Guest post by Steve Goddard
Archimedes had his eureka moment while sitting in the bathtub. Newton made a great discovery sitting under an apple tree. Szilárd discovered nuclear fission while sitting at a red light.
There was a time when observation was considered an important part of science. Climate science has gone the opposite direction, with key players rejecting observation when reality disagrees with computer models and statistics. Well known examples include making the MWP disappear, and claiming that temperatures continue to rise according to IPCC projections – in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Here is a simple exercise to demonstrate how absurd this has become. Suppose you are in a geography class and are asked to measure the height of one of the hills in the Appalachian Plateau Cross Section below.
Image from Dr. Robert Whisonant, Department of Geology, Radford University
How would you go about doing it? You would visually identify the lowest point in the adjacent valley, the highest point on the hill, and subtract the difference. Dividing that by the horizontal distance between those two points would give you the average slope. However, some in the climate science community would argue that is “cherry picking” the data.
They might argue that the average slope across the plateau is zero, therefore there are no hills.
Or they might argue that the average slope across the entire graph is negative, so the cross section represents only a downwards slope. Both interpretations are ridiculous. One could just as easily say that there are no mountains on earth, because the average slope of the earth’s surface is flat.
Now lets apply the same logic to the graph of Northern Hemisphere snow cover.
It is abundantly clear that there are “peaks” on the left and right side of the graph, and that there is a “valley” in the middle. It is abundantly clear that there is a “hill” from 1989-2010. Can we infer that snow cover will continue to increase? Of course not. But it is ridiculous to claim that snow extent has not risen since 1989, based on the logic that the linear trend from 1967-2010 is neutral. It is an abuse of statistics, defies the scientific method, and is a perversion of what science is supposed to be.
Tamino objects to the graph below because it has “less than 90% confidence” using his self-concocted “cherry picking” analysis.
So what is wrong with his analysis? Firstly, 85% would be a pretty good number for betting. A good gambler would bet on 55%. Secondly, the confidence number is used for predicting future trends. There is 100% confidence that the trend from 1989-2010 is upwards. He is simply attempting to obfuscate the obvious fact that the climate models were wrong.
Science is for everyone, not just the elite who collect government grant money. I’m tired of my children’s science education being controlled by people with a political agenda.
Leif,
Your graph is incorrect. This is closer.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddw82wws_424d5kpssgb
Steve Goddard (06:13:12) :
Leif, you produced a list of top ten which included 2003, 2008 and 2010 – and then declared that there were “only two years in the last decade.” It is really pointless discussing mathematics with you.
I pointed out that your statement:
“Three (2003, 2008 and 2010) out of four of the highest winter snow extents in the forty-four year record have been in the last decade.”
was incorrect, and that it’s only two out of four of … in the last decade”
Steve Goddard (07:15:25) :
Your graph is incorrect.
My graph cannot be incorrect since it is a clearly identified graph [and carefully cherry picked] from one of the models. Your graph is an equally carefully cherry picked graph from one of the other models. At least mine is identified, while yours is not. This goes to show how powerful cherry picking can be. Pick what supports you thesis, then pretend it is science, or perhaps just out-of-the-window-looking.
Leif,
umm… The last decade is the last ten years. And you produced a graph recently showing the last decade as being 2001-2010.
If you need things explained to you in more detail, three of four top ten winters have occurred during the last ten years. It is becoming harder and harder to take you seriously on this topic. The trend is up, the models are down. What is it that you don’t understand?
And you are confusing model error bars with their trend.
Steve Goddard (07:48:54) :
umm… The last decade is the last ten years.
You said:
“Three (2003, 2008 and 2010) out of four of the highest winter snow extents…”
This means that if we take the four highest extents [in the last decade]:
1978 48.981
2010 47.74
2008 47.459
1985 47.046
there should have been 2003, 2007, and 2010 among them according to you. I’m simply pointing out that such is not the case. And that is “what I don’t understand”.
