Better late than never, we got a little bit busy this week.
Image above from data supplied by Dr. John Christy and rendered by the San Francisco Chronicle from their story here. An excerpt:
John Christy, the Alabama state climatologist who authored the study, said the amount of snow in the mountains has not decreased in the past 50 years, a period when greenhouse gases were supposed to have increased the effects of global warming.
The heaping piles of snow that fell in the Sierra last winter and the paltry amounts this year fall within the realm of normal weather variability, he concluded.
“The dramatic claims about snow disappearing in the Sierra just are not verified,” said Christy, a climate change skeptic and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. “It looks like you’re going to have snow for the foreseeable future.”
Here’s the Press release from UAH:
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Feb. 14, 2012) — During some winters a significant amount of snow falls on parts of California. During other winters — like this one (so far) — there is much less snow. But more than 130 years of snow data show that over time snowfall in California is neither increasing nor decreasing.
The analysis of snowfall data from as far back as 1878 found no long-term trend in how much snow falls in the state, especially in the critical western slope of the Sierra Nevada mountains, said John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
“There isn’t a trend significantly different from zero for the whole period,” Christy said. “I also looked at just the past 50 years and there is no trend over this recent stretch either.”
Details of Christy’s research have been accepted for publication and released on-line by the American Meteorological Society’s “Journal of Hydrometeorology.”*
This line of research was spurred by recent concerns that snow in the Sierra Nevada mountains had decreased in recent years, perhaps due to man-made climate change, Christy said. Those worries, however, were not supported by credible, long-term data.
A native of Fresno, Christy wondered if the snow he remembered covering the Sierra Nevada’s peaks is actually disappearing. His preliminary investigation found a potentially useful set of data: Records of snow measurements at stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad.
“They took great care to measure snowfall because they had to know how much snow fell before sending trains through the mountain passes,” Christy said. “No one else had looked at this data in detail. The records are pretty thorough and the measuring tools — a device resembling a tall, sturdy yardstick — are easy to use and obviously don’t need power, so there aren’t many gaps in the record.”
There was, however, one catch: “They were good at measuring snow but the data they collected in written records had never been keyed in into a computer dataset. Before I could do the analysis I had to manually input 100,000 station-months of data.”
The railroad data was coupled with data from other sources, including hydro-power and regional water systems vitally interested in knowing how much water would be available from snow melt. Other data was collected from logging and mining companies, as well as National Weather Service stations and volunteers. That data had already been digitized by the National Climatic Data Center.
Christy divided the state into 18 regions, based on the amount of snow that falls and on the quality of the records for that region.
“There are six or seven regions with good, robust data going back to the late 1800s,” he said. “In each of those there are five to 15 stations with good records.”
Global warming theory says rising temperatures might reduce snowfall in some areas, while snow might increase in others. That sounds counterintuitive, but it does make sense: At lower, warmer elevations rising temperatures raise the altitude of the snow line, potentially reducing snow fall at lower elevations.
Warmer air also can hold more water vapor than cold air, so rising temperatures should increase the amount of water vapor available for snow and other precipitation.
In high elevation mountain regions where winter temperatures would be below freezing even if they rise two or three degrees, snow would still fall. Those still-cold temperatures combined with the extra water vapor suspended in the warmer air could increase snowfall at higher altitudes.
That’s the theory.
Looking at both the 130-year record and the most recent 50-year record — which includes the 1975 to 2000 period when global temperatures rose — the California data show no long-term changes in snowfall in any region.
“California has huge year-to-year variations and that’s expected to continue,” said Christy, a graduate of Fresno State University. “California is having a snow drought so far this winter, while last year the state had much heavier than normal snowfall. But over the long term, there just isn’t a trend up or down.
“Not to be a scaremonger, but if you go back and look at the paleoclimate reconstructions for the past thousand years, there have been some colossal droughts lasting 50 years or more,” he said. “Those have not been around since the 1400s, although nothing we know about climate science says they can’t come back — global warming or not.”
In earlier research, Christy also showed no long-term warming in the Sierra Nevada mountains.
