also one of the driest…though this would seem counter-intuitive to many.”
So, if you use all the data,
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/396/snowextent.png
does that mean that the Earth is cooling?
R. Gates (16:37:19) :
But why is it snowing…in Florida?
Why were there extreme snow events in the 70s?
Why is the “blizzard of ’88” (as in 1888) still the benchmark for severe blizzards?
And why were we being told just a few years ago that children in England and in Washington DC would be denied the experience of snow because of AGW?
If all of this precipitation was caused by global warming, shouldn’t it be rain, especially in the US southern states?
if its not the “RIGHT” way then what “Should be occurring?”
Somewhat related …
Permafrost Line Recedes 130 Km in 50 Years, Canadian Study Finds
The southern limit of permanently frozen ground, or permafrost, is now 130 kilometers further north than it was 50 years ago in the James Bay region, according to two researchers from the Department of Biology at Université Laval.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100217101129.htm
Grandfather told of all the cattle on open range freezing to death from around Wichita Falls Tx North some where around 1900 1905 or so. He was 1/2 apache his mother full apache she told of other times when the cold forced the apache tribes down into the area of Mexico in the winter.
From the “weather is not climate” dept.
Snowstorm hits Tokyo, disrupting traffic…
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/snowstorm-hits-tokyo-disrupting-commuter-traffic
Here in Koriyama City, FUkushima-ken, it’s been snowing a bit too – I made the mistake of changing my route this morning and a 40-minute trip to work took 1.5hrs.
I wish people would be a bit more confident driving in the snow.
Steve Goddard (16:28:38) :
“When Hansen writes of “unprecedented warming” why doesn’t he include the MWP? Why doesn’t he include the Jurassic?”
Even if we assume Graig Loehles’ conclusion that the MWP was not significantly warmer than now, we’re left with the important difference that while the MWP was centuries in the making, we’ve seen the same increase in recent temperatures in just a tenth of the time.
Forget the Jurassic, in the Carboniferous temperatures reached 8 C warmer than today with a CO2 content at least ten times current values. Do you regard this as some kind of a target?
David M Hoffer, thanx for this, I really needed a laugh today. You my friend are going to heaven!
{Tweny years ago today I made a snowball and threw it at one of my kids, knocking him down. I repeated the experiment today. I stood in the exact same place, threw it just as hard, and I even checked in advance to ensure that it was the exact same kid. Despite all control factors being the same, the kid did not fall down, he didn’t even notice. This was an effect of global warming I did not expect, the density of snowballs dropping alarmingly. I was going to cut the snowball open and count the rings for future reference, but the kid was busy washing my face with it, another unexpected consequence of global warming}
Ref – Ron Broberg (17:30:09) :
“Somewhat related …”
____________________________
Sorry, sounds reasonable to me. I’ll bet that after the Vancover Winter Olympics the rate picks up a little too. Permafrost is deceptive.
Davesix (12:27:52) : wrote
“Michael,
“So let me be very clear about this observation;
SHIPPING US MANUFACTURING JOBS OVERSEAS CAUSES MORE PLANETARY POLLUTION, NOT LESS!”
The passage of Cap and Trade would result the acceleration of that transfer, of course.”
Yes.
Moving manufacturing jobs out of the USA is bad for the planet because other countries don’t have the stringent pollution control laws we have. Products produced in the US produce less pollution than products produced in China and other 3rd world countries. Understanding this fact is not rocket science. Globalist people who argue for shipping US jobs overseas with NAFTA and CAFTA are at the same time arguing for more planetary pollution. Do you see the problem here?
Ron Broberg (17:30:09) :
“Permafrost Line Recedes 130 Km in 50 Years, Canadian Study Finds”
So life is returning to the Arctic.
I don’t think that is a problem except for the people who have homes built on wood rails that rest directly on the ground (common in Canada on permafrost). They will need to jack their homes up, put in a bit of a foundation, lower the house, and the their heating bill. Not a big deal.
Also the gas and oil companies may have to do an upgrade on the foundation chillers for their pipelines, but that has been the plan for a while now.
I don’t see much of a problem there.
ohn M (17:16:59) :
R. Gates (16:37:19) :
Despite the excitement here, the extreme snow events of this winter are more consistent with a warming earth, not a cooling one.
But why is it snowing…in Florida?
Why were there extreme snow events in the 70s?
Why is the “blizzard of ‘88″ (as in 1888) still the benchmark for severe blizzards?
And why were we being told just a few years ago that children in England and in Washington DC would be denied the experience of snow because of AGW?
If all of this precipitation was caused by global warming, shouldn’t it be rain, especially in the US southern states?
lol, that was a few years ago, and they were slightly off on their predictions. Back then, they used the IPCC’s robust methods for determining “real” science and just made it up, but now, now they mean it for real……….more snow = catastrophic warming!!!! For true this time!!!!
R. Gates,
Not sure what climate you live in, but snow happens when it is cold. Warmth plus moisture produces rain, not snow.
Snow in Florida is not due to excess heat.
I’m teaching a fourth grade class tomorrow for National Engineering Week. I’m guessing that most of them understand that snow falls in the winter, because it is cold.
Kevin Cave (17:40:22) :
Be glad they aren’t driving large trucks with monster tires as if it were dry pavement and talking on their cell phones. Those are the kind that will collect you.
Murray (14:23:57) :
“The problem is that most climate skeptics want to believe that measures to address global warming (even if it did exist) would be disastrous. Actually, actions aimed at energy efficiency, nuclear and renewable would have major economic benefits.”
Seems most skeptics are all for these types of improvements. For myself, all listed above would be great but the entire “efficient renewable industry” seems to be off its tracks. Solar panels won’t get us there. Too inefficient, something like 15% in actuality and require lead battery banks for backup. Windmills, too expensive for the efficiency and again, lead batteries. Solar towers, parabolic arrays, at the utility level are much better if large land areas are available and local.