Leif,
You are doing the wrong calculation. I calculated average winter extent for each Dec-Feb period. You are using peak, which is less interesting and tells nothing about the rest of the winter.
1978 48401983
2010 48079834.3333333
2008 46909030.3333333
2003 46829439
1979 46730553.3333333
1985 46726720.3333333
1986 46578984
1972 46517476.6666667
1971 46315551
1969 46297133.6666667
Leif,
This discussion has always been about average winter extent. Why did you try to slip a different metric under the radar?
Actually, I don’t know what you are doing. Your numbers just look wrong.
Leif,
Look at the Rutgers winter graph.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
Top four are 1978, 2010, 2008, 2003
Steve Goddard (09:21:34) :
Actually, I don’t know what you are doing. Your numbers just look wrong.
I computed the average of snow extent for the winter weeks using the data table from Rutgers. Winter weeks are 49 wrap around through 8. Used weeks because months are not yet available for 2010.
Look at the Rutgers winter graph.
Top four are 1978, 2010, 2008, 2003
Only goes to 2009…
Steve Goddard (09:29:35) :
Look at the Rutgers winter graph.
I count 8 above 46 million km2 during the first half of the data and only 2 above during the last half, so sure looks like climatologically winter snow cover is decreasing…
Leif,
You know perfectly well that 2010 will be #1 or #2, and the trend will be obvious once that is posted on the Rutgers graph
Correct calcs are
1978 48401983
2010 ~48000000
2008 46909030.3333333
2003 46829439
1979 46730553.3333333
1985 46726720.3333333
1986 46578984
1972 46517476.6666667
1971 46315551
1969 46297133.6666667
Leif,
The article is about the trend over the last 20 years, remember?
Steve Goddard (08:54:08) :
I calculated average winter extent for each Dec-Feb period. You are using peak, which is less interesting and tells nothing about the rest of the winter.
No, I calculate the AVERAGE from week 49 through 8. If you use months, then you cannot have a value for 2010, as the last Rutgers monthly data is for January.
Steve Goddard (10:05:12) :
The article is about the trend over the last 20 years, remember?
The last 20 years is the period 1991-2010. Does not start in 1989, nor in 1990.
Leif,
Winter is defined as Dec-Feb by Rutgers and everyone else in the meteorological world. 2010 will be #1 or #2. The top four are
1978
2010
2008
2003
The point is moot, the trend is up, and you are not saying anything useful. You are doing everything you can to obfuscate the facts and I have to wonder what your intentions are.
Steve Goddard (10:47:02) :
The point is moot, the trend is up, and you are not saying anything useful. You are doing everything you can to obfuscate the facts and I have to wonder what your intentions are.
Changing from weeks to months does change things a bit. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and setting 2010 February to 50, with months the top ten are [calculated correctly in millions of km2]:
48.315 2010
47.978 1978
46.911 2008
46.795 2003
46.707 1979
46.677 1985
46.541 1986
46.470 1972
46.328 1971
46.242 1969
Now, your original claim was for North America. And for N.A. the numbers are:
18.397 2010
18.245 1979
17.835 2008
17.834 1978
17.828 1985
17.780 1993
17.764 2001
17.674 1984
17.632 2004
17.631 1982
Only two in the top four.
This illustrates how sensitive such a ranking is to the precise selection.
My intention is to educate you a bit on how to do these things correctly so that WUWT does not become the a laughing stock.
The trend is not climatologically significant any more than the fact that yesterday was a bit warmer than today.
I hope we can then close the thread.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle:
Here is the top ten from UAH:
I guess the ‘statistically insignificant’ point is moot re: warming. The trend is up and ‘skeptics’ are not saying anything useful. They are doing everything they can to obfuscate the facts and we have to wonder what their intentions are.
UAH
1. 1998 52
2. 2005 34
3. 2002 32
4. 2007 28
5. 2003 28
6. 2006 26
7. 2009 26
8. 2001 20
9. 2004 20
10. 1991 12
Ron,
UAH has three decades of data. The most recent decade is the warmest. There is no question that the trend for the last 30 years has been up. Is there a mystery there?
