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.
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.
“”” The OtherDan (12:01:19) :
George E. Smith “””
Well I get your drift. Mostly what appears on this site (from the sponsors), is reports from other agencies and folks; for example the head of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University; who is just the most recent acknowledged expert to make the claim that “there hasn’t been any warming since 1995.”
Others previously have said the same; usually excepting the well known 1998 El Nino event; well known in the sense of its existence; but perhaps not as to its cause.
Based on those and numerous other citations, and data presented on this site, I personally have tended to agree as to how it looks to me; while not being a contributor of any original data.
Statemnents such as of the kind “so many of the last umpteen years have been the warmest on record.”, in the face of peer reviewed recent temperature records such as tthe 2007/2008 huge drop in temperature; are clearly consistent with a data set, that has recently reached a maxima, and shows better than chance probability of subsequret cooling. Such observations fit quite well with the observation that higher than usual values tend to accumulate about a maximum; and its corollary, that lower than usual values tend to accumulate about a minimum.
To which I would add the observation that some of the highest altitudes on planet earth can be found up in the mountains.
It certainly isn’t I who has claimed that recent years have shown a cooling trend; that is just what I read from acknowledged experts like Phil Jones, and other prominent climate scientists.
And if those statements aren’t true, then I am sure the usual scientific methodology will bring to light why they are incorrect (if they are)
There is no anthropogenic CO2 caused global warming. Read my blog! It takes a satiric and humourous view of all the porkies we hear every day,(In my country, a “porky” is a grossly untrue statement or an outrageous exaggeration) but it points to the real facts which lie in recorded history.
Incidently it is also a serious error and tantemount to being a porky to say that warmer climates cause desertification.
As the air warms there is more evaporation and therefore more precipitation including in the polar regions as snow. For example one should be aware that during the Holocene Optimum with temperatures significantly higher than the present, the Sahara Desert was lush and fertile.
There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.
There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.
I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.
In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.
Cheers
Roger
PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)
Sigh….. Looks like no one wants to talk about the albedo-effect. So what if it is the most immediate and obvious effect of extended snow cover.
Instead you fellows all want to talk about “trend lines.” So what if the best data only goes back 30 years, and the AMO’s cycle is roughly 60.
So what if all prior ice-extent data is, as best I can tell, sheer guess-work, and is (if you bother check with the reports of dudes who actually spent time in the arctic) in some cases very bad guess-work.
You fellows just like to play around with graphs and mathematics, I reckon.
Once I was like you. I really liked baseball, as a kid, as long as I didn’t have to play it. Each morning I burrowed my nose into the paper, sifting through statistics, figuring out all sorts of “trend lines.” It was helpful in seeing who was hot and who was not, who was likely to start and who was likely to be sent down to the minors, who was likely to hit a left-hander and who was unlikely to hit a left-hander, but one thing it could never do: Teach me how to hit.
It was only when a friend’s father bought me a glove and dragged me kicking and screaming out onto the field, to play for a team he coached, that I discovered Baseball-Beyond-Budgeting. It was a whole new world.
Now I’m going to do the same thing for you fellows. I’m kicking you outside. I’m dragging you kicking and screaming away from your computer screens, away from all the numbers. Heck, spring is coming, the sunshine is far more friendly than a month ago, and it is beaming through the branches, stirring the sap. And if vegetables can be stirred, then so can you.
Get outside. Squint in that glorious sun, bouncing from the vast stretches of snow. Feel the wind stir your hair. Feel your brain cells stirred beneath that hair.
What occurs to you, as you risk snow-blindness? Trend Lines? Nope.
It is Albedo-effect! Albedo-effect! Albedo-effect!
(Sorry. I just had to get that off my chest.)
Steve Goddard (08:36:47) :
carrot,
Here is an NSIDC prediction for a record low in 2008
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/200805_Figure4.png
That isn’t a prediction, it’s an illustration of what 2008 would look like if the melt followed previous years pattern.
The director, Mark Serreze bet on an “ice free North pole” in 2008.
Yeah he said it was an even bet!
George E. Smith (16:05:23) wrote :
‘for example the head of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University; who is just the most recent acknowledged expert to make the claim that “there hasn’t been any warming since 1995.”‘
Are you referring to Phil Jones ? If so, he did not say that. He said, in reply to the question : ‘Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming ?’ –
“Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm
I.E. the warming has been 0.12C/decade since 1995 (POSITIVE), but it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short time-period. The WARMING trend therefore doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance (95%) but is at least 90%.
Haven’t had a chance to look at many of the models yet, but when I went to earthsystemgrid and downloaded the IPCC AR4 model predictions, I find that: the NCAR CCSM prediction for monthly mean snow extent is pretty constant for the first 30 years of the 20th century, with some annual ups and downs that result in spurious trends for many 20 year long chunks of data. By the end of the century, there’s about a 3% decline in February snow extent. I also looked at snow *fall* in a different model, GFDL CM2.1, and found that the model predicts increasing snow fall by the end of the century over almost all the northern hemisphere land mass. Can someone point out an actual inconsistency between this winter’s snow extent and climate model predictions of the response to CO2?