However, at the home level, heat vacuum collection tubes with heat-exchange pipes seem the path but little is being directed that direction, except in China. Their efficiency is way up there, about 85%+. Relatively inexpensive, output can exceed 250 ºC to later to even drive refrigeration units in refrigerators and possibly even air conditioner, the principle is same as propane refrigerators today. One will handle most water heating. Two or three will also handle most of March-May and Sept-Nov home heating too. Larger arrays could later scale to handle air-conditioning since they collect huge amounts of heat in June-August period. And they are primarily glass with small amount of copper, rather simple, about five bucks per tube in quantity!
Where are the logic minds? If we really wanted to get energy efficient fast and inexpensively, that seems to be the path, but where is America’s development? I’m waiting for the greed to subside.
ref: http://www.google.com/products?q=solar+collector+vacuum+tube&hl=en&aq=f
Surreal Comment:
“I’m particularly alarmed that the latest spate of stories in the UK press is traceable back to a BBC interview that asked some very unhelpful questions (which maybe Phil Jones shouldn’t have given straight answers to).”
Ice age or a fiery tipping point? What do readers think?
They can’t both be wrong, so they both must be right.
We will no doubt broil to death as temps drop below freezing – a sure result from man made climate chaos.
The logic is indisputable, the results are inevitable.
We must surely raise taxes, expand government, create a world government, control and regulate peoples lives, limit breeding, go vegan, hug trees, and sing Kum Ba Ya. – it’s the only viable solution.
Phillip Bratby (10:23:59) :
Looks like a hockey stick coming up. A dangerous looking one if it continues. Catastrophic snow increases. The governments will know how to stop this global cooling.
COP 16 at Mexico – they’ll sort it out then – for sure…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
I just clicked through to this link to check the date. DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY !
What is wrong with these people ?
I also looked at realclimate.
Just abuse and calling people names.
I am no scientist/. But in the OP here is actual observational data.
And it conflicts not just with the predictions that are driving an economic nightmare, but absolutely CURRENT statements of non-fact, even with such data potentially in hand they lie !
Why ?
How can any scientist say with a straight face that the current trend is just a ‘blip’ and that if we wait THIRTY years the AGW will be back in force ?
What are they smoking and where can I get some ?
Ah, the quandary of the “unhelpful question”.
Don’t these people know any better? Can’t they just keep their mouths shut and eyes closed and keep humming the monotonic tune that will lead us to Nirvana? Where is the noble Al Gore when you need him? Can’t he just brush those pesky reporters and bloggers away with a blast of CO2-deficient hot air? And why isn’t Mother Nature cooperating? You say she’s changed him into snowmanbearpig??
FerdinandAkin (11:27:59) :
Everyone knows it is snow volume that is important – not area.
(It is a rotten snow anyway)
Hey – if it wasn’t for all the global warming there would be even more snow…
Why am I reading posts that state that the increasing precipitation is consistent with the AGW models, when annual precipitation in the US is actually trending down over the past 20 years.
http://premium.fileden.com/premium/2009/6/11/2474018/annual_prec.png
There is no trend in US precipitation over the past 40 years. Do it yourself.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Steve Goddard (14:42:05) – thanks for the clarification. Plotting the winter snow coverage (52 days most years, 53 days leap years, from the Rutgers data), I get an increasing trend of 9,000 km2/year (since 1989), which is not significant. The upward trend in your plot I suspect derives from not counting the 21 winter days in March?
Nonetheless – the point is taken, in supposedly “unprecedented warmth”, north hemisphere snow cover is essentially unchanged. And as Billybob pointed out, Kevin Trenberth, he of perpetual foot-in-mouth disease, climategate fame, and an IPCC WG1 (you know, the ones tossing their gaffe-prone WGII under the bus) is at it again, stating “It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes …. snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined. ” Nature appears to be hiding this decline quuite nicely.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
How about January precipitation over the past 20 years in the US. The trend is DOWN .35 inches per decade.
http://premium.fileden.com/premium/2009/6/11/2474018/jan_prec.png
At this rate, i am very concerned that if we continue doing things the way we have been doing them, we are going to leave our ancestors in 2400 with a dried-out planet!
These graphs are from NOAA. Our ABC local affiliate had a NOAA scientist also blabber the misinformation that the increased precipitating we are experiencing is consistent with the climate change models. Has anyone bothered to look that we are not experiencing increased precipitation but increased colder weather.
The past 4 January’s are almost 2 degrees below ave in the US. Precipitation is actually lower on ave., even though this could be just an anomaly and doesn’t disprove AGW theory, it certainly does not support AGW theory, unless the theory is that everything supports AGW theory.
http://premium.fileden.com/premium/2009/6/11/2474018/jan_temp.png
I know Florida tourism board won’t be happy about this, but a few people I know came back from vacations to Florida last week and had daytime temps in the 40’s. I certainly wouldn’t plan a winter getaway to Florida. They have had some mighty cold January’s the past few years.
http://premium.fileden.com/premium/2009/6/11/2474018/fl_jan.png
To check on various states/sites yourself use this:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/usa_monthly.html#map
or this, to get to the state you want, replace the Pa in the link with your state abbrev.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/pa.html
I can’t resist: Maybe we should call the warmer’s sky-is-falling-science output a “Hokey Shtick.”
Espen (12:45:56):
Your observation about the 1941-42 El Nino prompted me to recall the fact that January 1940 was very cold both in the southeastern US and northeastern Europe and Siberia. The similarities to last January are striking! Despite the fact that GISS produces trend-biased global anomalies based on geographically inconsistent station sampling and use of UHI-corrupted data, their maps nevertheless show that striking similarity between 1940 and 2010 very clearly.
[snip]
[“Deniers” is an unacceptable term. ~dbs, mod.]
This graph and post are totally ridiculous: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/cherry-snow/#more-2308
Weird:
San Antonio (1942 – 2009): Mean temperature trends rose in 11 months
and fell in 1. July has cooled over the last 67 years.
The reason is that the precipitation trend has significantly increased in July.
I wonder if the farmers / ranchers have noticed it?
Steve Goddard said: :
DMI shows current Arctic ice extent as highest in their record for the current date.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Steve, either you really don’t understand what is going on in the arctic, you you can’t read the data. Arctic sea ice continues well below the long term averages for this time of year, as it has for the past 6 years. The best place for many different looks at N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice data is:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
This is well known and quite reliable data, and specifically you should look at:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Arctic sea ice continues at levels below average for this time of year, and may set a near record low in the summer melt season, though I suspect it will just miss this year and be 2nd lowest, but will easily be the lowest summer minumum in 2011.
