Guest post by Steven Goddard
Several people keep asking why am I focused on winter snow extent. This seems fairly obvious, but I will review here:
- Snow falls in the winter, in places where it is cold. Snow does not generally fall in the summer, because it is too warm.
- Winter snow extent is a good proxy for winter snowfall. Snow has to fall before it can cover the ground.
So what about summer snow cover? Summer snow cover declined significantly (from the 1970s ice age scare) during the 1980s, but minimums have not changed much since then. As you can see in the graph below, the overall annual trend since 1989 has been slightly upwards.
Data from Rutgers University Global Snow Lab
Note in the image above that there has been almost no change in the summer minimum snow extent since 1989, and that the winter maximums have increased significantly as seen below.
Summer snow cover is affected by many factors, but probably the most important one is soot, as Dr. Hansen has stated.
The effects of soot in changing the climate are more than most scientists acknowledge, two US researchers say. In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they say reducing atmospheric soot levels could help to slow global warming relatively simply. They believe soot is twice as potent as carbon dioxide, a main greenhouse gas, in raising surface air temperatures. … The researchers are Dr James Hansen and Larissa Nazarenko, both of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, part of the US space agency Nasa, and Columbia University Earth Institute.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3333493.stm
The global warming debate has until now focused almost entirely on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, but scientists at the University of California – Irvine, suggest that a lesser-known problem – dirty snow – could explain the Arctic warming attributed to greenhouse gases….The effect is more conspicuous in Arctic areas, where Zender believes that more than 90 percent of the warming could be attributed to dirty snow.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070506202633data_trunc_sys.shtml
In summary, winter snowfall is increasing and currently at record levels, and summer snow extent is not changing much. Earlier changes in summer snow extent were likely due primarily to soot – not CO2.
Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting?
Several people keep asking why am I focused on winter snow extent. This seems fairly obvious, but I will review here:
1. Snow falls in the winter, in places where it is cold. Snow does not generally fall in the summer, because it is too warm.
2. Winter snow extent is a good proxy for winter snowfall. Snow has to fall before it can cover the ground.
So what about summer snow cover? Summer snow cover declined significantly (from the 1970s ice age scare) during the 1980s, but minimums have not changed much since then. As you can see in the graph below, the overall annual trend since 1989 has been slightly upwards.
Data from Rutgers University Global Snow Lab
Note in the image above that there has been almost no change in the summer minimum snow extent since 1989, and that the winter maximums have increased significantly as seen below.
Summer snow cover is affected by many factors, but probably the most important one is soot, as Dr. Hansen has stated.
The effects of soot in changing the climate are more than most scientists acknowledge, two US researchers say. In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they say reducing atmospheric soot levels could help to slow global warming relatively simply. They believe soot is twice as potent as carbon dioxide, a main greenhouse gas, in raising surface air temperatures. … The researchers are Dr James Hansen and Larissa Nazarenko, both of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, part of the US space agency Nasa, and Columbia University Earth Institute.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3333493.stm
The global warming debate has until now focused almost entirely on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, but scientists at the University of California – Irvine, suggest that a lesser-known problem – dirty snow – could explain the Arctic warming attributed to greenhouse gases….The effect is more conspicuous in Arctic areas, where Zender believes that more than 90 percent of the warming could be attributed to dirty snow.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070506202633data_trunc_sys.shtml
In summary, winter snowfall is increasing and currently at record levels, and summer snow extent is not changing much. Earlier changes in summer snow extent were likely due primarily to soot – not CO2.
Steve
Your last sentence:
“Earlier changes in summer snow extent were likely due primarily to soot – not CO2.”
Is this Hansen’s statement or yours? It goes unquestioned. We dont need to be hypnotised by AGW bluster from Hansen or anyone else – ascribing snow trends or anything else in as complex a system as climate, to a single factor, e.g. soot, is certain to be false. Soot in particular is an irrelevant red herring, AGWers are grasping at straws.
This conversation seems to have wandered all over the place, pretty aimlessly.
I’m sitting here looking at a map of air mass movement from a 1983 textbook on maritime weather, and I see an intersection point over about Asheville NC, of the maritime polar(mP) air mass, the continental polar (cP) air mass, and the maritime tropical (mT) airmass, with a potential contribution from an arctic (A) air mass from the north. The intersection point is right where the Washington weather bomb got up a head of steam and charged forward, and the relevant air masses have all the necessary ingredients. The historic path of both the mT and cP air masses is right out over Delaware (don’t have a chart for eurasia, but would be surprised if there aren’t similar confluences).
Now, it seems likely that the confluential interaction of these air masses was just so this season, producing the weather experienced this winter.
