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.
Re: Michael Jankowski (Feb 19 08:46),
North America is less than 5% of the total surface area of the planet. Gavin is dreaming if he thinks that climate models have any skill at that level of detail.
From a 13 January 2005 article on the GreenPeace site:
“Ski slopes everywhere, International — Snow machines aren’t going to cut it, and we all know that slush sucks. Research in Canada, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Switzerland, France and Scotland all say the same thing: global warming will affect the winter tourism industry. So far, the nothern hemisphere ski season is suggesting that skiers and snowboarders need to start getting active if they want their sport to survive.
According to the National Climactic Data Center in the US, the global combined average land and sea temperatures were the warmest on record for September – November 2004. That’s bad news for winter sport. A UN report states the obvious: “Climate change is a severe threat to snow related sports such as skiing, snowboarding and cross-country skiing”.
The “threat to the ski industry” meme was also used as an excuse for joining RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) here in the Northeast, so it’s hilarious that they’re now trying to claim that AGW is responsible for all this snow. They really do try very hard to have their carrot cake and eat it too.
Steve, I found the last couple of sentences from the link you posted very interesting, especially the bit I ‘bolded’:-
Decadal to century scale trends in North American snow extent in coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models
Allan Frei: Department of Geography, Hunter College, Program in Earth and Environmental Sciences, City University of New York, New York, New York, USA
Gavin Gong: Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
“Two 21st century emission scenarios with realistic (moderate or significant) greenhouse gas emission rates produce decreasing NA-SCE (North American snow cover extent) trends, while one unrealistic scenario with fixed concentrations produces little or no NA-SCE trend.
These results suggest that snow cover may be a sensitive indicator of climate change, and that North American snow extent will probably decrease in response to greenhouse gas emissions, although the magnitude of the response may be nonlinear.
So perhaps CO2 is not to blame?
“Pittsburgh Nearing Snowiest Month on Record”
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=forecastfox&traveler=0&article=9
Tamino should shovel their 40″ of snow and demonstrate that it is statistically insignificant. He seems to be proficient with a shovel.
This should be no surprise… a warming world means a moister atmosphere which means more snow
After reading this article and reading Tamino’s reply, not to mention Leif’s cogent observations, it seems to me that Steve’s analysis is misleading in terms of tracking a genuine statistical trend. Whether its for or against AGW, we should not believe something just because we want to. And please no ubuiquitous, “but Tamino is just a holy priest of the AGW order therefore believe nothing he says” reply. Whatever his motivations, his understanding of statistical analysis is obviously greater than most.
rbateman (11:40:42) : the train started by a few hours before you posted a few miles north of Carbondale. 2″ last night, and 5 more so far today. The NWS was calling for 5-10″ in the high mountains by noon 2/20. We should get a lot more than that with 20+ hours to go, and I’m at only 6600′.
Tenuc,
Looks to me like they are blaming everything on CO2. What they are saying is that no change in CO2 means no snow cover change.
Question…
If a warmer world equals more moisture & precipitation, what does a drier atmosphere mean?
http://i38.tinypic.com/30bedtg.jpg
Steve Goddard (12:14:42) :
“Actual data” is the last thing that some people want to use. It would put them out of business.
Yes, but for these fifteen years, they used their models to predict the past – which they seem to have got wrong.
Well, perhaps Alice could explain it.
johnhayte,
In Alice in Wonderland, up is down and down is up.
The climate models predicted down, the climate responded with up, and Tamino is the Mad Hatter.
Steve Keohane (13:54:41) :
If you are north of me (NW Calif.) then your snow levels are below the 4000-5000′ averages we have been getting. Which is on the cold side for El Nino’s.
The only other example in my lifetime was 1982-83.
“This should be no surprise… a warming world means a moister atmosphere which means more snow”
In Florida.
Of course.
Its simple.
Robert (12:58:35) :
AGW is perfectly falsifiable — it’s simply that the world, so far, shows no interest in falsifying it.
Which world, Robert, the make-it-up-as-you-go-along hearsay world or the real one?
Previous to this last warm cycle, it was not unusual for late May-June snow-melts in the Midwest and other places to cause havoc on crops and the Mississippi overflowing.
Seems to me the world now returns to a not-so-pleasant cooler cycle, where erratic patterns dominate.
In neither case was the end-of-the-world in the cards.
I for one am glad the ‘we must act quickly and take drastic countermeasures’ proposals got eyed suspiciously. AGW was wrong.
Steve Goddard,
OK, the plot is for the whole Northern Hemisphere – but my point is that this has occurred at the same time that the measured global temperature is significantly raised.