Pauly,
Yes, it is ridiculous. This winter’s snow extent is just as unexceptional as Katrina. Or the Arctic sea ice extent during the summer of 2007. Or the European heat wave of 2003. No one touted those as any sign of climate, of course.
As Mr. T himself would say – “Any fool can see them was just weather reports”.
TH said::
“R. Gates,
Not sure what climate you live in, but snow happens when it is cold. Warmth plus moisture produces rain, not snow.
Snow in Florida is not due to excess heat.
I’m teaching a fourth grade class tomorrow for National Engineering Week. I’m guessing that most of them understand that snow falls in the winter, because it is cold.”
TH,
Do you understand why Anarctica is one of the driest places on earth, in terms of annual precip? You might begin your National Engineering class by talking about why it takes heat to evaporate water and when it is cold, you get a very dry climate, as it was during the last ice age.
Cold=dry
Hot=wet
and when you’re in mix of warm moist air mixing with cold dry air you get big storms (usually tornado and severe T-storms in spring and summer) and big big snow in winter. Meterology 101…
R. Gates,
Do you understand that the tropics get a lot of rain because it is warm and wet?
R. Gates,
I don’t mind discussing things with people who are technically competent, but so far you are failing that test.
Look closely at the graph. DMI Arctic ice extent is currently the highest in their record for the date.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
NANSEN has Arctic ice area is just outside one std. dev. (i,.e. normal)
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
If you don’t take the time to learn how to read the graphs, then please don’t waste everyone’s time.
Two things: First, I’m in the deep South (US). It’s cold (yeah, we’re pansies when it comes to cold weather, but we handle heat waves with nonchalance and aplumb). Looks like temps. will not get to an average high any day this month. Where has the energy gone that usually keeps us 10-20 degrees warmer? And we’ve gotten wave after wave of Arctic blasts. Does the polar region have any more cold air left, or is it sucking warmer air in and radiating all the energy into space, then returning cold air to us? (just half-way facetious, really would like to have an understanding of the energy flow for this winter).
Have any of you considered the impact of increased snow coverage in the NH will have on glaciers? Unless there is a longer or warmer melt season, next fall’s headlines will be that a lot of glaciers are growing again. Then there will be some research suggesting that the shrinking glaciers were suffering from as much from draught conditions as warming.
Only slightly OT:
Satellite data show that February Tropospheric temps continue at very high and near record high levels at most elevations in the troposphere. Near sea surface temps are especially high, no doubt El Nino related, but temps continue high right up to about 46,000 feet. There was some moderation from the January record highs probably due to the very negative AO that was set up as the heat was released from the troposphere and forced through the tropopause into the stratosphere. In looking at the negative AO, we see that this was directly related to very warm tropospheric temps as a huge mass of warm air rose up through the tropopause and decended down into arctic regions, forcing the cold air south. This created record warmth for Greenland (a large stationary high pressure system was set up almost directly over Greenland, see: http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/.Global/.Atm_Circulation/Monthly_Height.html) while we had our snow in Florida…all this, related directly to extreme warmth in the troposphere…not cold. For the latest tropospheric temps see:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
To see the temperature anamoly, especially over Greenland (which forced the cold air down to the southern U.S. see:
http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/.Global/.Atm_Temp/Anomaly.html
pauly,
So you think that North America did not set a snow record last week, and that the strong twenty years upwards trend in Northern Hemisphere snowfall is “ridiculous? ”
You know, it is OK to think for yourself and to believe your own eyes.
lefty,
Meteorological winter is December-February.
John Goetz,
I don’t think it is fair to compare this event with Katrina or two weeks in Europe during 2003. Neither of those events broke any land records and both were short-lived local phenomena.
This event is exceptional, took several months to build up, and covers the entire Northern Hemisphere.
Steve Goddard said:
R. Gates,
I don’t mind discussing things with people who are technically competent, but so far you are failing that test.
Look closely at the graph. DMI Arctic ice extent is currently the highest in their record for the date.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Steve,
Thanks for the insult, I can read graphs just fine. Once more it seems you are indeed cherry picking data. You pick some 5 year window and claim “highest in THEIR RECORD for the date”, but the record is only 5 years long…when the graph that I showed:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
covers a far longer period and shows far more detail about the trend of sea ice ANOMALY, which is more to the point of whether or not arctic sea ice is trending down or not. Arctic sea ice has not had a positive anamoly (i.e. been above the long term year average since 2004. This is far more to the point of what is going on in the arctic.
Really, stop insulting my intelligence, I know of what I speak.
I think it’s neither. Alarmism in the opposite direction is just as unfounded as global warming alarmism.
R Gates,
Thank you for informing us that the record snow extent at low latitudes around the planet is due to temperatures at “very high and near record high levels”
And I always thought that snow in Florida and freezing citrus crops was due to cold weather.
Steve Goddard (21:21:44) :
You know, it is OK to think for yourself and to believe your own eyes.
Care to put an error bar on the correlation plot you showed me? What is R^2?
Steve Goddard (21:04:12) :
“Look closely at the graph. DMI Arctic ice extent is currently the highest in their record for the date.”
They’re only showing the previous five years. You want to read significance into that? You can also see that making pronouncements based on one week’s wiggle is a bit dangerous; things bunch up a bit in the winter.
But despite the bunching, there’s still a long-term trend: If you want numbers averaged over all Januaries since 1979, that is here.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100203_Figure3.png
“NANSEN has Arctic ice area is just outside one std. dev. (i,.e. normal)”
Change the baseline from 1979-2006 to 1979-2000, and you’re well outside of 2 standard deviations. For whatever that’s worth.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
It’s the longer term trend in the minima that’s interesting. I’d be careful trying to construct arguments out of one week in one winter.
Leif,
Tamino says :
if we fit a straight line to this data we get a slope just over 100,000 km^2/year. We also get a t-value (to test for statistical significance) of 2.91, which is definitely significant, right? In fact it’s significant at 99.1% confidence
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/cherry-snow/#more-2308
carrot,
Arguing over February ice extent is pointless. There is almost zero correlation between February rankings and September rankings. All of the perennial basins are frozen solid now.
