While some other bloggers and journalists insist that recent winter snows are proof of global warming effects, they miss the fact that models have been predicting less snow in the norther hemisphere. See this 2005 peer reviewed paper:
Frei, A. and G. Gong, 2005. Decadal to Century Scale Trends in North American Snow Extent in Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models. Geophysical Research Letters, 32:L18502, doi: 10.1029/2005GL023394.
It says exactly the opposite of what some are saying now. – Anthony
=====================================
Guest post by Steven Goddard
A 2005 Columbia University study titled “WILL CLIMATE CHANGE AFFECT SNOW COVER OVER NORTH AMERICA?” ran nine climate models used by the IPCC, and all nine predicted that North American winter snow cover would decline significantly, starting in about 1990.
In this study, current and future decadal trends in winter North American SCE (NA-SCE) are investigated, using nine general circulation models (GCMs) of the global atmosphere-ocean system participating in the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC-AR4)…
all nine models exhibit a clear and statistically significant decreasing trend in 21st century NA-SCE
Some of the models predicted a significant decline in winter snow cover between 1990 and 2010.
Climate Model predictions of Snow Cover Decline
As we know, winter snow cover has actually increased about 5% since it bottomed in 1989, and is now close to a record maximum.
Below is another interesting graph. It shows the number of top 100 snow extent weeks by decade. I took the top 100 weekly snow extents (out of 2227) from the Rutgers record and sorted them by decade. The past decade has been at least as snowy as the 1970s.
The past decade has had the most weeks in the top 100 since 1966.
Above are images from NASA showing snow extent from 2001 to 2004. Below is an image from 2010, showing snow cover in all 48 states.
NOAA Image – February 12, 2010
========================
UPDATE: Here is a new graph of north American winter trend produced by Steve at the request of commenters:
So far, the climate models have the wrong polarity on their predictions of winter snow cover changes.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Robert,
One more thing. I am not “ignoring” anything. It has scarcely been 24 hours since I discussed the decline in summer snow extent.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/
Did you forget that already?
Dr. Svalgaard, it appears to me that your graphs could/may represent natural climate. Bit more snow for awhile, bit less for awhile. Now if the next decade is a bit more, then can we say we have a natural trend? Or would this take about 10 more decades of data? If so, unless cloning gets perfected soon, I guess I’ll never know if this snow cover is natural or GW!
🙂
Leo G,
Climate is absolutely not linear. If it were, earth would either be like Venus or Pluto.
This obsession with trying to identify very long-term linear trends makes no sense when discussing cyclical behaviour.
“The climate is not changing linearly. We can expect more change at the end than at the beginning. The models themselves are extremely limited, as the paper acknowledges, which is why they confined themselves to talking to predicting the long-term trend (with many caveats.)”
Never heard that before(not), you can predict long term climate but not progression to the doomsday global warming. Ok NOW I believe you. :p
In other words, you have no clue. But your high salary depends on it, so here you are.
So whats it like to be a mental brown noser, is the pay good?
So, in 2005 nine computer models predicted that snow cover would decline significantly, starting in 1990, FIFTEEN YEARS previous to the publication of the study. Why did they need computer models to predict for these fifteen years? Why did they not just use data from actual observation?
By the divinations of Science, the eco-zealots portend apocalyptic catastrophe; by the divinations of Science, the skeptic assures all is copacetic. Surely the divination of entrails can do equally as well.
For those who worship Science, these must be troubling times.
Steve Goddard (11:00:12) :
And at no time did I make any inference comparing vs. the 1960s.
That is not the point. You show the 1960s, that is your explicit inference. For a correct analysis you have three choices:
1) not showing 1960s because they are partial only
2) showing 1960s, but in a different color [say] to denote that the data is partial
3) normalizing the 1960s by multiplying the count by the total number of weeks in a decade divided by the number of weeks with data.
Choice 3 is the usual choice [sometimes combined with 2]. I suggest that you simply do this and refresh the Figure in the post.
Interesting from Dr. Spencer’s map (Thanx Mike Edwards).
Reading ancedotal evidence from the Kiwi’s and Auzzies, it appears that on country is having a cool summer (N.Z.) whilst the other is having a hot summer. I find this interesting because they are not really “far” apart in miles. So obviously, there must be some other geographic reason – Aus having a large “desert”, N.Z. being very mountainous and having the coast close to mast of its land mass? etc.