— 30 —
Here’s the paper:
Searching for information in 133 years of California snowfall observations
| Abstract |
|---|
Monthly snowfall totals from over 500 stations in California, some of which date back to 1878, are examined. Most data were accessed through the NOAA archive, but several thousand station-months of data were separately keyed-in from image files of original documents. Over 26,000 of these entries were new relative to the NOAA archive, generally providing data prior to 1920.
The stations were then subdivided into 18 regions for the construction of representative time series of each area. There were problems with the basic data, the most difficult with which to deal was the increasing presence of “zero” totals which should have been recorded as “missing.” This and other issues reduce the confidence that the regional time series are representative of true variations and trends, especially for regions with few systematically reporting stations. Interpreting linear trends on time series with infrequent large anomalies of one sign (i.e. heavy snowfall years) and unresolved data issues should be done with caution. For those regions characterized by consistent monitoring and with the most robust statistical reproducibility, we find no statistically significant trends in their periods-of-record (up to 133 years) nor in the most recent 50 years. This result encompasses the main snowfall region of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
A study using real, measured accurate data show everything is perfectly fine.
Side note: It took a long time for John to get this paper published because of one reviewer who didn’t even understand how snow depth is measured…but who was obviously convinced Christy must be wrong because the results did not fit the AGW narrative. Journal editors MUST start becoming a little more discerning about whether a reviewer’s comments are justified based upon the content of a paper. Of course, that would require an editor to read and understand a paper, and I agree that’s a lot of work for someone who has volunteered their time to become a journal editor.
Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. This includes more heavy snowstorms in regions where snowfall conditions are favourable. Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models and consistent with our expectation of more extreme precipitation events.
A data base that can be reconstructed and cannot be manipulated for personal or political gain show everything is perfectly fine.
Well dang! What’s the SUPREME GORON got to say about this little detail?
How much did your employer pay for this article?
I just read you’re financed to the tune of 90,000/year to write this garbage.
Is SHILL the correct terminology?
I notice the SF Chronicle article could not just report that everything is normal but had to have someone question the data because it did not fit their expectations.
“Climate experts and water resources officials were immediately skeptical of the report, pointing out that it doesn’t come to a meaningful conclusion and uses data from a ragtag collection of people, many of them amateurs.”
No significant change seems like a meaningful conclusion to me.
It’d be interesting to compare this graph, to one of temps in the area.
*A study using real, measured accurate data show everything is perfectly fine.*
Then the data needs some CRU-style quality control
This is yet more empirical data confirming that there has been no effect from carbon dioxide. Even the temperature records do in fact show the same once you understand that there is both a long term trend perhaps over 1,000 years which is still increasing since the Little Ice Age, but now only at a rate of 0.05 deg.C per decade, as well as a superimposed 60 year cycle which will now decrease for the 30 years from 1998 to 2028. The combined effect is level or very slightly declining trends for these 30 years. The maximum in the long term trend could occur within 200 years and should be less than 0.9 degrees C above the current trend line.
The point I want to emphasise is that it is not just a matter of low sensitivity to carbon dioxide levels. There is absolutely no warming effect whatsoever. There is however a small cooling effect due to the fact that carbon dioxide does absorb some incoming infra-red radiation from the Sun and send it back to space.
The physical reason why radiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot slow the rate of cooling of a warmer surface is explained in my answer to this person (whose question I repeat) …
Comment from: Martin MasonApril 11th, 2011 at 1:31 pm *
Can anybody help me with a question on radiation? I instinctively believe that a cold body can’t transfer heat to a warmer body but it can radiate towads the warmer body. If the radiated wave back from GHGs in the atmosphere can’t be readsorbed and re-emitted by the surface, what does it do?
It resonates with the target molecule and is effectively re-emitted rather like being reflected at the speed of light. None of its energy is converted to thermal energy. I prefer to use the term “scattered” in order to avoid implying that it is either reflected (in the true sense of the word) or absorbed – which most people assume means it does some warming.
