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.
It would be interesting to see the Ice Core data up close in a year-by-year blow.
I’d like to know if both global warming & global cooling are concurrent, and the only difference between an Ice Age and an Interglacial are which one is winning more than the other one at any given time interval, right down to year-by-year.
Steve Goddard (06:13:37) :
Arctic sea ice extent is approaching a record high in the six year DMI record
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Well now, Al Gore says it is disappearing. What will I believe: Al Gore or the data?
Rob Vermeulen (05:50:40) :
Rob, you going to prove that? Lief’s and Willis’ graphs show 0 trend in yearly snow cover and Steve G’s for winter pretty much agree with that.
@Just The Facts (21:28:51) :
“So I find myself cheering for sea ice…
Arctic Sea Ice Extent is on an upswing;
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm”
Not so fast! I’m expecting that soon “Bill Nye the Science Guy” will announce that this is due to Global Warming.
[satire=on]
Tom_R (07:22:33) :
The sun also continually loses mass. Because of that, the Earth’s orbital semimajor axis must slowly increase. Has anyone calculated the rate of change of the Earth’s orbit due to solar mass decrease?
Yes, and it is negligible.
Steve Keohane (06:32:46) :
I agree, it has been a long cold winter in Colorado. On the Western Slope it seems like the last two days are warmer than it has been since Oct/Nov, we had none of the usual warm days here and there.
I wanted to add…I keep daily precipitation records, and started tracking weekly cores from the snow on the ground last week, 2 samples to date. As of 3/1, with the snow pack settled to 16″ from 22″ the prior week, the snow/ground interface is powder dry, ie. no melting down there yet. I think the bitter cold with little snow cover in late Nov. early Dec. drove the frost unusually deep. I know of one water line that froze at 4′ deep. Interesting that three months later that cold has still kept the warmth of the earth at bay. Snow not only has a high albedo, but is a good insulator as well.
Yup, yup from 38.75N at 5000′, also dry desert Western Co. I was just reflecting on the fact that under the latest record dump of 10″ lies not only Dec big snow of 5″ but a bit of October’s, Kevin Trenberth’s famous “January weather”. Multi season snow. Normal here in 25 years seems to be a half inch, gone by noon. Not so the last four winters. Normal ice thickness on a small pond is 4″, last four winters 12″+, added heater.
Our bare surface soil has gotten wet, frozen, cracked and expanded into a froth, letting weed seeds in and leaving us subject to dust storms. Last year we had no hare barley (subject of nightmares), the soil AND the seeds blew away. Usually it’s so dry that the soil absorbs practically nothing in winter, it evaporates first in the hot sun. Of course, there was no hot sun this winter as all the moisture caused a looong inversion. We get steam from two hot dammed rivers too. The Colorado was frozen almost solid in DeBeque canyon, just a trickle at the roller dam out from under the ice.
Christian A. Wittke (21:51:24) :
Same for people that not even after but during one very snowy NH winter declare all the remaining data on Climate Change for being wrong.
Are you all serious? It feels like a Kindergarten where shouting out loud is part of the kids’ development.
First read the title, it contains the word decade so its not just about 2010, second in the words of the Met Office in 2000
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Snowguy716 (19:13:01) : … our [Minnesota] summers have gotten noticeably colder with frequent June and August frosts which were unheard of in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. In fact, 2004 set the record for shortest growing season here… only to be broken again in 2009 when unusual cold in early June with two days of temps down into the 20s and another frost in mid August… ”
Can you provide a reference for growing seasons? In my search of growing season data bases, I am surprised by their limitations. Most of them start after mid-20th century which of course is going to give an obvious trend. But can we get several data bases of rural areas that go back to the start of the 20th century? The few that do go back longer seem to show no trend in the end of the growing season. (Several AGW papers that argue for lengthening growing seasons get some issues confused. The fact that various plant species have a more northward extent now can often be explained by increased CO2 in the atmosphere and hybrid developments.)
Regarding the claim of Al Gore and other advocates that global warming leads to more snow: many of us have observed that measured average sea surface temperature has increased this winter, and certainly there is logic to expect evaporation to increase in warmer waters. HOWEVER, what is the source of the moisture for these snow storms? — it has been the Atlantic / Gulf of Mexico! In comparison to the Pacific, these waters have been relatively cooler. Meanwhile Idaho to Arizona has been noticeably dry lately, and they get their moisture from the Pacific.
