Guest post by Steven Goddard
Photo above from: NY Daily News: Record Snowfall in New York
Now that we have reached the end of the meteorological winter (December-February,) Rutgers University Global Snow Lab numbers (1967-2010) show that the just completed decade (2001-2010) had the snowiest Northern Hemisphere winters on record. The just completed winter was also the second snowiest on record, exceeded only by 1978. Average winter snow extent during the past decade was greater than 45,500,000 km2, beating out the 1960s by about 70,000 km2, and beating out the 1990s by nearly 1,000,000 km2. The bar chart below shows average winter snow extent for each decade going back to the late 1960s.
Here are a few interesting facts.
- Average winter snow extent has increased since the 1990s, by nearly the area of Texas and California combined.
- Three of the four snowiest winters in the Rutgers record occurred during the last decade – the top four winters are (in order) 1978, 2010, 2008, 2003
- The third week of February, 2010 had the second highest weekly extent (52,170,000 m2) out of the 2,229 week record
The bar graph below shows winter data for each year in the Rutgers database, color coded by decade. The yellow line shows the mean winter snow extent through the period. Note that the past decade only had two winters below 45 million km2. The 1990s had seven winters below the 45 million km2, the 1980s had five winters below 45 million km2, and the 1970s had four winters below 45 million km2. This indicates that the past decade not only had the most snowfall, but it also had the most consistently high snowfall, year over year.
It appears that AGW claims of the demise of snowfall have been exaggerated. And so far things are not looking very good for the climate model predictions of declining snowfall in the 21st century.
Many regions of the Northern Hemisphere have seen record snowfall this winter, including Washington D.C, Moscow, China, and Korea. Dr. Hansen’s office at Columbia University has seen record snowfall, and Al Gore has ineptly described the record snow :
“Just as it’s important not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm,”
A decade long record across the entire Northern Hemisphere is not appropriately described as a “snowstorm.”
Sponsored IT training links:
If want to improve TK0-201 score then go through 646-230 exam dumps and self test RH302 exams and get guaranteed success in first attempt.
Leif Svalgaard (19:04:40) :
The public health authorities would like to have a word with you. Continually dropping off that festering carcass of yours in front of my house does not constitute burying it. Not even on the times when you bothered to throw a few shovelfuls of dirt in its general direction. Original statement is still real-world false. Now please drag that poor thing back on your truck and properly bury it at your house.
Leif Svalgaard (19:04:40) :
Wikipedia says in the “Age of the Earth” article (emphasis added):
Ah yes, I see the difference. It is so clear now. Wikipedia clearly says the Sun is about 30 million years older. In my careless wording, I said I think Wikipedia says it is 30 million years. You are quite right.
And in astronomical terms, “about 30 million” is the same as “about 50 million” so Wikipedia is in full agreement with you.
I have no idea what those uncertainties you mentioned have do do with Wikipedia saying (about) 30 million instead of 50 million. But in any case, you are right as always.
You know, you really should go clarify those Wikipedia articles, as a person can get the impression that Wikipedia says the Sun is 30 million years older than the Earth, instead of it saying about 50 million as you have put it. Why, one could even take the figure that the Sun is about 4.57 billion years old, also found in the Sun entry, subtract about 4.54 billion years for the age of the Earth, and mistakenly not realize the result is about 50 million years instead of about 30 million years.
Please go clarify those articles. Do it for the children. Please don’t forget to supply better references as needed.
Leif,
An example of the incorrect application of mathematics would be showing that winter snow extent has declined to a record decadal high.
Four friends have been doing really well in their calculus class: they have been getting top grades for their homework and on the midterm. So, when it’s time for the final, they decide not to study on the weekend before, but to drive to another friend’s birthday party in another city – even though the exam is scheduled for Monday morning. As it happens, they drink too much at the party, and on Monday morning, they are all hung over and oversleep. When they finally arrive on campus, the exam is already over. They go to the professor’s office and offer him an explanation: “We went to our friend’s birthday party, and when we were driving back home very early on Monday morning, we suddenly had a flat tire. We had no spare one, and since we were driving on backroads, it took hours until we got help.” The professor nods sympathetically and says: “I see that it was not your fault. I will allow you to make up for the missed exam tomorrow morning.”
