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.
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.