Since there are previous records for similar events (of equal magnitude – I’ll re-iterate what I said earlier – a 1/2″ difference does not a “new” record make), it is reasonable, and probably even likely, that the snow extent is chaotically cyclic (chaotic, only because we haven’t yet ascertained what the respective periodicities are), and we are seeing a normal event that occurs whenever certain planetary drivers coincide (ie, el ninos, pdos, enso, solar etc.). Forget soot, CO2 and the IPCC and look to the macro events before you blow your minds on the micro political drivers.
Another masterful analysis by Steve “Pixel Counter” Goddard. Using Excel and 21 years worth of data to contradict 100 years of science – and in 500 words or less….impressive!
The “skeptic” community has made many valid observations and critiques of climate science, but allowing folks like Steve Goddard to speak for the community at large illegitimizes potentially useful insights contributed by others.
My advice to everyone here: do not visit this website for science. Peer-reviewed literature is where this debate should be happening, not the blogosphere.
>> Leif Svalgaard (20:02:12) :
The energy and momentum of a photon are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. The momentum p points in the direction of the photon’s propagation and has a magnitude of p = h/L, where h is Planck’s constant and L is the wave length. So, photons do have momentum and can give you a kick and increase your kinetic energy. <<
This is as I remember it from my basic physics. What I don't remember is what happens to the photon. If an air molecule gains kinetic energy from a collision, the photon must lose energy in the collision. Does the photon come off of the collision with a longer wavelength?
Starting with a molecule at rest, and a photon scattered directly backwards, the transfer of momentum (dp) would be:
dp = 2 * E/c [E = photon energy, c = speed of light]
the final velocity of the molecule would be:
v = 2 * E / mc [m = mass of air molecule]
and the kinetic energy (dE) would be:
dE = 2 * E * E / (mc2) [c2 = speed of light squared]
A quick run through the physics tables gives a ballpark value for E/mc2 of about 10 to the -10, so the change in photon energy would be barely noticible.
“Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting?”
Guest post by Steven Goddard
Well it seems we have several answers to the question and many questions about the answers and many questions that never got answers. I never knew that there was so much interest in winter snow extent graphs.
I’m just a little confused though. It sure seemed that more are more interested in the math of the graphs and not the extent of the snow.
Perhaps those who know about snow and ice and R2 (whatever it is) will put together another article someday that addresses the connection between annual snow and ice extents so the minutia mob stay in the closet.
Somehow I doubt that Plato put up with “R2” minutia and bickering. Wonder how he kept the conversation from such diversions and actually came up with a meaningful discussion and reasonable answer(s) to the question(s).
Phil M. (05:44:51) :
[..]
My advice to everyone here: do not visit this website for science. Peer-reviewed literature is where this debate should be happening, not the blogosphere.
Apparently you missed the “memo(s)”. There is no debate in “peer-reviewed” literature…
Phil M,
If you have a specific objection to anything in the article, please state it.
Otherwise, don’t waste other people’s time with your pointless diatribe.
Jay,
You asked what I think winter snow cover tells us about climate. Simple, the climate models and forecasts don’t seem to be working. Winter snow cover is supposed to be decreasing, not increasing.
http://www.eee.columbia.edu/research-projects/water_resources/climate-change-snow-cover/index.html
Ronaldo (21:52:24) :
My understanding is that the CO2 molecule absorbs the photon, thus increasing the molecule’s internal (vibrational?) energy and then re-emits a photon of the same energy and thus wavelength but in a random direction. Otherwise we have a perpetual motion machine. Have I got this wrong?>
I bow to Leif and others on this issue who have posted various explanations. I can only advise that the explanations may not be complete as they do not support a practical method to build a photon torpedo. I’ve been told that photon torpedos are science fiction, to which I respond that there is just as much evidence for them as there is for perpetual motion. And AGW.
BTW Phil M,
NSIDC teaches pixel counting to their students at CU as a technique to measure Arctic ice. If you find that offensive to your sensitive disposition, please contact them with your complaint.
Quote : Phil M. (05:44:51) :
“My advice to everyone here: do not visit this website for science. Peer-reviewed literature is where this debate should be happening, not the blogosphere.”
Like the IPCC?
phlogiston ,
The soot remark is my statement, not Hansen’s. I’m just back from driving on snow being melted by intentionally placed dark material. It is a very effective way to melt snow – orders of magnitude faster than it would have otherwise.
A late response to Leif – posted last night but it went missing due to my own error:
Leif:
I went back over previous e-mails and realized belatedly that you were responding to a strain of ’strange’ science in some of the comments that I had not followed closely enough.