R. Gates,
So why did you ignore the 30 year NANSEN graph which shows Arctic ice close to one standard deviation from the mean?
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
Steve Goddard (23:14:00) :
“Arguing over February ice extent is pointless.”
I agree, more or less. Though I think there’s a long-term trend in Feb, just as there is in Jan. But I agree that the extent at any point in Feb doesn’t tell you much about September.
So why did you raise the issue at (11:58:13)? What point were you trying to make, if arguing about it is pointless?
Steve Goddard (23:10:27) :
Tamino says : In fact it’s significant at 99.1% confidence
He also says: “or is it? If we fit a line to all the winter-season data, we get a t-value of 0.211 — nowhere near significant.”,
so why did you cherry pick 1989 as starting year? […] Ordinarily, with 22 data points you’d only need the t-value to exceed plus or minus 2.09 to reach 95% confidence. But when cherry-picking the strongest trend from any point to the end, for a set of 44 data points, the necessary t-value for 95% confidence is much larger, 3.75. Goddard’s value, 2.91, isn’t even close, it doesn’t even reach significance at 90% confidence.
Goddard’s trend is not statistically significant”
So why not use all the data? If you start in 2000 you get an even bigger rise.
Steve Goddard (23:10:27) :
Tamino says : In fact it’s significant at 99.1% confidence
But he is not talking about your graph: https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdHBkREJtSmNlbm9xNnlza0JEcXUwZ2c&oid=
R. Gates
“Do you understand why Anarctica is one of the driest places on earth, in terms of annual precip? You might begin your National Engineering class by talking about why it takes heat to evaporate water and when it is cold, you get a very dry climate, as it was during the last ice age.
Cold=dry
Hot=wet”
Seems a bit simplistic. As far as the driest places we have:
[1] The dry valley region in Antarctica.
[2] The Attacama Desert
[3] The Sahara Desert
So we have Cold, High and Hot. All very different.
I don’t think anyone will dsipute the fact warm air holds more moisture than cooler air, but Cold=dry and Hot=wet is not very scientific and fails to deal with all the complex drivers that make up the weather and produce what appear to contradictions.
For instance the usaul graphic for how rain is made will show moisture going up until it forms a raindrop and then gets heavy.
As far as I can tell ALL rain happens when air is either forced up or over somewhere colder, thus lowering it’s temperature and ability to hold all the moisture it has. The excess moisture has to leave as there is no room for it. So cold air will ultimately be drier, but it can still hold moisture. One would get the impression from your statement that the whole of the Antarctica was dry, but I’m sure you know it is a particular valley, and I understand it to be bone dry, without even any snow or ice. Is that how you would characterise the Antartic, bone dry?
R. Gates
Oh, and the all the other dry places/deserts:
Arabian
Death Valley
Gibson
Gobi
Great Basin
Great Sandy
Great Victoria
Kalahari
Karakum
Kavir
Kyzylkum
Libyan
Lut
Mojave
Nafud
Namib
Nubian
Simpson
Sonoran
Syrian
Taklimakan
Now, I think there are a number of qualifications required with Hot=wet, Cold =dry.
James Sexton (17:12:33) :
wayne (18:20:57) :
For windpower, lead storage batteries are not required to smooth out the surges and shortages. Within this article they talk about “pumped storage,” which sounds somewhat promising.
Of course, you end up paying three times, for the wind generator, short-term shortfall (storage), and long-term shortage (traditional generator). But it has an advantage for commercial generation. Current schemes have windpower backed up with fast-reacting generators like natural gas turbines, so you’re only paying twice. But with pumped storage you can use traditional generators for long-term shortages, such as coal plants that can take a day to get online. And since there are still plenty of coal plants around, new plants may not need to be built at all to use windpower, just add in the pumped storage.
—–
Hey wayne! What “five bucks per tube” are you talking about? I followed your link and found pricey assembled units. Is that price for the bare glass tube for DIY?
Steve Goddard (23:10:27)
“Tamino says…”
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/cherry-snow/#more-2308
Here’s some misused punctuation, but I really don’t think there’s an alternative here:
You think Tamino’s post supports your analysis?!?
I think that it’s somewhat presumptious to draw a rising graph to what is currently, a local maximum, without asking whether we think the most likely next step is a return to a position closer to the stasis which appeared to exist from around 1989 to 2000.
I’m saying that you might compare the last 2 years with the last great solar minimum in 1911- 13, when all the great lakes froze.
I’m saying that I think that such things oscillate about a mean through decades and that the trigger to shift significantly toward Little Ice Age etc may need to be greater than we experienced in the past 2 years. As the albedo effect of this, although great in a per day measurement, will probably not total anything spectacular when considering an annual irradiation audit…
Now I’m open to arguments as to tipping point for an ice age if science can talk me through it. I don’t think it can yet.
And I wonder if the things which trigger ice ages might be one-off catastrophic things like Yellowstone going Boom!? And whether that is predictable on an interdecadal, centennial or millennial scale??
All in all, I’m looking myself currently at a realignment toward a mean rather than descent into an abyss.
Rhys Jaggar (02:02:01) :
“And I wonder if the things which trigger ice ages might be one-off catastrophic things like Yellowstone going Boom!? And whether that is predictable on an interdecadal, centennial or millennial scale??”
Whichever graph of previous ice ages one looks at the profile seems very similar. A gradual cooling and at a certain point a rapid warming. It’s almost like the profile of a capacitor. I would have thought if there were events like volcanoes or asteroids the profile would be round the other way; sudden cooling followed by gradual recovery to warming.
In fact looking at the profiles we should be on the way back down again! http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/lemke/geog101/images/25b_ice_age_temperature_warmingart.png
Leif,
Actually he was talking about the same graph. This is his entire sentence which was split up in two pieces.:
Tom P,
Yes, Tamino did confirm that winter snow has increased in a statistically significant fashion during the last twenty years. No doubt he would prefer to start a graph in the sixties and seventies during the ice age scare, a known snowy period.