Now, when and why does it resonate? Well, the frequency distribution of a blackbody has a peak which is proportional to absolute temperature. Study carefully the first plot here http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/WiensDisplacementLaw.html and note that the plot for a warmer temperature always envelopes that for a cooler temperature. Hence radiation from a cooler source can only have frequencies which can resonate with those of a warmer body. So all such radiation never leaves thermal energy behind. In contrast, radiation from a warmer source will always have some frequencies (at the right) which cannot resonate with a cooler target. It is the energy in radiation with these frequencies which has to be retained and is thus converted to thermal energy. This is actually necessary for the Second Law of Thermodynamics to apply.
Hence spontaneous radiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot add thermal energy to a warmer surface. Since it cannot add thermal energy it cannot either increase the rate of warming of the surface in the morning or slow the rate of cooling on the evening.
Herein lies the collapse of the atmospheric radiative greenhouse conjecture.
* Source: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/total-emissivity-of-the-earth-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/?cp=5
Once upon a time, people took measurements with devices that didn’t require battery back-up and stored the information on a system that is still readable today. We could still learn a lot from the old timers.
Thanks, to you or the Doc, for not drawing a straight line through the data. An of course because is is Dr. Christy it must be weaher. Sceptics can never rise to the level of talking about the climate.
CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas that Raises Global temperature. Period!
by Dr. Tim Ball on February 15, 2012
http://drtimball.com/2012/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas-that-raises-global-temperature-period/
But this is just western slope sierria snowfall, not global. So it can’t be a metric of man-made-global warming! Of course, whenever we have a regional drought, or just about any F5 tornado, the media wets their pants in anticipation of some CAGW hack publically spitting out the weather is due to man-made-global warming. Very funny world we live in.
Klas says:
February 18, 2012 at 3:27 am
Not that weather is climate, but this year has been very mild. And almost no snow. No heavy snowstorms, no record precipitation. Only unusually mild weather and no snow.
Robertvdl says:
February 18, 2012 at 4:49 am
CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas that Raises Global temperature. Period!
by Dr. Tim Ball on February 15, 2012
http://drtimball.com/2012/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas-that-raises-global-temperature-period/
I Like
I wonder what the newspapers looked like in 1933/4. It looked like the end of snow. Especially in the middle of the dust bowl. Does Gore have any tent show preachers in his ancestry? Mann could even create a downward snowfall hockey stick at 1934 with an upward temperature hockey stick to match – not that he would do so now and ruin his other hockey stick. But I bet you he could.
From Klas on February 18, 2012 at 3:27 am:
With your expectation?
Extreme precipitation events like never-ending drought in Australia that will require the building of many large and hugely expensive desalinization plants so the hapless Australians don’t start dying of thirst? Yup, that was predicted. The subsequent massive rainfall, flooding, lake refilling and aquifer recharging that has led to many large and expensive Australian desalinization plants being mothballed and abandoned, finished or unfinished? You and your people expected such an extreme precipitation event? And insisted on building those desal plants anyway?
Your expected reply is “But that was an extreme weather event, not climate!” To which my rejoinder would be “So what is a record snowfall event, weather or climate?”
Roy Spencer says:
February 18, 2012 at 3:18 am
“Side note: It took a long time for John to get this paper published because of one reviewer who didn’t even understand how snow depth is measured…but who was obviously convinced Christy must be wrong because the results did not fit the AGW narrative.”
This is pathetic, but sadly not unexpected from our academic climate elites…
Roy Spencer says:
February 18, 2012 at 3:18 am
////////////////////////
Interesting insight, depressing but not surprising.
Doug Cotton, can you explain the increase in measured downward radiation from clouds at night? For example: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450%282002%29041%3C0734%3ATIOSVA%3E2.0.CO%3B2 in figure 3. If that measurement in that figure is accurate, wouldn’t that decrease the nighttime cooling potential (as explained in the rest of the paper)?
I wish more CAGW true believers, like Mr Schwab and Klas, would post comments here. Such erudition is normally found only at Comedy Central.
