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.

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.