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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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/