Now tell me that you weren’t surprised to find that winter snow has been increasing for the last twenty years!
Leif,
“Why not use all the data?”
The point of the graph is to show that winter snow has been moving further south during the last twenty years, which is a period when alarmists have been claiming that snow is disappearing from temperate zones.
Tamino showed that winter snow extent now is about the same as it was during the ice age scare. Do you think that supports his general world view?
BTW – I responded in the comment section on Tamino’s site and he didn’t post it. I pointed out that (speaking of cherry picking) he chooses to ignore CO2/temperature data for more than 99% of the geological record.
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/gorebot/Geological_Timescale_op_927x695.jpg
During the Cretaceous and early Tertiary CO2 varied up and down by a factor of 10X, with almost no change in temperature. The geologic record shows a climate sensitivity of zero.
R. Gates (21:31:33) :
Arctic sea ice has not had a positive anamoly (i.e. been above the long term year average since 2004. This is far more to the point of what is going on in the arctic.
Really, stop insulting my intelligence, I know of what I speak.
So you admit that the start of your data was at the end of a 30 year cooling cycle, thus likely at the maximum extent for the arctic? Therefore, the baseline re: anomalies is meaningless.
Wow! February 1978!
We were packing our lab to move from Boston to Iowa City, Iowa. My job was the 20,000 pieces of glassware. The blizzard covered the city to the tops of the parking meters, kids jumping into snow piles were jumping on cars, marshall law was declared for about 7-10 days, the National Guard was mobilized, people were arrested for moving their cars at all, people shot each other over parking spaces as they were digging out, only one restaurant was open, and only cross-country skiers moved easily around the city. Fun times!
Not one piece of glassware was broken in the move in March. We had snow in Iowa into May.
Re: tipping points.
Has any one considered that tipping points might have anti-tipping points? Once tipped there are circumstances which threaten to cause tipping back?
Since tipping points are imaginary, then we can imagine counter-tipping points and stealth tipping points.
However, “the hidden flaw never stays hidden.” If tipping points were real, then, considering the past record of CO2, ice, and temperature records, we should have hit these tipping points many times already and should be able to discuss them in reality and relative detail.
Of course, if you are going to redefine the past as having been bland and incredibly, unimaginably boring – constant temperature, constant CO2, constant ice coverage, etc., then tipping points represent any and all changes in these parameters. Lions and tigers and gummy bears, oh my!
Steve Goddard (04:10:39) :
“Yes, Tamino did confirm that winter snow has increased in a statistically significant fashion during the last twenty years.”
I suppose as you only feel you need to use half the data, you also only have to read half an article.
Tamino answers his own questions: “Goddard’s trend is not statistically significant and his emphasis on the recent extreme snow cover is nothing more than a weather report.”
Steve Goddard (21:04:12) :
“Look closely at the graph. DMI Arctic ice extent is currently the highest in their record for the date.”
And if you’d linked to that graph a couple of days ago, you wouldn’t have been able to write that. In fact, if you link to it in a couple of days time you probably won’t be able to write that either. Are you really so desperate to claim a ‘positive’ that you are prepared to highlight single days ?
As already mentioned, too, that ‘record’ is only for the last 5 years, not ‘the highest in their record to date’. Unless, of course, you can provide the data which proves what you are trying to suggest.
As the DMI state :
‘Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.’
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php
They even provide a little animation on that page that you can click on to see how much the multi-year, thick ice has declined since 2000.
NSIDC also show extent well below the average :
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
IARC/JAXA seem to show extent as lower than 2008 and 2009 :
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Look at the overall picture (everyone), not just the one you think shows what you want it to show.
Steve you’re comparing chalk and cheese mate. Tamino may not write blog posts about cretaceous co2 and temp levels, but that’s a world away from arbitrarily excluding a number of years from a graph to produce the trend line you like. Anyways, if you’re actually interested in temps and co2 during the Phanerozoic, I suggest you have a look at some of the peer reviewed research on the issue, which tends to argue that changes in CO2 concentrations did have major effects on climate, much as the IPCC is predicting today. See, for example, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1110063 , http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/full/nature05699.html , and especially http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/576.abstract which disputes your claim of wild fluctuations in CO2 concentrations.
Steve Goddard (04:24:14) :
“During the Cretaceous and early Tertiary CO2 varied up and down by a factor of 10X, with almost no change in temperature. The geologic record shows a climate sensitivity of zero.”
Combine CO2 variations with solar and orbital forcing, and you get nice matches with glaciations and other features throughout the geologic record. Try some papers by Dana Royer, or the lecture from Richard Alley.
Still curious why you brought up the Feb Arctic ice extent.
Steve Goddard: BTW – I responded in the comment section on Tamino’s site and he didn’t post it. I pointed out that (speaking of cherry picking) he chooses to ignore CO2/temperature data for more than 99% of the geological record.
Oooh! An off-topic irrelevant slam.
And he didn’t fall for it? Oh my.
How about updating your graph at the top of the post to include all the data?
I think that would show some integrity.
Tamino has since posted my response, but has not addressed my pointing out his cherry picking.
We have 600 million years of temperature/CO2 data. Why is that they are only interested in less than 1% of it?
Ron,
So you think that the current 20 year increase in winter snow extent, culminating in the present record is not interesting? Particularly in light of all the claims that snowfall is decreasing and moving north?
carrot,
What you are implying is that CO2 is not the dominant driver in temperature.
Sorry to push this question once more but, as I think it has significance and some work depends upon it, I really do need an answer and WUWT is usually the best place to get a quick one without insults 😉
The models, theory, whatever, predict (insist upon) a warming Arctic (or high Northern latitudes) amongst other places/times.
Why? Why should the Arctic warm more/faster than elsewhere?
Even at *cough* wikipedia I find no plain speaking hypothesis to explain the “night-time, in the winter and up North”.
A clue as to why I am puzzled; “…loss of reflective ice and snow cover will allow the region to absorb more solar heat…” and “…because there is less snow and ice to reflect solar energy back into space. Instead, the newly exposed dark soil and dark ocean surfaces absorb solar energy and warm further…”
Not in NH winter they wont.