When they arrive early on Tuesday morning, the students are put by the professor in a large lecture hall and are seated so far apart from each other that, even if they tried, they had no chance to cheat. The exam booklets are already in place, and confidently, the students start writing. The first question – five points out of one hundred – is a simple exercise in integration, and all four finish it within ten minutes. When the first of them has completed the problem, he turns over the page of the exam booklet and reads on the next one:
Problem 2 (95 points out of 100): Which tire went flat?
http://mathfail.com/jokes-1/math-jokes/
Leif Svalgaard (07:19:39) :
(…)
The reason they cherry picked the ‘wrong peak’ was to conform to the Dikpati et al prediction of a very large cycle which was at the time politically favored by NASA.
Politics at NASA causing willful distortions of solar research? My, you’re starting to sound like Oliver.
Yeah, I miss him too.
Hey, I found his work cited as a reference on Wikipedia today. How often has your work been cited as a Wikipedia reference?
kadaka (07:55:32) :
Please go clarify those articles. Do it for the children.
I don’t see any reason to do this, as even our children will learn to understand about uncertainties. It is, in fact, good that there are such small discrepancies floating around, to show that these things have uncertainties. The ages of the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun, once you go to a precession higher than 0.05 Gyr become rather undetermined unless one is VERY specific.
We can determine the age, AD, of the oldest material [dust and meteorites] found in the solar system. We can define the Sun’s age, AS, as since nuclear fusion began within the Sun [we think that AS > AD]. Since the Moon is formed by a giant collision between the protoearth and a large [Mars-sized] protoplanet, we can count its age, AM, from the time of collision. Since the protoearth was also completely shattered and the Earth was assembled from the pieces, one could debate whether the age of the Earth, AE, should be counted from the time of collision [so AE = AM] or from the birth of the protoearth, AP [where AP < AE]. Wikipedia is not clear about which ages are meant, although it seems that by age of Sun they mean AD, and by age of Earth they mean AE possibly with a little bit added for the time it takes the Earth to reassemble. So, before one begins to nitpick, one must be clear as to what the nits are.
Leif Svalgaard (08:47:39) :
[where AP < AE].]
Read that as AP > AE
It is hard to enter these characters correctly…
Steve Goddard (08:26:49) :
An example of the incorrect application of mathematics would be showing that winter snow extent has declined to a record decadal high.
Show me how you do that trick and I can comment on it.
Leif,
Tamino says:
“That doesn’t mean that snow cover isn’t decreasing during (winter), only that there’s not a change which is statistically significant. Yet.”
kadaka (08:41:41) :
Politics at NASA causing willful distortions of solar research?
Science corrects itself. ‘Willful distortion’ is perhaps a bit harsh. Perhaps ‘going with the flow’ would be better as that was the prevailing idea at he time. Hathaway has long since seen the light. His latest prediction agrees well with mine.
Hey, I found his work cited as a reference on Wikipedia today. How often has your work been cited as a Wikipedia reference?
Easy to find out: go to Wikipedia and search for me.
Leif Svalgaard (09:10:16) :
Steve Goddard (08:26:49) :
An example of the incorrect application of mathematics would be showing that winter snow extent has declined to a record decadal high.
Show me how you do that trick and I can comment on it.
—-
Please don’t just ignore my comments. Answer it.
Steve Goddard (09:31:25) :
Tamino says:
“That doesn’t mean that snow cover isn’t decreasing during (winter), only that there’s not a change which is statistically significant. Yet.”
And you hang on every word dripping from Tamino’s mouth?
The ‘yet’ does not mean that it WILL become significant. It means he doesn’t know, yet.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (08:47:39) with (08:50:20)
Well, that may not have been a thousand words, even at 16 bits, but it did make for quite a pretty picture.