However, if you care to look at various episodes in the history of science, such as the belief in phrenology, or the electricity of the body, or the inventor Tesla’s belief in the future of transmitting electrical power through the air or his determination to invent a perpetual motion machine, you will realize that this is nothing new. William Harvey, so famous for determining experimentally the circulation of the blood in the 17th century, also determined experimentally that females of the human and ovine species could become pregnant by gazing lustfully at the males of the species (or in the case of women, portraits of handsome men): no contact required. Harvey in fact was ignoring millenia of scientific wisdom. Aristotle and the Greeks realized that a “mingling of the fluids” was needed for conception to occur.
There is no dark age of science or civilization arising from the eccentrics amongst us: a dark age may arise, however, from the willful distortion of the scientific process for monetary and political ends. This happened under the Nazi regime. Unfortunately the lessons of history are being forgotten, as evidently the IPCC and other bodies believe the ends justifies the means – and the ends cannot be achieved without packaging propaganda as science.
vigilantfish (07:17:49) :
a dark age may arise, however, from the willful distortion of the scientific process for monetary and political ends.
Such distortion would not be successful if the citizenry were scientific literate. Now, some of the illiterati are willfully illiterate, i.e. not willing to learn for various reasons, e.g. religious.
There is another underlying problem, namely that modern science may be intellectually overwhelming and some people are drawn to simpler pictures that they can ‘understand’ [it is easier to ‘understand’ that angels push the planets around than some mathematical equations; or that ‘thunderbolts’ from the heavens are powering the Sun rather than complicated nuclear processes]. As has been said so often, half of Americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Right there, one loses that segment of the population.
Regarding the IPCC and ‘other bodies’ there are people that oppose these on economic grounds rather on scientific grounds. I guess than there actually are more economic/political resistance than purely scientific. Getting the science right is a long-term project that may take centuries.
Tom_R (06:19:36) :
>> Leif Svalgaard (20:02:12) :
The energy and momentum of a photon are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. The momentum p points in the direction of the photon’s propagation and has a magnitude of p = h/L, where h is Planck’s constant and L is the wave length. So, photons do have momentum and can give you a kick and increase your kinetic energy. <<
This is as I remember it from my basic physics. What I don't remember is what happens to the photon. If an air molecule gains kinetic energy from a collision, the photon must lose energy in the collision. Does the photon come off of the collision with a longer wavelength?
No the photon is absorbed it does not emerge from the collision at all.
Let there be NO elitists or kings, whether on our side or another!
Phil M. (05:44:51)
“My advice to everyone here: do not visit this website for science. Peer-reviewed literature is where this debate should be happening, not the blogosphere.”
This thread by Steve Goddard has attracted a lot of criticism from (apparently) AGWers for stating a rather simple fact: snow extent is increasing, in direct contradiction of general circulation models which predict global warming. The very simplicity of the statement appears to be offensive to some who perhaps need their science to be more complex and opaque.
It has exposed a raw nerve for a clear reason: the global climate is cooling. There are a number of stark and inescapable implications of this:
1) The AGW body of theory is a total failure;
2) Every “scientist”, however many peers they may be able to lay claim to, who has embraced AGW, is a failed scientist: their instincts and methodology have proved wrong.
3) Every scientist who, having looked at the evidence, has instinctively decided that global warming is false and un-grounded, for whatever combination of reasons, has been vindicated as a true scientist. This includes a fair proportion of regular posters on this site, several of whom are climate scientists who have been removed from research positions unfairly by the AGW inquisition exposed in the CRU emails.
It is one thing to be a technician; it is another to be a scientist. If you are a technician, you can have a powerful grasp of the workings of a scientific methodology and body of theory in a particular discipline. You might be a capable mathematician or programmer, but your world is essentially one of methodology. A scientist by contrast goes a little further than methodology, and thinks beyond one particular corner of a discipline or subject. Shocking as it might sound, a scientist requires an accurate intuition, an ability to “sense” the likely relative significance of a range of factors in a complex system for example. (Sound methodology is necessary for good science but not sufficient for good science.)
As the climate continues to cool, the peer-reviewed literature on AGW will be shown for what it is – the self-interested output of professional politicians dressed up as scientists, weaving technical language to construct inductive arguments supporting a pre-decided outcome – indefinite global warming. Such theories have their own internal logic and sense of rightness, but being inductive, are held up by a series of assumptions that represent a fragile and flimsy foundation. Holding such views shows ignorance and contempt for the totatity of climate record extending all the way back to the Cambrian era, with narrative confined to only climate history in the last 1 or 2 centuries or decades.
Peer reviewed literature is where the politics is happening. Climate science that reflects reality is more likely to be found here.
