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.
I agree with Dr Svalgaard. The record shows large annual variation but no long term trend, which suggests a stochastic process with low autocorrelation.
You know, temperature observations can be mishandled, manipulated, misperceived, or whatever. It’s hard to sense the difference between 95 degrees and 96 degrees, or between 40 and 41. Snowfall, on the other hand, is bloody obvious. Anyone can tell the difference between snow that comes halfway up your shoes and snow that comes over your ankles. People remember that stuff. The bloody obvious test is my favorite statistical test.
latitude (17:52:59)
It’s already there, the graph goes as far as the data goes, through February 2010.
w.
A decade long record across the entire Northern Hemisphere is not appropriately described as a “snowstorm.”
True! And Gore was not describing “a decade long record across the entire Northern Hemisphere,” so for once the two of you agree.
If global warming is causing snow storms and snow storms are causing unemployment, then is global warming cause unemployment ?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6205EP20100301?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&rpc=23&sp=true
Or better, is being unemployed a green job ?
Damn inconvenient to have the warmest decade in the existence of the world also the snowiest.
I think that the data needs to be adjusted. We should add to the older data because of measurement efficiency increasing in the modern era, and subtract from the modern era because the modern snow cover is increasing, but the snow mass is lower…
Figure out the significance from this.
Assuming this link works.
http://daedalearth.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/nh-snow-cover.png
Shows all months, no cherry picking.
Ref – Steve Goddard (16:59:57) :
Pascvaks (16:57:20) :
“Warmest? and Snowiest? Somehow I just knew there had to be a logical connection. Beautiful! This explains everything!
“(Please don’t ask what;-)”
The areas of record snow this winter also saw well below normal temperatures.
________________________
Please don’t misunderstand. For some crazy reason it seems to make sense that global temperatures would be up/high in various places and heavy snows and below norm temps would also be occuring elsewhere. No one was around when the last glacial –or even the little ice age– started. We’re fumbling around in the dark doing the best we can. Why not have both?
PS: I have a strong feeling that nothing serious will happen unless/until the Global Conveyor starts to shrink or collapse:-)
Thanks Willis, that wasn’t clear to me.
And more snow is incompatible with Global Warming how?
Warm = snowfall is a dolts attempt to explain a fallacy with something only Cooper or Couric could repeat with a straight face because they have never takes a physics class, much less 7th grade weather science.
It is sheer nonsense.
Just a quick question. I think we had a polar outbreak in 1978 kinda like we had this year. But it might have been 79. Also I would like to see if the solar cycle corresponds to years of more snowfall. Sorry I work off of a blackberry and can’t check it myself.
I think Steve was having a little tongue-in-cheek fun with the breathless warmest-decade-in-a million-years or whatever comes out of the AGW crowd.
This wide spread heavy snow is a cooling, little white lie.
So what is big Als’ giant whopper called?
LearDog,
With no disrespect to Steve, I think Willis’ point – which is echoed by Dr. Svalgaard – that there is no real trend is the really important part here.
Chasing short/short-ish trends or spurious-seeming events to counterpoint the Al Gores and Joe Romms is good for advocacy or PR… but it’s Summer of the Sharks hand-waving.
Don’t get me wrong, it is fun to see their tricks used against them but the real storyline is much more subtle.
Increased snow and global warming predictions fit hand in glove—so global warming advocates like Al Gore would say—i.e., warmest decade on record has produced the greatest snowfall on record. But this theorized increase in snow from global warming is supposed to be in an ever smaller and smaller circle in the Northern Hemisphere with the circumference of that diminishing circle around the world approaching closer, year by year, to the North Pole.
But that isn’t happening. The area of snow cover is not retreating towards the north but it is covering a greater area heading south. The area of snow cover at wintertime around the world in the Northern Hemisphere is growing bigger not smaller.
This southward moving snowline at winter is impossible in global warming theory scenarios. So again, global warming predictions are not coming to pass.
Willis/Anthony/Mods,
This is my work address – the offer stands, if you ever come through the drinks are on me!
Ref – ginckgo (18:40:53) :
“And more snow is incompatible with Global Warming how?”
________________________
Nothing’s incompatable with Anthroprogenic Global Warming. Man Made Global Warming allows for and predicts all contingencies. Remember? It’s “man made”, some say mann made;-)
“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.”
PS: 2001 through 2010 includes 10 years, just as there are ten numbers within the range of 1-10.
I would agree that no trend is the better hypothesis. We often trot out the increase in CO2 ppm graph as a function of the million parts of the atmosphere to show that in reality, the trend is rather…tiny.
This tiny tick up would, likewise, not show up on such a graph and is likely well within the error bars from year to year and decade to decade.
This looks like good work Steve.
I’m interested though. Comparing your new plots now that all the data is in for Feb 2010 to your previous plots where you used filler data for the last little bit in February shows quite a discrepancy. Indeed you predicted that 2010 was on track to be the snowiest winter by quite a significant margin. I wonder if you’ve learned any lessons about the use of filler data.
Also, can you tell me when the 21st century started and by how much you think ‘things’ aren’t looking very good for the models.
All the best.
Roger Knights (18:58:52)
No, ten years. It runs from the winter ending Feb 2001 to the winter ending Feb 2010 inclusive, or ten years.
OOps — I was interrupted by a phone call. Make that:
PS: 2001 through 2010 includes 10 years, just as there are ten numbers within the range of 1-10.