Heh.
So Tamino suggests that winter snow extent might have been decreasing leading up to the current record high.
Steve Goddard (10:23:22) :
So Tamino suggests that winter snow extent might have been decreasing leading up to the current record high.
Who cares what Tamino says.
Leif Svalgaard (09:10:16) :
Steve Goddard (08:26:49) :
An example of the incorrect application of mathematics would be showing that winter snow extent has declined to a record decadal high.
Show me how you do that trick and I can comment on it.
—-
Please don’t just ignore my comments. Answer it.
kadaka (10:17:50) :
Well, that may not have been a thousand words, even at 16 bits, but it did make for quite a pretty picture.
I don’t know what you are talking about. The ‘Heh’ suggests that it may not be worth knowing, Heh?
@ur momisugly Steve Goddard (08:26:49) :
Here’s something I’m trying to figure out.
From this paper we get an age for the Sun of 4.57 ± 0.11 Gyr (aka Ga or simply billions of years). Despite extensive searching I cannot locate a more accurate figure, nearly always they will not even go past the tenth digit. So, with this figure, we get 4.57 Gyr ± 2.4%.
Now Wikipedia, same as Leif Svalgaard, gives an age of 4.54 Gyr for the Earth, with Wikipedia referencing sources that add a ± 1% to the figure.
So the Earth is between 4.58 and 4.49 Gyr old. The Sun is between 4.68 and 4.46 Gyr old.
Therefore it is clearly possible that the Earth could have come before the Sun! The numbers don’t lie, math is infallible, thus it is true!
Which is just something I noticed checking out something else.
From Leif Svalgaard (19:04:40) we get:
(…) The age of the Earth is more uncertain that that of the Sun, partly because of the Moon. (…)
How does ± 1% indicate more uncertainty than ± 2.4%? I could use some help figuring that one out.
kadaka (13:28:43) :
(…) The age of the Earth is more uncertain that that of the Sun, partly because of the Moon. (…)
How does ± 1% indicate more uncertainty than ± 2.4%? I could use some help figuring that one out.
What you are missing is that the 1% relate to the Earth after it reformed from the debris from the collision that created the Moon. If you count [as I do] the age from when the protoearth formed, then the Earth is older than the Moon, but we don’t know precisely how much older [we can only estimate of surmise that – and the estimates vary], hence the larger uncertainty. I think I already explained that in some detail.
The age you quote for the Sun is probably the ‘age of bodies condensed out the protosolar disk to form the solar system’ derived from meteorites. This is, however, not really the age of the Sun itself, which I would count from the time when nuclear fusion ignited, and that is probably before the meteorites condensed. You should stop being silly with poorly defined concepts and try to be precise as to what the concepts mean.
You should read the paper. It is very short and free to download. In it they apply special relativistic corrections to get a more accurate helioseismic age, which they find to be in remarkable agreement with the meteoric age.
Thus the time that you would consider for the age of the Sun, since the ignition of nuclear fusion, is what they have calculated, and what I have stated. Not the meteoric age, which you have mistakenly assumed I was probably using.
kadaka (15:18:47) :
more accurate helioseismic age, which they find to be in remarkable agreement with the meteoric age.
Thus the time that you would consider for the age of the Sun, since the ignition of nuclear fusion, is what they have calculated, and what I have stated. Not the meteoric age, which you have mistakenly assumed I was probably using.
Since they are in ‘remarkable agreement’ it shouldn’t matter. The point is that the uncertainty is large enough [0.11 Gyr] to encompass the various scenarios. I’m at a loss as why you have a problem with the uncertainties.
Leif Svalgaard (15:46:56) :
kadaka (15:18:47) :
My own assessment of the sequence of events is
1) fusion turn on heating the solar system disk
2) small dust/meteorites condense from the disk
3) they collect into larger bodies
4) protoearth and large body collide and both protoearth and that body anre completely shattered to pieces
5) the pieces reassemble into the Earth and the Moon
several millions of years probably elapsed between each of these steps. We don’t know precisely how many, but it is being worked on.