It’s an El Nino winter – see Roy Spencer’s Global Average Temperature graph here, also based on the satellite data:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
It looks like it’s the warmest since that super El Nino of 1998.
Could it be that raised temperatures actually cause more snowfall? 😉
Actually, I doubt that it is anywhere near as simple as that. Comparing your snow extent graph with Roy Spencer’s global temperature graph by eye shows no obvious correlations.
Steve, in your dec-feb_snow_ext.png graph, how did you compute the 2010 data point? There are still 2 weeks of February data to go, and presumably they will lower the average, because at this time of year snow cover is decreasing by 1 million km^2 per week, on average.
I would not include 2010 in the graph, but if I wanted to include that point, I would average in two weeks that were 1 and 2 million km^2 less than the last value, respectively, and then label it as “(projected)”.
>> Robert (12:58:35) :
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. <<
We have no accurate global temperatures (you are referring to temperature I presume) before 1979. Would you accept an average of raw LOCAL temperatures from just those sites where there is no local heating?
Anthony you are right: Tamino implies it well enough himself for all to see.
Mike Edwards,
The key factors in the UAH anomaly were a warm south Pacific and a strong positive anomaly at 14,000 feet over the Hudson Bay, due to the negative AO. GISS does not show a large spike for January.
The places with anomalous snowfall also had anomalous cold.
Steven,
The observed data to compare to the models are the January snow extents in North America:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nam&ui_month=1
The title of the post is “North American snow models miss the mark – observed trend opposite of the predictions.” There is no significant observed trend.
RockyRoad (09:28:31) :
You’re saying “the climate models have the wrong polarity on their predictions of winter snow cover changes”??
That’s easy to fix: Just reverse polarity on the batteries and everything will be just fine.
Duh.
Then the diodes and other semiconductors blow up or otherwise self-destruct, leaving you with a worthless lump.
Which doesn’t change the relative value of the climate models, but may make for some smoke and an adrenaline surge.
@mikec (13:37:35) : “…This should be no surprise… a warming world means a moister atmosphere which means more snow….”
That’s just plain silly. Snow forms at 32℉ and below. The reason we’re having these record-breaking snows is because moist air, courtesy El Nino, is slamming into air masses at well below 32℉. If the atmosphere is warming, how is this cold air – the driver of snow – to exist and be so prevalent – i.e. covering huge chunks of a given hemisphere? In a warming world, snow should become more rare, more restricted to certain portions of a given hemisphere.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, in a global sense. Now as to current conditions, the moving and collision of cold air masses and wet air masses is the province of weather. However, the extent and vigor of this snowy weather don’t inspire my confidence in a dramatically warming globe. In fact, I suggest we adopt the 400 ways to say “snow” used by the Inuit into the English language.
Climate IS Weather!
To; rbateman (12:39:23
Good one. I was being kind, and trying to be sceptical even about scepticism. Personally, I would turn on every red light for the AGW limo. Mind you, ‘cos of green tax we don’t drive much – UK petrol (gas) is at equivalent $7 per US gallon and set to go higher. Plus surcharges on new low gas mileage/high CO2 cars, and higher p.a. road tax too … $600 p.a. or so. Coming soon to the US of A, I guess, courtesey of AGW…
With the dismal failure of the AGW climate models due to their concentration on the wrong driving forces of the weather and climate, I thought you might like to look at what a model derived from the “Natural Variability Patterns” could do at predicting the next 4 years of daily weather for the continental USA.
It has several differences from the “Business as usual” NOAA NWS forecast models, in that it uses all raw data from any stations found, considers the periodic influences from the Moon, and is based on past patterns of global circulation, to produce a “Natural Analog Weather Forecast” that works better than “their models.”
I put this forecast together back in 2007, posted it to web site in December of 2007, has remained there unchanged since, still has maps posted until beginning of January of 2014.
http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx
I post it here again to expose an idea to those who say models don’t work, they do if they consider all of the important influences driving the weather and hence the long term patterns, the climate.
The patterns it produces do not have a solar activity level component figured into the method, so the decrease in solar activity from the reference periods, shows the decrease in temperatures, that could then be insinuated as due to the solar changes, notable as the more southern movement of the Jet streams, although the daily timing of the arrival of the fronts stays sound, and the precipitation patterns stay about the same as forecast, there is a shift to more snow than rain, as noted in the Southeast USA.
Feel free to look at the daily maps from the past two years, or for the next 4 years. I am currently getting a lot of hits from the AGW team servers in England, it seems they are learning something.
I thought you might like to keep up with the current forward edge of research in this area.