Tom P and Leif,
Tamino’s analysis is a crock. He concedes that the 20 year trend is statistically significant. He then says : ah ,but the only reason 20 years is used is because Steve cherry picked. Tamino then runs some home-grown invented (or “artesanal” to borrow a Steve McIntyre term) test to see what the t-value would have to be if there is the option of cherry picking (as an aside, it is interesting that he uses a white noise series instead of red noise). That way he says the 20 years trend is not statistically significant even though it is. The basis premise of this made up test seems flawed (presupposes cherry picking) but even conceding this, we can’t see Tamino’s full analysis. Tamino of course does not post his code so we can’t check his calculations. He simply relies on credulous readers to blindly accept his pronouncements.
Ron Broberg (06:16:07) :
A post from Goddard making that claim about the geological record does appear at Tamino’s, anyway. There’s usually a pretty long lag before he approves something.
JMurphy (05:59:52) :
My points exactly. Making arguments based on the wiggle of a few days, compared only to the last five years, is living quite dangerously.
I’m wondering if someone could help me expand my layman’s understanding of the albedo effect.
As I understand it sunlight heading down is of a longer(?) wave-length from the infrared radiation which “excites” CO2 as it leaves earth. However, in the case of the albedo-effect, is not the radiation reflected away from the earth of the longer wave-length?
While this long-wave radiation may not “excite” CO2, does it not have some sort of warming effect on air as it passes through air, both on its way down and also, in the case of expanded snow cover, on its way back up again?
My simple layman logic assumes that it is not merely at the surface that it is warmer in the day than it is at night. If you had a thermometer suspended 6000 feet up you’d also notice the air warming in the daytime. Is this correct?
If air is warmed by sunlight passing through it, would it not be warmed twice by the albedo-effect? It would be warmed by the sunlight passing through heading down, and warmed again by the reflected sunlight heading back up on its way to outer space.
Would this mean that, although the albedo-effect bounces much heat away from earth, it would have a short-term warming effect in the troposphere, for as long as the snow-cover lasted?
I imagine this would occur irrespective of how much CO2 is involved.
Please help me and shoot this idea down in flames if it is a crock of bull.
Thanks in advance.
Hmm, on second thoughts perhaps I was not appreciative enough of Tamino’s new found interest in devising tests for cherry picking. We should encourage him further in this regard. I eagerly await the test he devises to show the impact on confidence intervals for the ability to pick between different Yamal core series. How about it, Tamino old pal?
REPLY: post it on his site, I’m betting he won’t allow the comment and he won’t do it.
Steve Goddard said::
R. Gates,
So why did you ignore the 30 year NANSEN graph which shows Arctic ice close to one standard deviation from the mean?
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
Steve,
Now at least you’re getting it…30 years is better than the 5 years of data you used. But now take that next step and look at the 30+ years of the trend of ANOMALIES that I pointed to in my last post to you. It is the anomalies over a long period that tell us trends, not a few wiggles in a 5 year period. This is the most important graph there is for giving us any decent information about longer term trends in the arctic sea ice:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Shorter period graphs, like the one you first posted are relatively devoid of meaningful long term trend information. Why post it unless you’re trying to point to some trend that just isn’t there?
Steve Goddard (04:10:39) :
Then the data since 1989 look like this (very similar to Goddard’s graph,
No [and why is this so hard]. He is talking about yearly numbers. Your graph showed weekly data. Tell us what R^2 was for that weekly graph.
HGI (06:35:18) :
Tamino’s analysis is a crock.
and yet, Steve thinks that piece of crock supports his own claim…
Steve Goddard (04:24:14) :
The geologic record shows a climate sensitivity of zero.
We just had a post that showed otherwise: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/15/paleo-tagging-past-climate-sensitivity/
So R. Gates, it looks by your theory that the polar region has now been infused with warmer air.
So we should get no more frigid arctic air dumped on us this year, meaning winter is essentially over. Is that your prediction?
HGI,
Thanks.
While you are at it, perhaps you could ask Tamino to calculate the statistical significance of CO2 vs temperature through the geological record?
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/gorebot/Geological_Timescale_op_927x695.jpg
60 million years ago CO2 was 5X current levels. By 35 million years ago it had dropped by 80%, yet temperatures didn’t change.
It is interesting that you tout the quality and length of the Rutgers dataset before showing your graph: “Rutgers has kept records continuously for the last 2,227 weeks, so being #2 is quite an accomplishment. [Rutgers map]
According to Rutgers University data through mid February, Northern Hemisphere winter snow extent has been increasing at a rate of over 100,000 km2 per year. [Your plot]”
Maybe the difference between the 2227 weeks record and 1989-present graph wouldn’t seem significant to some and would lend authority to the appended analysis.
If you do do rough math, then juxtaposing a 40 year record with a 20 year graph seems a bit dodgy.
Leif,
Please read HGI’s post more carefully.
He (Tamino) concedes that the 20 year trend is statistically significant.
Steve Goddard (07:41:52) :
While you are at it, perhaps you could ask Tamino to calculate the statistical significance of CO2 vs temperature through the geological record?
With suitable cherry picking one might find a robust correlation.
And BTW, the specific graph you showed actually supports a correlation even without cherry picking.
carrot eater (06:05:29) said:
In which direction are you claiming the causality works?
Steve Goddard (08:08:51) :
Please read HGI’s post more carefully.
I read Tamino’s post very carefully [something I rarely do, but since it was about you … 🙂 ]. Now for that R^2 on your weekly graph [and since 1966]…
Steve Goddard wrote : “During the 1970s the southern snow cover was seen as a sign of an impending ice age, and the solution was to melt the polar ice caps. In 2010, the nearly identical snow cover is a sign of out of control global warming and the solution is to shut down modern civilization.”
But you are using media reports to back up your case, such as it is ! You should know that, even back in the 70s, most of the serious studies were predicting warming.
And it’s not ‘nearly identical’ now, because (as far as I can see) out of the top 10 for extent in the NH, 5 of them were in the 70s; 8 of them in the top 15; 12 in the top 20. Only 4 out of the top 20 have occurred since 1985. Big difference, don’t you think ?