>> Phil. (08:48:21) :
No the photon is absorbed it does not emerge from the collision at all. <<
Then why is the sky blue?
Ref – vigilantfish (07:17:49) :
“…a dark age may arise, however, from the willful distortion of the scientific process for monetary and political ends.”
_________________________
Yes we all have to pinch ourselves every so often and remember we’re dealing with “people”.
Ref – Leif Svalgaard (07:59:30) :
“There is another underlying problem, namely that modern science may be intellectually overwhelming and some people are drawn to simpler pictures that they can ‘understand’ [it is easier to ‘understand’ that angels push the planets around than some mathematical equations; or that ‘thunderbolts’ from the heavens are powering the Sun rather than complicated nuclear processes]. As has been said so often, half of Americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Right there, one loses that segment of the population.”
________________________
One of the first laws of Human Nature has the acronym KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid!). Einstein was brilliant at it; what a guy, who else could have said more with less? (E=mc^2) I fear that many “intellectuals” underestimate the intelligence of Joe & Jo the Plumbers. If nothing else, they & their kids are survivors. They can take anything the gods throw at them and in their magnanimity they support and pander to the stunted, crippled, sick among them who only know how to think well about one thing at a time. Life’s a beach, Leif! Don’t assume IQ tests have anything to do with wisdom or intelligence.
Leif Svalgaard (07:59:30) :
(…) As has been said so often, half of Americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Right there, one loses that segment of the population.(…)
And the MSM also says there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is occurring, man is responsible, there is no debate, the science is settled, yada yada.
Half of Americans (or more) believing in God and that God created the world? Credible. Half of Americans believing the Earth is 6000 years old? Not credible, as seen here “in the field.”
The “elite” as found in the MSM and academia wanting to paint average Americans as ignorant unscientific hicks who obviously need to be led by “smarter” people, such as themselves, thus believing God created the world is labeled Creationism thus proof that half of Americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old? Credible.
Why do “smart” people continue to imply, when they don’t outright state, that belief in God precludes one from understanding nuclear fusion in the Sun, and means they think angels push the planets around? When scientists violate scientific principles and insist there is no God without supplying proof, then these “scientists” find that people must obviously be unscientific because they continue to believe in God. Last I checked, even the most devoutly religious people in America believe lights come on when you turn on a light switch because of electrons moving in wires, not because moving the switch signals the angels in the bulbs to start glowing. Nor do they petition their electric company to stop charging them for power since the angels are doing the work. So why are “smart” people insisting that half of Americans are a permanently scientific-illiterate “lost cause”?
Pascvaks (09:45:54) :
One of the first laws of Human Nature has the acronym KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid!). Einstein was brilliant at it;
Einstein once said: “keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler“.
Don’t assume IQ tests have anything to do with wisdom or intelligence.
Science has nothing to do with IQ-test, nor with wisdom, nor with intelligence.
kadaka (09:58:37) :
Half of Americans believing the Earth is 6000 years old? Not credible
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401262.html
> Steve Goddard (21:13:04) :
> The upwards trend started in 1989. Prior to that
> there was a downwards trend. If I am showing a graph
> of the most recent upwards trend, why would I include
> years that aren’t part of that trend?
If you want to assert that there was some kind of climatological regime change in 1989, there are statistical tests for distinguishing that from random noise, and it would help to have an explanation that comes from outside the snow data as to why 1989 should be a transition point. Monckton has rightly made great public sport of those who display selected subsets of noisy data in order to assert the existence of a trend.
If you are showing a graph of the most recent upwards trend, you would include years that aren’t part of that trend in order to communicate honesty with the data.
I have sliced and diced the snow cover data in all of the ways described by our colleagues above, including seasonally averaged variations from weekly-normalized means, with various appropriate smoothings. What emerges, as others including you have stated, is that maximum Winter snow cover has not changed much, while Spring and Summer has clearly decreased.
Here are some pretty figures:
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6szLeIoC6RBZjI0YjhhMTctMTk2NC00MGMwLWJiMTktODkzYjM0OTg5YTdm&hl=en
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6szLeIoC6RBOGU1ZjBlNDUtYzgzMi00MDE0LTg2NGQtN2U3ODJmNDU0YWFj&hl=en
kadaka (09:58:37) :
Last I checked, even the most devoutly religious people in America believe lights come on when you turn on a light switch because of electrons moving in wires, not because moving the switch signals the angels in the bulbs to start glowing.
How many did you interview?
How were they selected? [how do you measure devoutness?]
What was the exact question? Sometimes the wording can have an influence on the answer
What is the error bar? i.e. how many agreed vs. not agreed?
Do you plan to submit your finding to a peer-reviewed journal?