Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent Second Highest on Record

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.

The Cooling World

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.

Science: Another Ice Age?

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.


0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

263 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Skinner
February 18, 2010 3:41 am

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.

Stephen Skinner
February 18, 2010 3:44 am

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

Steve Goddard
February 18, 2010 4:10 am

Leif,
Actually he was talking about the same graph. This is his entire sentence which was split up in two pieces.:

Then the data since 1989 look like this (very similar to Goddard’s graph, but with an even larger value this year): and 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, right?

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!

Steve Goddard
February 18, 2010 4:15 am

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?

Steve Goddard
February 18, 2010 4:24 am

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.

Steve Keohane
February 18, 2010 5:23 am

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.

Charles Higley
February 18, 2010 5:29 am

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.

Charles Higley
February 18, 2010 5:37 am

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!

Tom P
February 18, 2010 5:48 am

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.”

JMurphy
February 18, 2010 5:59 am

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.

pauly
February 18, 2010 6:02 am

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.

carrot eater
February 18, 2010 6:05 am

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.

February 18, 2010 6:16 am

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.

Steve Goddard
February 18, 2010 6:26 am

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?

Steve Goddard
February 18, 2010 6:30 am

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?

Steve Goddard
February 18, 2010 6:31 am

carrot,
What you are implying is that CO2 is not the dominant driver in temperature.

February 18, 2010 6:35 am

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.

HGI
February 18, 2010 6:35 am

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.

carrot eater
February 18, 2010 6:46 am

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.

Caleb
February 18, 2010 6:49 am

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.

HGI
February 18, 2010 6:51 am

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.

R. Gates
February 18, 2010 7:13 am

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?

February 18, 2010 7:14 am

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/

February 18, 2010 7:35 am

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?

Steve Goddard
February 18, 2010 7:41 am

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.