Looking at Dr. Spencer’s chart here is what my eyes pick out:
For Aus
– about 50% is 1*C higher
– about 25% is 2*C higher
_ about 25% is no change
N.Z.
– about 25% 1*C higher
– about 25% 1*C lower
– about 50% normal
Climate Modelling
As I understand it, the proponents of Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming rely upon the release of so called greenhouse gasses (mainly co2) that are mainly derived from fossil fuels and released into the atmosphere by man as the cause of global warming. While the release of such gasses is true and the amount considerable, it is none the less, an infinitesimally small proportion of the total emission of co2 so released. They have never been able to separate the natural GHGs from the man made contribution let alone prove that this has had any significant effect upon climate.
They seem to be rushing around finding all sorts of events to use as proof of their theory but which at best have only very tenuous and unproven linkages to this theory.
On the other hand Dr. Miskolczi has proven, as far as I can ascertain, that Co2 emissions are irrelevant in regard to earth’s climate.
Dr. Miskolczi first published his work in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Services in 2004, Volume 108, No 4. He published further statistical proof in the same Journal in 2007, Volume 111, No. 1. Since he first published his results, not one peer review has come back disproving his theory, or his Constant. To date, as far as I am aware, not one scientist has come forward to disprove Miskolczi’s theory that the Earth’s climate is at equilibrium, and that Carbon Dioxide cannot be released in amounts great enough to upset that equilibrium.
If it is true that his work has not been challenged then all I can say is that the AGW had better get their act together or shut up.
All their modelling efforts to show that earth’s temperatures are rising and are caused by increased amounts of co2 are no better that the soothsayer’s crystal ball.
I think it healthy to consider Robert’s comments, even tho’ I don’t much “like” them, so, Robert, please keep commenting so far as I’m concerned.
The big question, which only time will tell, is whether or not snow amounts will keep rising. Or stay the same, or begin to fall and keep so.
However, IMHO, altho’the models may have indicated only a general trend, I think it quite right to put up an amber light when a decade of observations seems to diverge from the general model forecast line.
Jimbo (09:36:39) : “Why doesn’t a journalist ask them what they think has caused the discrepancy between the models and observations?”
Journalist? What is this ‘journalist’ of which you speak?
I think there are a few left, here and there, but it’s like scientist, an endangered species, almost a null set.
Brian D Finch,
“Actual data” is the last thing that some people want to use. It would put them out of business.
A CU professor forecast the demise of Aspen skiing based on GCMs, during their all-time snowiest winter.
Leif,
Agreed – the 1960 bar should not be included in the graph.
One of the most striking things about ‘climate scientists’ is how unscientific they seem to be! They don’t seem to pay even lip service to the idea that a theory should be falsifiable – so cold weather is evidence of global warming, just as warm weather would be.
One might paraphrase their position as, any unusual weather is evidence that we should spend a trillion dollars or face a global catastrophe!
“If you want statistics, how about doing a correlation of GCM predictions vs. actual for the first decade of the 21st century?”
It would seem to me that the desire to change the subject to others’ shortcomings does not reflect a lot of confidence on your part in how this discussion is going.
“The only reason I did rsq() was because other people wanted it.”
It’s great that you did that; thank you. The reason I brought it up is because we were discussing whether the trend was statistically significant. I know a few ways to measure that (not being a statistics expert) and for all I knew, RSQ was a method of doing so I didn’t know.
“The graph is clearly in disagreement with the GCM forecasts.”
Some of them. On the other hand it seems to agree well with the models used in the Journal of Climate paper from 2009. And the spring and summer snow cover are declining, as predicted. I think it’s too early to judge the long-term trend. I mean, how would you react to the claim that numbers like these, 1999-present, showed long-term warming would occur in the 21st century?
“Some web sites love using statistics to obfuscate. I have zero respect for those people.”
Statistical significance is an important concept. As Einstein put it “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
joe (11:56:30) : “In other words, you have no clue. But your high salary depends on it, so here you are.”
Now I have a high salary that depends on AGW. Fascinating. Each data I post here, I learn surprising things about my background and circumstances.
{Steve Goddard (11:50:41) :
Leo G,
Climate is absolutely not linear. If it were, earth would either be like Venus or Pluto.