We do know that it took place about 4.5Gyr ago.
“Steve Goddard (09:31:25) :
Leif,
Tamino says:
“That doesn’t mean that snow cover isn’t decreasing during (winter), only that there’s not a change which is statistically significant. Yet.””
I feel strangely torn, here is a statement so crass it absolves one from the obligation of polite disagreement, yet at the same time there is an ethical duty to assist the ignorant. So there is a short answer and a long answer.
The long answer :
Significance is often misunderstood . In any sampling activity there is the null hypothesis that the samples are typical of the population and do not indicate any change. And there is the hypothesis under test that the samples indicate a change in either the mean or the variability of the population. Significance testing gives an accepted (Settled Science) way of judging whether the observed sample satisfies the experimental or null hypothesis.
Its not a case of sample b is bigger than sample a is bigger than my control sample therefore if it was a bit bigger it might show a change. Its a case of the difference between a,b and control being a consequence of the natural variability of the population under test. Now it is possible that the process of snow generation is becoming more variable and its mean output is changing.
Detection of that would require application of the time phased process stability tests outlined in my original reply to Steve Goddard.
The short answer :
Bollocks… (Cobblers if the moderator is being finicky….)
[The pottymouth mod is American, so bollocks is acceptable – The Night Watch]
Michael,
So what you are saying is that snow extent “may” have declined to a decadal record high.
Make perfect sense in Alice in Wonderland, where up is down and down is up.
I think the graph by Willis Eschenbach is false. If you put the data until february 2010 you do not get the up-pick. It is the second time:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php
Mike Pearl (07:43:07) :
I think the graph by Willis Eschenbach is false. If you put the data until february 2010 you do not get the up-pick. It is the second time:
Hey, everyone’s entitled to an opinion. For example, I think you’re a moron.
That graph was in Willis Eschenbach (17:46:17) posted back on March 2. There he said he used the same data as Steve Goddard starting from 1971.
In latitude (17:52:59), it was asked that the 2010 data be included on the graph, specifically to get a little up-tick at the end.
In Willis Eschenbach (18:18:44), Mr. Eschenbach said it was already in there, graph went as far as the data did, through February 2010.
Now that you have waited four days until this thread was practically dead to impugn the man’s work, while blatantly displaying an URL accusing him of lying, exactly what are you saying? Are you saying the graph does not have the data through Feb 2010, despite Mr. Eschenbach saying it does? Or are you saying that with the 2010 data there should be no up-tick on the graph?
In either case, your statement is gibberish. We have had a winter with record-breaking snowfall totals, with more snow than the previous year. So how could a graph incorporating that not have an up-tick? Therefore are you denying that there was that much snow, the figures are lying? That must be the case, since a graph with that would have an up-tick, and you are arguing there should be no up-tick.
If you wish to argue there should be no up-tick with the data through Feb 2010 included, then you must argue that those 2010 numbers are less than or equal to the previous year’s numbers, no up-tick is possible. As it is, you are trying to loudly declare a man a liar, long after he and practically everyone else has left the room if not the building. Truly an excellent display of bravery.
Thus my opinion stands.
Mike Pearl (07:43:07)
Dear Mr. Pearl:
Despite your baseless accusations, I have used all of the available data, including February 2010. You don’t like it? Sorry.
Perhaps it is perfectly all right where you come from to call a man a liar just because you disagree with him, and if so, I pity you. Where I come from it is a deadly, mortal insult, one that you had better have proof for.
Your willingness to call me a liar because you don’t like my results, just like your partner in social ineptitude Tim Lambert at Deltoid has done, reveals two things about both of you.
The first is your despicable lack of morals and common decency.
The second is the weakness of your arguments.
