By Steve Goddard

The experts at East Anglia and CRU told us in 2000 that :
(March, 2000) 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.
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.
The 255 experts at the AAAS denouncing “climate deniers” in an open letter described this past winter in these cleverly sarcastic terms :
The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
I appreciate that government bureaucrats believe that there is no world outside Washington, yet nature has given us the opportunity to grade both the predictive and observational skills of the experts. And it looks like they deserve a rather poor grade. According to data collected by Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, this past October through March period was the snowiest on record in the Northern Hemisphere – with an average monthly snow cover of 39,720,106 km2. Second place occurred in 1970 at 39,574,224 km2.
We also know that the past decade had the snowiest winters on record.

A month ago I discussed an AGW sacred cow – Glacier National Park. At that time, a WUWT reader (Craig Moore) expressed his concern about the lack of snowcover in Montana this year. The good news for Craig is that as of yesterday, snowpack in Montana is 98% of normal. California is 117% of normal. Arizona is 175% of normal. Wyoming is 101% of normal, etc.
Every good and conscientious citizen knows that snow cover is disappearing due to global warming. Google turns up over 100,000 hits on that topic. This is what the disappearing snowcover looked like in my neighborhood yesterday morning.
With lots more cold and snow on the way.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp1.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



Enneagram says: May 13, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“Here comes the Girl! (La Niña) http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_enso.jsp?c=soi”
North Atlantic looks interesting too:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
R Gates.
The warmist argument, IE heat trapping gasses trap more heat, does not include the information on how the atmosphere itself evaporates water. It would seem to me that other forces evaporate water.
However, the warmist argument DOES suggest that the atmosphere itself contains a higher budget of energy due to trapped heat… Which suggests to me that the atmospheric carrying capacity of moisture should go up if extra energy is trapped? Why would our high energy atmosphere lose more moisture (as crystalline condensate) than a cooler low energy atmosphere? You can’t say “because there is more moisture there” because there is more moisture there due to the ability of the atmosphere to suspend it if it contains more energy.
Mike
How did I get the numbers for Montana. I used a super-secret spreadsheet equation
average() of all the Snotel sites listed under Montana.
You might note too that the stations around GNP are normal.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/snotelanom/basinswe.html
HaroldW
When you get hit by car riding a bicycle, the two possibilities are going over the car or under it. Better to go over it.
Bruce Cobb,
All you throw at us is empty statements backed with absolutely nothing other than a certain religious dramaturgy. Since you believe these statements, you don’t have to test them, and hence they cannot be wrong! Easy!
The opposite is the case with science, which is based on testable facts. And when something is wrong, the scientist has to go back to the desk and start again. A painful process. And when somebody within the large scientific community makes a mistake, cherry pickers take this as proof that the whole large body of science is wrong because of a conspiracy.
Good for you that you exclude yourself from this process of fallability.
How do you define alarmist:
(1) A climatologist who takes part in the conspiracy by the UN socialist government?
(2) A climatologist who does not take part but relies on his/her research results
(3) An amateur who pragmatically relies on the assumption that the broad body of science is not falsified
(4) Somebody who takes the results of the climatologists and exaggerates them to create a climate of fear (e.g. typical for any religion, old testament etc.)
(5) Algore
Here is another good one: http://friendsofginandtonic.org/
from skeptical science
Weather is chaotic, making prediction difficult. However, climate takes a long term view, averaging weather out over time. This removes the chaotic element, enabling climate models to successfully predict future climate change.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm
Oh, and speaking of the 3% CO2 in the atmosphere having no or little effect. Try mustard gas at low concentrations….
1DandyTroll May 13, 2010 at 12:03 pm says: So when everything was white, what then changed the “albedo” going from cold to warm, or vice versa. Because if everything comes down to albedo then it could have only been one albedo, the one that made everything too hot or too cold too boot. Imagine the snowball earth scenario, or the latest ice age, and if everything was up to albedo, how would it actually have become warmer?
Excellent question. Short answer from an albedo believer (without all the watts/meter nonlinear equations):
First, the principal albedo factor is clouds. More clouds, whiter albedo. During interglacials more evaporation leads to more clouds which leads to more reflected energy which leads to more snow which leads to whiter albedo, etc. The positive feedback effect terminates interglacials fairly rapidly (in geologic time).
Then during glacial periods the air dries out and clouds are fewer, but the snow continues to accumulate into continental ice sheets and perpetuates the whiter albedo which self-reinforces the cold. Glacial periods get colder and colder until after 100,000 years or so…
Milankovitch insolation approaches another peak and finally starts to melt the ice sheet surface which after 80 to 90,000 years has accumulated wind-borne soot from volcanic eruptions and fires in tropical and semi-tropical climes. As the ice sheet surfaces melt, the soot comes to dominate those surfaces, darkening the albedo and hastening the melt, similar to gravel on a roadside snowbank. Cloud cover is still much reduced and the dark albedo produces a positive feedback effect again, this time in the warming direction.