(Bob Tisdale, I would appreciate any relevant insights or correction or clarification on temperature anomalies by ocean.)
Leif Svalgaard (05:14:43) :
Mick (05:01:51) :
Is our sun the thermostat?
No, it is getting steadily ‘warmer’. Its luminosity increasing about 1% in a hundred million years.
Would you like to change that comment?
Or do we actually have records from 100 Million Years ago?
You could have headlined that post with what is stated at the beginning of the article, as it explains a lot.
Thus we have the chair of the committee dedicated to making a lot of noise and getting noticed, making a lot of noise to get noticed.
This is of course manifestly obvious. As seen with the children dying and suffering due to Hurricane Katrina, which was caused by global warming. As with the numerous tornadoes, typhoons, and hurricanes worldwide every year, which are caused by global warming. Don’t forget the floods and droughts, which are caused by global warming. It seems a safe bet that many children have died and suffered from the recent record-busting Northern Hemisphere winter snow and cold, which was caused by global warming.
Don’t get me started on the earthquakes, which are linked to global warming. (Because the extra thermal energy has lead to more intense flows in atmospheric and oceanic currents, which has resulted in more movement of and stress on the tectonic plates thus more and stronger earthquakes. See, makes perfect sense.)
One may also consider the increase in malnutrition due to crops being diverted to bio-fuels as being linked to global warming. Shame there is no mention of that in the article, but I guess they can’t fit in everything. Of course this can be alleviated by using more genetically-modified crops giving better yields, but those dang climate skeptics are just so loud in their anti-science crusade it is causing people to reject science even in agriculture. Think of the children!
Thus we come to what appears to be the main thrust of the article, Potential Health Benefits of a Low Carbon Lifestyle!
Because, as it is well known, more people are harmed by refrigeration technologies (preservation of food and medical supplies, air conditioning) than are helped when it is powered by dirty fossil fuels. It is only when they are powered by clean renewable energy like wind and solar that any net benefit is seen. Indeed, we may well be better off by getting rid of them altogether. Likewise for heating, if people would just wear sweats and thermals and run around as needed to warm up, we would all be healthier and happier. And the cooking of food? Nasty stuff, kills nutrients, raw is better. Unless one is talking about meat and pathogens, but meat is bad so you should be eating less anyway. Use only a solar cooker, which will also help with the goal of having more meatless days during the week.
Yes, nearly everyone would benefit from getting more exercise. Walk or bike instead of taking the car. But why stop there? Stop using that fossil fuel-based electricity which is killing us and our world. Every home gets a bike and/or treadmill for electricity generation. Just imagine how healthy everyone would be if they had to generate the electricity needed to run the TV as they are watching it. Want to microwave some popcorn? Work for it. It’s for your own good!
Of course, doctors are well known for their complete and utter understanding of science, as shown in the last section of the article.
See, they have recognized the need for advocacy and shown their understanding of Post Normal Science, by engaging in advocacy and Post Normal Medicine.
But this part needs no comment, just some highlighting, as it wonderfully shows the depth of understanding on the issue.
kwik (07:22:56) From the link you just gave:
Moreover, Copenhagen has shown that the balance of world power has shifted to the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China). Western countries, including New Zealand and Australia were totally side-lined in Copenhagen. It is now extremely unlikely that an international climate agreement will ever be reached. Thanks to the BRIC countries, we can now all heave a sigh of relief
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/hansenist-climate-alarmism
A C Osborn (09:25:18) :
“No, it is getting steadily ‘warmer’. Its luminosity increasing about 1% in a hundred million years.”
Would you like to change that comment?
Or do we actually have records from 100 Million Years ago?
We understand how the Sun is generating its energy and can calculate very precisely how the energy generation changes with age. We check the calculations by observing the neutrino flux coming straight to us from the solar core and by observing how other stars [of which we have billions of examples] behave as a function of their age. So, no need to change the comment.
What people, person or group did sponsor in 1988 the then young James Hansen?, The Club of Rome, The Bilderberg group, which one?