Leif,
When Rutgers updates their winter extent data in a few weeks, you know perfectly well that the top four will be 1978, 2010, 2003, 2008. Cut the BS.
WUWT is the #1 skeptic site on the Internet. Your pointless, argumentative posts have no effect one way or another.
Steve Goddard (12:06:03) :
There is no question that the trend for the last 30 years has been up. Is there a mystery there?
Absolutely not. It is well known that AGW causes more snow, no?
Or perhaps that Rutgers plot you showed says otherwise:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
I count 8 above 46 million km2 during the first half of the data and only 2 above during the last half…
top four will be 1978, 2010, 2003, 2008. Cut the BS.
Your original post was for N.A. And there the top four will be
18.397 2010
18.245 1979
17.835 2008
17.834 1978
WUWT is the #1 skeptic site on the Internet.
So we need to keep it that way by being somewhat correct in our assertions.
Guys, Guys! Take it outside will you? Please? Surely you know each other’s email addresses? This is very cringe-inducing to look at!!
Steve Goddard, “That paper was a very determined attempt to force fit the geologic record into CAGW theory.” is your way of saying “they tested a hypothesis I personally don’t agree with, and even though the data supports it, I refuse to even contemplate it’s possibility”. How very ironic considering the topic of this post. And you’re surprised that people use the term “deniers”? Because you certainly are not behaving like a skeptic should.
Leif,
It is well known that the climate models and the climatologists predicted less snow cover due to AGW. Isn’t that was this article is about?
The original article which got Tamino hysterical was about the Northern Hemisphere. Are you suggesting that Rutgers is going to change their current third place 2003 winter based on your analysis?
They currently have 2008 as #2 and 2003 as #3. After this week, both of those will shift down a notch. Your claim that 1978 comes after 2008 is simply incorrect. Nothing that happens this week is going to swap 1978 with 2003.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
ginckgo,
That paper presents an imaginative and not credible theory from my point of view. I do have a geology degree and worked many years as a geologist/geochemist. Nobody would drill for oil based on anything that speculative.
Steve Goddard (16:05:50) :
Your claim that 1978 comes after 2008 is simply incorrect. Nothing that happens this week is going to swap 1978 with 2003.
Yes, that was indeed a typo. Thanks for pointing that out.
It is well known that the climate models and the climatologists predicted less snow cover due to AGW. Isn’t that was this article is about?
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
Yes, and that is what the graph shows so clearly. AGW didn’t start in 1989, did it?
I count 8 above 46 million km2 during the first half of the data and only 3 above during the last half [if we include 2010], so the prediction is pretty well borne out by the data. This does not mean that models are any good, just that they have not been falsified so far.
Leif,
The models don’t show any decline prior to about 1990. So isn’t it reasonable to start the measurements there? Snow extent is supposed to have been declining since about 1990 and it has been increasing instead. BTW- the late 1960s and the 1970s were exceptionally snow periods, and we have returned to that level.
If you take a step back and a deep breath you will see that my claims are … correct.
Leif Svalgaard (16:26:57) :
Steve Goddard (16:05:50) :
Your claim that 1978 comes after 2008 is simply incorrect. Nothing that happens this week is going to swap 1978 with 2003.
“Yes, that was indeed a typo. Thanks for pointing that out.”
I take that back. I thought you were talking about NH and not NA.
For NA, the numbers are:
2008:02 17.76 29 515.04
2008:01 17.89 31 554.59 17.83494505
2007:12 17.85 31 553.35
1978:02 18.94 28 530.32
1978:01 18.23 31 565.13 17.83433333
1977:12 16.44 31 509.64
4th column is 2nd [snow cover]* 3rd [days in month]. 5th is sum(4th)/sum(3rd)
To calculate correctly, you must take into account that the months have different number of days. One could argue that perhaps 28 days for February should be used for 2008 as well. In that case the average becomes 17.83577778 [higher, in fact].
So with correct calculation 1978 comes below 2008.