Then after the ice melts and the globe has warmed, the clouds come back and the whole cycle starts anew.
The rapidity (in geologic time) of the warming and the cooling phases indicates that positive feedback occurs during both, albeit in opposite modes.
nednead
It looks like once again you are warping one statement into something else entirely. I was posting in rebuttal to R. Gates claiming that the El Nino/Negative AO was responsible for this year’s large increase in snowfall by showing that low snowfall can happen during the same conditions and that high snowfall can happen under the extact opposite conditions (La Nina/Positive AO). This shows that his claim is meaningless. Are there other factors that weigh into the low/high snowfall conditions? Of course there are and I wasn’t arguing that. I simply proving his simple statement that the El Nino/Negative AO is the driving force wrong.
Phillip c (43): and if any have an older Firefox browser, try “view”, “page style”, “no style”. Works great here to get a single, no horizontal scroll working screen (and this is the only site that I have to use it on). This may work for other non accommodating browsers also.
nednead says:
May 13, 2010 at 2:05 pm
1) Weather is not chaotic, it is driven by changes in the solar signal that are highly predictable.
2) Without changes in the weather, you would have no changes in climate, period.
Living on Ynys Mon off the coast of North Wales we get pretty grim weather. What I have noticed this year is that the colder the weather in the North East Atlantic, the less ice appears to be in situ in the Arctic. When we get back to normal temps, the Arctic ice returns to normal for the time of year. Is there a genuine correlation?
“Oh, and speaking of the 3% CO2 in the atmosphere having no or little effect. Try mustard gas at low concentrations….”
You loose…..
but won the most ridiculous statement of the day!
Vuk etc. says:
May 13, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Enneagram says: May 13, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“Here comes the Girl! (La Niña) http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_enso.jsp?c=soi”
North Atlantic looks interesting too:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
==============================================
Nino3.4 is below 0.5 last few days; http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml Nino 1 is rising though.
Water vapour is low over Atlantic; http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth/action?opt=-p&img=vapour.bmp
To Gary in Arkansas » That’s interesting about the shape of persimmon pits, I’ve heard of that. What say you about solid jet black woolly-bear caterpillars with no red part indicating a cold winter?
Five VEI-4 volcanic eruptions in 2008-2009 was plenty to indicate a snowy winter for me. Many people just don’t realize the colossal amount of steam and particles (for the water vapor to eventually cling to) that are emitted during eruptions.
Eyjafjallajökull assures a wet and wild summer for much of the NH. If it keeps up a fairly high activity level in the coming months, this next winter will be real snowy too. There does seem to be a connection to solar minimums and more active volcanoes.
Ed from AR
Steve:
When I use the super secret spreadsheet formula I get 83.6%. You have to drop the last 6 because they are all in Wyoming. I used the last column for my figures.
Mike
Dr. Schweinsgruber
CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, and most people don’t exhale mustard gas.
@gareth Phillips
‘What I have noticed this year is that the colder the weather in the North East Atlantic, the less ice appears to be in situ in the Arctic. When we get back to normal temps, the Arctic ice returns to normal for the time of year. Is there a genuine correlation?’
First off you wouldn’t know what would come to be the norm for this year, and since by your writing the extreme pertains to this year, you have not experienced it previously, where upon you then know nothing.
So essentially you only know what you know and that pertains to only this year alone, and only that.
So what is normal in that, of your, regard?
Qrious says:
May 13, 2010 at 2:54 pm
R Gates.
The warmist argument, IE heat trapping gasses trap more heat, does not include the information on how the atmosphere itself evaporates water. It would seem to me that other forces evaporate water.
However, the warmist argument DOES suggest that the atmosphere itself contains a higher budget of energy due to trapped heat… Which suggests to me that the atmospheric carrying capacity of moisture should go up if extra energy is trapped? Why would our high energy atmosphere lose more moisture (as crystalline condensate) than a cooler low energy atmosphere? You can’t say “because there is more moisture there” because there is more moisture there due to the ability of the atmosphere to suspend it if it contains more energy.
_________________
A few things:
1. What other “forces” other than the electromagnetic force would you think it should take to evaporate water? You have 3 other choices (possibly 4 if you think dark energy could be involved)
2. Yes, a warmer troposphere holds more moisture, and that moisture will stay in the vapor form until the dew point is reached. When lots of warm moist air collides with cold air you get lots of precipitation and big storms. A warmer atmosphere can give up more moisture because it has more to give up, just a like a saturated sponge can give up more moisture when you squeeze it than a less saturated one. A warmer atmosphere is a much more saturated sponge than a colder atmosphere.