On June 23, 1988, a young and previously unknown NASA computer modeller, James Hansen, appeared before a United States Congressional hearing on climate change. On that occasion, Dr. Hansen used a graph to convince his listeners that late 20th century warming was taking place at an accelerated rate, which, it being a scorching summer’s day in Washington, a glance out of the window appeared to confirm.
Steve,
Good work…as the last 10 years were also the warmest, and we know with more heat we get more evaporation, and thus, in the winter, more snow. Thanks for providing proof that AGW is correct.
The coldest place on earth (Antarctica) is also one of the driest in terms of precipitation, and the last glacial period was cold and DRY. So it sure makes sense that a WARMER decade would also be a SNOWIER decade. The coldest months of winter in N. Hemisphere are not typcially the snowiest…as in Denver, CO instance, it’s the late winter Month of March that is warmer and snowier.
Warm=Wet
Cold=Dry
Spring smow extent shows a declining trend.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2
A C Osborn (09:25:18) :
Would you like to change that comment?
Or do we actually have records from 100 Million Years ago?
I think you are on the wrong end of the time scale, and he meant 1% increase over 100 million years to come going into the future.
Remember, over the expected lifetime of our Sun, it will expand and eventually engulf the Earth, provided that there is still a planet left to engulf. Thus global warming will eventually destroy all life on Earth, one way or another, if something else doesn’t do it first.
Global warming is our destiny. Do not deny it. Embrace our destiny.
kadaka (09:28:22) :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8533937.stm
And crucially, doctors are curbing their well-known love of travelling by holding video conferences instead, and bringing together medics from India, Africa and Europe for educational meetings without leaving a carbon footprint.
Using computer parts made by child slave wage labor, picked over for parts when broken by waifs in very toxic computer “recycling centers”, (outdoor dumps in rural China).
Guilty, guilty, guilty!
kadaka (09:56:38) :
I think you are on the wrong end of the time scale, and he meant 1% increase over 100 million years to come going into the future.
It, of course, also means that a 100 million years ago, the solar luminosity was 1% smaller than today. And a billion years ago, 10% smaller [or 7 degrees cooler – if it were not for various greenhouse gases actually making it 7 degrees warmer than today]
R. Gates,
As we have previously discussed, the fifty snowiest sites in Colorado show that most of the snow falls during the coldest months, and December and March are tied for the snowiest. Wolf Creek Pass is the snowiest place in Colorado and receives the most snow during December.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdGhHc01yT25Ic0Nvcnc4SWNCWTlnSWc&oid=2&v=1267641169656
I think I’ll shout this so that R gates etc listen, as they obviously haven’t read my earlier post.
The BBC this lunch time reported that this winter has been DRIER than usual despite being COLDER and SNOWIER than the previous 31 years.
Did you all get it – DRIER.
Early snow is very bad for ice thickness development….snow is an insolator, early snow=thin ice. Makes me wonder if that has been a contributor to Arctic ice meltback of the last decade
http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ordovician/Ordovician.htm
All these intelligent people, who managed to think all the “tricks” involved in Climate Gate, in order to achieve the ideological goals of their masters, must realize that they no longer live in the first and leading world and that their power is over, and the millions of tons of snow that wise nature made fall over your heads was just to mock on you and show you that it is but a silly dream any anthropogenicity.
If you, silly kids, could influence in any measure weather or climate, challenge yourselves to remove by exhaling the noxious CO2 gases you exhale, every time you breathe, at a rate of more than two pounds a day, and which, as you settled science affirms, has the very singular property of heating up anything, to remove one single pound of fallen snow from your front door.
You just don’t realize it: you are nuts! …and the time for you of losing all your fantasies and face harsh reality is here. The sooner you realize it the better for you. Wanna change climate babies?, well, begin by changing one single trait of your character, and surprisingly the world will change a lot for you out there.
Does snow depth figure in this? I’m Canadian and know that there is a difference between a widespread dusting of snow an a .8 meter Nor’easter.
We have also been experiencing winters with 3-5 20 cm. falls that melt within 5 days when it warms up. Is this factored in ?
Does this report make any distinction between a little snow and a lot or is it just based on a space picture that can’t distinguish mass?