If you had more morals than a snake has hips, you would claim that I had made a mistake. Which is quite possible, I’ve made them before. Instead, like crass, churlish weaklings throughout history, you want to claim that you know my motives and that they are bad. You don’t have a clue what my motives are, of course, but you want to claim you have God-like powers to see what is in my mind … egotism, anyone?
And if you had a decent argument based on actual facts, you would not need to stoop to the unbelievably crass, puerile, and socially repulsive level of calling me a liar.
In short, you have destroyed any credibility you might have had by turning a scientific discussion into a personal attack. I knew you AGW guys were getting desperate, but I didn’t realize how desperate … the truth struck a nerve, did it?
I sincerely hope that you are not so foolish in person as you are over the internet. If you try this kind of nonsense on in real life, I fear someone will punch your lights out, and deservedly so. You would not have the nerve to make this gutter accusation to my face, and you should avoid doing it remotely despite the fact that you can do so with impunity.
Because all this type of vile accusation does is reveal your true nature, and destroy your credibility entirely. It is useless and even counterproductive for you to post further here, Mike, as now people see you for what you are.
Me, I’m angry. As I said, to me, calling a man a liar is a mortal insult. But most people here are just pointing and laughing at Mike Pearl, the man who is so scared of the facts that he is willing to call a man a liar rather than discuss the issues … and no one ever trusts a man like that after they have seen what he is capable of.
I have no illusions that you will learn to act like an adult, but in hopes you learn at least grade-school manners, I remain,
Yours truly,
w.
Mike Pearl,
You seem to have come up with a new social theory, where people can ignore the snow if the high level of snowfall doesn’t match your view of the world.
Think how much snow removal money cities could have saved by ignoring the three foot deep snow! They should hire you as a consultant.
Re Leif Svalgaard (15:46:56) and (16:43:49) (March 5):
Sorry for the delay in replying. Other issues, family, online research for this topic, etc.
I preferred things as I was taught between public school and private university. Then the predominant theory was we have a second-generation sun, as evidenced by all the elements heavier than iron brought about by a supernova, indicating the predecessor was a massive red giant. Our current sun and solar system was the coalesced remains, arising as would a phoenix from the ashes.
Instead we are now to believe we have a first-generation sun and solar system comprised of the swept-up debris from other supernovas all mashed together, of which there just happened to be enough lying around the galaxy in the general area to do the trick. From a phoenix to garbage can scrapings. Why the change? From what I can see, the meteoric dating yields remarkably close figures, which can indicate a single original source. Did they somewhere find so much variation in so many that multiple original sources became the best answer?
In any case, we are talking about a debris field. It has been my understanding that when the protostar finally fired up, there was a massive solar wind, large volume and somewhat “dirty,” that pushed the small debris away from the young star. This would have prevented the young rocky planets nearby from accumulating any significant additional mass. Thus, as shown by the potential overlap in ages, first came the (original?) Earth, then the Sun. If the Sun had ignited first, there would have been a rather brief period for the Earth to finish its accumulation and be “finished” for dating purposes, thus the Sun coming after the Earth seems most likely.
Dating of the Earth itself is primarily done from the meteoric dating, near as I can tell. Since this involves dating by examining radioactive decay, I do not see how the theoretical collision forming the current Earth and Moon could have affected it. Two things of the same age collided, that would not have “reset” the radioactive elements. The figure for the age of the Earth, to the precision known, has been established for quite some time. Various works (example given) keep referring back to Dalrymple, with work over a quarter century old and seemingly not seriously challenged.
Dating of the Sun however has more contention, the age is more uncertain, there is fresh new research being done that modifies and refines the figure. I do not have a problem with the uncertainty, I welcome it, as it is currently enhancing the probability of the more-elegant concept that the Earth predates the Sun.
Oh, about kadaka (10:17:50):
16 bit word (as with 8 bits to a byte).
“A picture is worth a thousand words.”
“Well, ain’t that a pretty picture!” (sarcastic meaning)
And the meaning of “heh” is best discerned by repetition. To wit: “Heh. Heh heh. Heh heh heh.”
😉