It is very easy to trace the combination of events that went into the big snows that hit the east coast this past winter. El Nino provided the heat and moisture and the negative AO really brought down the cold in a big way. Combine the two at the same time over the east coast, and you get snow and lots of it. True, this is not always the case, as other factors can also play a role. Also, none of this necessarily does or doesn’t have anything to do with AGW. El Nino and the AO have been around far longer than humans have been spewing out CO2.
@Mike D. says:
May 13, 2010 at 3:09 pm
1DandyTroll May 13, 2010 at 12:03 pm says: So when everything was white, what then changed the “albedo” going from cold to warm, or vice versa. Because if everything comes down to albedo then it could have only been one albedo, the one that made everything too hot or too cold too boot. Imagine the snowball earth scenario, or the latest ice age, and if everything was up to albedo, how would it actually have become warmer?
Excellent question. Short answer from an albedo believer (without all the watts/meter nonlinear equations):
First, the principal albedo factor is clouds. More clouds, whiter albedo.’
But clouds can act both ways.
‘Then during glacial periods the air dries out and clouds are fewer, but the snow continues to accumulate into continental ice sheets and perpetuates the whiter albedo which self-reinforces the cold.’
That doesn’t make sense since drier air, weather, climate means less snow to boot, so the drier the “climate” the less it snows, the less it snows, or rains, the whooping longer it would take to make a dent of a difference, i.e. it would frakking show up like orange in the climate blah blah.
” Glacial periods get colder and colder until after 100,000 years or so…”
Sry for cutting this short, but essentially it’s because of all that other crap.
But you didn’t really count all that crap until you were forced too did ya’? 😉
If you count all that shite into your little calculation of the whole, what does the answer come to?
However you did manage to not answer any questions. Is that a boon or lack there of?
255 jobs at stake!
Thats what the letter is about!
Gary Hladik says:
May 13, 2010 at 10:42 am
That’s OK, we’ll still have a “barbecue” summer. Heck, the warmmonger politicians are already feeling the heat!
______________________________________________________________________
Gary, isn’t applying tar and feathers first the best way to “barbecue” a Congress critter? Do we need to wrap them in tinfoil too? snicker
stevengoddard says:
May 13, 2010 at 11:01 am
++++
Ahhh, the Johnson Effect. Yes, that’s accepted in all the best journals run by our friends and co-authors.
Phil. says:
May 13, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Jimbo says:
May 13, 2010 at 12:29 pm
R. Gates says:
May 13, 2010 at 11:02 am
But Mr. Viner from CRU said 10 years ago that snowfalls would become a thing of the past. All steve is doing is poking their faces in it as they always point to a lack of snow as a sign of global warming. AGWers can’t have their cake and eat it.
Neither can you Jimbo, try completing the quote!
—————————-
Hey Phil I’ll do more than that, here it is in its full glory and let me know if the past claims of snow being infrequent sounds any better for you:
Source:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
And something else to mull over Phil.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/global-warming-past-the-point-of-no-return-507030.html
And yet NOAA and Rutgers University claim April 2010 was by far the lowest snow cover extent of any April on record. How can that be?
The BOM ENSO wrap-up looks interesting for the coming winter in the south..
“The El Niño event of 2009/10 has concluded, with all the major indicators now below El Niño thresholds. Latest observations show that sea surface temperatures, trade winds, the Southern Oscillation Index and cloudiness over the Pacific have all returned to levels considered typical of neutral (i.e. neither El Niño nor La Niña) conditions. The timing of the decline in the 2009/10 El Niño event has been fairly typical, with the event peaking over summer then decaying during autumn.
Historically, about 40% of El Niño events are immediately followed by a La Niña. Current conditions below the surface of the Pacific Ocean show large volumes of cooler than normal water, indicating that further cooling of the surface is likely.
The majority of climate model predictions suggest the tropical Pacific will cool further during the coming months, with the possible development of La Niña conditions by late winter or spring. No climate models suggest a return to El Niño conditions. As autumn is a typical transitional period for ENSO, model predictions through and beyond autumn are generally less reliable than at other times of the year. “
Mike D. says:
May 13, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Rather fishy. It does not fit the nature of sudden temperature drops during the Holocene, or the complete last glacial period, (-2C to -5C in as little as 2 to 5 years) Why does the soot wait 85,000yrs before finally deciding to decrease albedo? The solar signal essentially controls cloud levels, low signal, less clouds, more sunlight gets in, higher day temp`s, lower night temp`s. Higher signal, more cloud, lower day temp`s, higher night temp`s. Its just natural balance like the ionosphere reacting to sunspot flares and filtering out more UV and X-rays. Cloud cover and albedo changes can`t drive the ice age sequence. And why such regularity, every 40979yrs for 50/60 million years on the dot like a Swiss train? and why the change to the c.100Kyr sequence 2 million years ago? I think Milankovich just found a proxy for solar variation, in Earth`s orbital variations.