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=0&ui_sort=2
Steve Goddard wrote : “So you think that the current 20 year increase in winter snow extent, culminating in the present record is not interesting? Particularly in light of all the claims that snowfall is decreasing and moving north?”
Who is saying that snowfall is ‘decreasing and moving north’ ? Where can I read more about that ?
As for your link to ‘the solution is to shut down modern civilization’ :
“The report concludes that, in an economy designed to respect environmental thresholds, it may actually be easier to achieve human well-being, social equality, full employment and strong public services.”
http://neweconomics.org/press-releases/economic-growth-no-longer-possible-for-rich-countries-says-new-research
Now that would be bad (for rabid conservative capitalists), wouldn’t it ?
Leif,
You claim a correlation in the CO2 vs. temperature graph. Please prove it.
Leif,
Winter snow cover decreased during the 1980s and has increased since. Why do think it is appropriate to do analysis of a linear fit across what is clearly non-linear behaviour?
R. Gates (07:13:40) :
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Shorter period graphs, like the one you first posted are relatively devoid of meaningful long term trend information. Why post it unless you’re trying to point to some trend that just isn’t there?
Short period graphs like the one you show that cover a single warm PDO cycle depict meaningless anomalies.
Steve Goddard (08:33:37) :
Have a look at Fig 2 in Royer, “CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (2005)
Combine the forcing from CO2 and solar, and you see glaciations when the total forcing gets low. The one exception here was at the Ordovician, and that has apparently been resolved (Young 2009); CO2 possibly did go down before that glaciation.
Do keep in mind that TSI was rather lower in the geological past. See the Faint Young Sun paradox.
Or just watch Richard Alley’s lecture, and then chase the citations from there.
“The geologic record shows a climate sensitivity of zero.”
This is worded awfully, anyway. If the climate sensitivity is zero, then no radiative imbalance can change the climate. TSI could go up or down by 20%, and nothing would happen.
R^2 on the winter graph since 1989 is 0.298514013
R^2 on the weekly graph since 1966 is 0.004697147
R^2 on the weekly graph since 1989 is 5.25176E-05
Steve Goddard (08:33:37) :
You claim a correlation in the CO2 vs. temperature graph. Please prove it.
Reading off your graph at 500 million year intervals [one has to use equidistant times – otherwise one could read off a million points between 1.1 and 1.2 million years ago, say, and get any correlation one wants] I get:
Mya CO2 dT
0 280 1
500 300 4
1000 1000 5
1500 1500 6.5
2000 1900 7.5
2500 2000 8
3000 2100 8.5
3500 2200 9
4000 2300 9.5
4500 2500 10
linear correlation dT = 1.5 + 0.0034 CO2[ppm] with R^2 = 0.9358. Highly significant. A t-stat of 10.8 for the trend with p-value 5×10^(-6).
It’s funny how people react to the large snow storms we’re seeing and saying “Look at the snow storm on the east coast, doesn’t too warm now does it Al Gore!! Ha we got them libs!!” You know that one of the predicted effects of global warming is increased precipitation due to the fact the the warming of the oceans releases more moisture into the atmosphere. More moisture in the air = more rain where it rains and more snow where it snows. Global warming = more incidence of extreme weather.
Did you know we just had the warmest decade in recorded history?? But hey, there’s snow in the middle of february in north eastern US and Canada!! Global Warming must be false, right? Please…
Steve Goddard wrote : “Additionally, North American snow extent broke its all time record last week. Canada is normally completely covered with snow in the winter (except for Olympic venues) so the implication is that the US had more snow last week than has been seen in at least the last 44 years.”
Instead of implications (and remembering that Canada’s snow cover is not particularly great at the moment either), why don’t you give out some figures ?
Week 7 for 2010 (last week ?), for North America without Greenland, is only 28th in the extent records. Week 6 is 15th.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=0&ui_sort=5
Where is your assertion from ?
Goddard,
Your linked image at http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/gorebot/Geological_Timescale_op_927x695.jpg is a bit curious in itself.
I looked, and the source cited for the CO2 record only goes back as far as the Eocene, and even over the period covered, doesn’t really look like the data in your image.
As for the temperature series, it looks like a hand-drawn resketch of a very qualitative sketch on the website of a Chris Scotese. And even at that, doesn’t do a great job of capturing the qualitative features. It doesn’t really show all the glaciations; it doesn’t really show the PETM; it’s really a rough hand-sketch.
There’s not even any sign at all of the Snowball earth period of the Neoproterozoic. That should be hard to miss.
In short, I think your plot is a questionable resource.
I discovered something recently, while checking out the GISS data set. There is something called “meteorological winter,” comprising [correct usage!] the months of December, January, and February. The next three months make up (or “constitute”) meteorological spring, etc. This makes sense, from a climatic standpoint.
Leif,
Here is one you will like. R^2 on the winter graph since 1999 is 0.312822303
Slope is 317,000 km2/year.
Steve Goddard (08:55:45) :
R^2 on the winter graph since 1989 is 0.298514013
And how much difference does it make if you omit the 2009 and 2010 winter?
An R^2 of 0.3 is normally not considered very good with about 20 data points [regardless of what the statistics tables say]. Also, there is a certain persistence to the weather [the autocorrelation at lag 1 is not zero] so the data points are not independent.
jtom said:
“So R. Gates, it looks by your theory that the polar region has now been infused with warmer air.
So we should get no more frigid arctic air dumped on us this year, meaning winter is essentially over. Is that your prediction?”
jtom,
Cold air is “recharged” in the arctic winter darkness from the lower amounts of solar radiation hitting the polar region. Once you have a cold outbreak (when the cold air spills down to the south from the poles) it can be recharged rather quickly during the heart of the winter, (Dec-Jan.) but now that we’re getting toward spring and the maximum arctic sea ice extent (mid-March) it takes more and more time to recharge, and the cold is obviously less intense on each reacharge. Note: We still have cold (or cool) front come some from the arctic even in summer months, but behind those fronts are obvious 50 and 60 degree temps, not the minus 10 and minus 20’s we can see in winter.
Though I know you were poking fun at my explanation for how the negative AO had the affect of sending cold air south, which was accurate, I thought I would answer your question honestly and factually as well.