This obsession with trying to identify very long-term linear trends makes no sense when discussing cyclical behaviour.}
Steve, was more a play on how even with a thirty year trend, as in temp rise from 75-95, I feel that I will not be here (in body at least) to ever know who had it right!
My feeling is that we need many more years to get a handle on all of the things that effect the climate. But I do think that CO2 does slow down the escape of kinetic energy from the troposphere. I just wish that the argument was framed more in a positive note. You know, if you add insulation to your walls and ceiling, your payback is about 3-5 years, then that money that is being saved is after tax “free” money.
I don’t know about others, but the less I have to pay to my utilities, the oil companies, etc, and the more I can put away for my kids education, a better/earlier retirement, etc. the happier I am.
For the record, I burn wood for about 70% of our home heating! Which were I lve you can usually get for free!
Down with the man! up with the little guy!
We have a problem in British Columbia as the winter has been quite mild do to el Nino. Yes we have snow cover but not much. The provincial government here has blessed us with a carbon tax on gasoline and will be raised this year. There has been reports in media and implied by the David Suzuki foundation that our mild winter is proof of AGW ignoring what is happening over the rest of the world.
Our mayor in Prince George is factouring in AGW calculating the city snow removal budget.
Oh I never mentioned that Gorden Campbell, the provincial premier considers himself buds with Arnold Schwarzenegger, governer of California. So it can be seen what we are up against.
At the Olympics they have a few hydrogen powered buses at a cost of 58 million with the hydrogen trucked in from Quebec! Also snow was trucked and helicoptered in. So much for the green Olympics.
harrywr2 (09:33:50) : “One needs two things for snow, moist air and temperatures below 32F. Warmer oceans provide moist air. Score 1 for Global Warming Crowd.
“It would appear that more moist air is creating more snow, which has a cooling effect. Score 1 for the skeptics side.”
No, the moist air condenses into liquid water, deleting the previous score for the Warmist Willie team. Then the rain turns into snow, sleet, and hail. Score 1 for the Skeptics. Final score: Skeptics 1, Warmist Willies 0.
Jim F (08:01:04) :
How to back up your argument.
This site is fun:
“…A complete list of things caused by global warming….”
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
I followed the link. This is really great!
keith in Hastings UK (12:11:32) :
Amber light went red.
Pulled over for driving forecasts on a suspended model.
Changing climate forecast lanes while failing to use the turn signal.
Driving forecasts the wrong way.
Speeding peer-review in a residential zone.
Tampering with climate court records.
“You in a heap a’ lot of trouble, bwah.” – Sheriff in 70’s commercial.
It’s Friday.
Now folks, that over there…. that is a troll. You can look at it and listen to it all that you want. But for God’s sake and the rest of our sanity, DO NOT feed it!
In this sort of analysis, it would be best to look at trends in months where temperature changes of the magnitude being proposed (let’s say 1.5-4C, for arguments sake), would make a difference on snow-covered extent. January is clearly not one of these months in most of the northern hemisphere.
Why not show trends in all months instead of just January? How about March (http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=3) or April (http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=4)?
Oh wait…
“One of the most striking things about ‘climate scientists’ is how unscientific they seem to be! They don’t seem to pay even lip service to the idea that a theory should be falsifiable – so cold weather is evidence of global warming, just as warm weather would be.”
I would say 4-5 years averaging what years averaged from 1951-1980, absent some clear explanation like a giant volcano eruption, would seriously call the theory of global warming into question (if there is no warming trend, this ought to be happening half the time). The last time that happened? 1974-1979.
AGW is perfectly falsifiable — it’s simply that the world, so far, shows no interest in falsifying it.
Ok, I’ve never heard of a mental brownnoser, but it does fit… some other neat words from the thesaurus:
adulator, backscratcher, backslapper, bootlicker, doormat, fan, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groupie, groveler, handshaker, hanger-on, lackey, minion, parasite, politician, puppet, slave
Just place “mental” before each of these words…
I particularly like “mental minion”…. CAGW does make strange bedfellows…
Just got back from the California Academy of Science. Their Climate Change exhibit talked about less snow also. To quote” we could lose the very snowfields that gives us so much”. Maybe they will change the exhibits depending on how much snow fall here is each year.