—
What does this increased snow extent in the northern hemisphere mean with regard to the Arctic polar ice mass?
I keep getting noise from committed warmists to the effect that the Arctic ice is somehow abating – “disappearing” – at abnormal rates and recovery thereof is not happening, but facts on this subject have proven difficult for me to find, one way or another. I have secondary sources (Mr. Monckton’s talks and other promulgations have been helpful), but I would like to nail down primary rather than derivative citations if at all feasible.
Any help would be welcomed. Thanks.
—
Tucci (18:12:24) :
“What does this increased snow extent in the northern hemisphere mean with regard to the Arctic polar ice mass?”
The snow extent mentioned here is on land, only. At least, that’s what I gather from the map.
Arctic sea ice is an entirely different thing. Whatever data you want about that, you’ll find here. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Tucci (18:12:24) :
Eh, I see you wanted Arctic mass. That’s harder to find than extent, which is on multiple websites.
There’s a bit here (as volume)
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707.html
And according to my trusted sources (the Japanese mainly) La Nina is now due in just 7-9 months time. The Pacific Basin is due for a significant widespread cooling as a result. Even the normally warm Indian Ocean is due for some regional cooling. This combined with a long solar minima, prolonged low Ap index and increased equatorial cloudiness, as well as a recent increase in the amount of outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR), I wonder what the next Boreal winter is going to be like!?!
Even more cool because of global warming I would has at a guess.
carrot,
I’ve written up contrary predictions vs. NSIDC for the last two summers, and have been correct both times. I’m expecting to do the same this year.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/prediction-arctic-ice-will-continue-to-recover-this-summer/
Steve Goddard (20:56:06) :
Does the NSIDC put out a formal guess of the minimum?
I have no basis for guessing games on this one.
JMurphy (08:20:00) :
Steve Goddard wrote : “During the 1970s the southern snow cover was seen as a sign of an impending ice age, and the solution was to melt the polar ice caps. In 2010, the nearly identical snow cover is a sign of out of control global warming and the solution is to shut down modern civilization.”
But you are using media reports to back up your case, such as it is ! You should know that, even back in the 70s, most of the serious studies were predicting warming.
——————–
I suspect that your claim in the above paragraph is based on the Peterson, Connelley, Fleck paper, since you didn’t choose to provide a reference.
The authors provide charts, which differentiate ‘warming’, ‘cooling’ and ‘neutral’ studies. They freely admit that they didn’t actually read these papers, but inferred the probable nature of each of them on the strength of citations and mention of terms such as ‘CO2’.
Idso and Brezil 1977 went in the warming column.
ABSTRACT.
Atmospheric aerosol pollution has a significant effect on global climate. Research on dust particle interactions with solar and thermal radiation reveals the net climatological consequences of altering the dust concentration of the atmosphere. The vertical distribution of aerosols is just as important as their concentration in determining the magnitude and direction of their effects on surface temperature changes. The injection of dust high into the stratosphere by volcanic explosions favors the reduction of surface temperatures. The increase in lower tropospheric aerosol concentrations by either natural or human agents usually initiates a surface warming.
Your opinion seems to be based on rubbish. ‘Made ground’ it’s known as in the construction business.
Oliver Ramsay (23:08:59) :
“They freely admit that they didn’t actually read these papers, but inferred the probable nature of each of them on the strength of citations and mention of terms such as ‘CO2′.”
____
The authors admit no such thing. Where are you getting that idea?
As for Idso/Brezil, they highlight it as one of two oddballs in their study:
“Interestingly, only two of the articles would, according to the current state of
climate science, be considered “wrong” in the sense of getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing they considered—one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner1976) and one warming (Idso and Brazel 1977) paper—
and both were immediately challenged (Woronko 1977; Herman et al. 1978).”
Oliver Ramsay wrote : “I suspect that your claim in the above paragraph is based on the Peterson, Connelley, Fleck paper, since you didn’t choose to provide a reference.
The authors provide charts, which differentiate ‘warming’, ‘cooling’ and ‘neutral’ studies. They freely admit that they didn’t actually read these papers, but inferred the probable nature of each of them on the strength of citations and mention of terms such as ‘CO2′.
Your opinion seems to be based on rubbish.”
The claim is indeed based on that paper, which I don’t believe has been disproved. Or can you state otherwise ?
Where do the authors ‘freely admit’ what you suggest ? Do you have a reference, because it doesn’t seem to correspond what it says in the paper :
‘Given that media representations do not
capture the full scope of the scientific literature of
the time, we conducted a rigorous literature review
of the American Meteorological Society’s
electronic archives as well as those of Nature and
the scholarly journal archive Journal Storage
(JSTOR). To capture the relevant topics, we used
global temperature, global warming and global
cooling as well as a variety of other less directly
relevant search terms. Additionally, in order to
make the survey more complete, even at the
expense of no longer being fully reproducible by
electronic search techniques, many references
mentioned in the papers located by these
searches were evaluated as were references
mentioned in various history of science
documents.
Our literature survey was limited to those
papers projecting climate change on, or even just
discussing an aspect of climate forcing relevant to,
time scales of decades to a century.
This project prompted
us to reread many articles by the great
climatologists of past decades such as Mikhail
Budyko, Charles Keeling, Helmut Landsberg,
Syukuro Manabe, B. John Mason, and J. Murray
Mitchell which made us realize the debt of
gratitude we owe to these pioneers.’
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
Finally, thank you for your critical analysis of my opinion. I look forward to judging the basis of yours…
JMurphy,
My apologies. A sloppy inference on my part.
carrot,
Here is an NSIDC prediction for a record low in 2008
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/200805_Figure4.png
The director, Mark Serreze bet on an “ice free North pole” in 2008.
George E. Smith
“As for proving there hasn’t been any man made global warming; we aren’t out to prove that; we just haven’t seen the proof from those who say that is and has happened. The onus of proof is on them; not us.”
Not my point-my point was, on this site, ther have been numerous assertations that we are in a period of cooling (PDO shift, solar min, AO) as contradictions to the global warming theories. Once asserted the onus of proof is indeed on the persons making those new assertions. The null hypothesis exclusion no longer exists once the counter point has been argued.