I don’t like the way the San Francisco Chronicle refers to Christy as “a climate change skeptic”. I doubt he’s one iota skeptical that climate changes, it should be “anthropogenic climate change skeptic” or maybe “catastrophic anthropogenic climate change skeptic”. I wonder if it’s just sloppy reporting or intentional subliminal messaging.
Isn’t the the temperature record for the US showing no warming and possible cooling?
That being the case, why would one expect that there would be significant changes in snowfall?
This study is consistent with the view that there is no such thing as GLOBAL warming. To the extent that there may be warming, It is entirely a regional/local phenomena raising regional/local issues which if problematic will requiring regional/local adaption..
The political establishment want to conceal this since it would then be impossible to claim that we are all in it together. If this fact were to be revealed, each country would consider its own interests.
Why would a country like Switzerland (which is land locked) be concerned by sea level rise?
A country like Canada will benefit from warming. It will increase crop production and will lessen the harshness of their winter and the costs of the fuel they consume in dealing with adverse winter conditions.
The UN could exercise no control, if countries started looking at what problems and what benefits so called ‘global’ warm would bring to it. There would be many winners to such a climate change and these countries would not therefore wish to castrate their industrial economy when climate change is actually very good for them.
Klas says: “consistent with”
OMG!
A half eaten cookie found on Christmas morning is consistent with having been visited by Santa Claus.
Can you name something that wouldn’t be “consistent with” the CAGW hypothesis?
Makes me wonder if there are some good long-term temperature records also “hidden in plain sight” but requiring work to collate. State college ag extension offices? Farmers co-ops?
@Roy Spencer
“Side note: It took a long time for John to get this paper published because of one reviewer who didn’t even understand how snow depth is measured…but who was obviously convinced Christy must be wrong because the results did not fit the AGW narrative.”
The theory “Warmer air also can hold more water vapour than cold air, so rising temperatures should increase the amount of water vapour available for snow and other precipitation.” is completely independent of the Anthropogenic aspect, the cause is irrelevant. So it would just be GW and as I doubt anyone in their right mind would use a study like this to conclude temperatures are not rising. We have actual direct measurement of global temperatures rising over the last 50 years. I think the idea a reviewer was worried the results “did not fit the AGW narrative” is showing your own bias rather than the reviewers.
How do weather stations measure snow depth, aren’t they only measuring snow fall which isn’t the same thing?
Further to the point I make in my earlier post, to really illustrate the point.
Here in the UK, we have the worst (or at any rate nearly the worst) excess mortality in winter rates in the whole of Europe. The reason for this is threefold, but they inter-relate. They are (i) poor and old housing stock which is damp and not well insulated, (ii) a damp and cool winter climate with much wind-chill, and (iii) low pension income such that old people cannot afford to heat their poor insulated and damp homes to a comfortable temperature. Recent increase in energy costs will exacerbate this problem.
Now if there is climate change and if the UK were to warm by a couple of degrees, there would be a significant reduction in winter mortality. This would mean that the average life expectancy in the country would go up by 1 to 2 years.
Now if the UK were told, if we have global warming you will live a couple of years longer, but if we want to stop global warming we will have to endure unreliable energy and extremely costly energy, such that an ever increasing number of old people will be unable to heat their homes thereby increasing the winter mortality rate, what would be the reaction.
Would you vote for living a couple of years longer, or for dying even earlier? I may be mistaken but I suspect that most people would think that it is rather attractive to live a little longer. That being the case, they would be saying ‘global warming, bring it on’
The global cartel would collapse if the regional nature of so called ‘global’ warming was to be revealed to the public.
I consider that the regional/localised issue needs to be better communicated.
>>Roy Spencer says: February 18, 2012 at 3:18 am
>>Side note: It took a long time for John to get this paper published
>>because of one reviewer who didn’t even understand how snow
>>depth is measured…
What part of the term ‘measuring stick’ did they not understand? Should they even be a reviewer??
.
From a 2003 Associated Press article:
Nighttime temperatures in the study’s six-county region – Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced and Tulare – have risen more than four degrees Fahrenheit over seven decades, said Christy, who is leading the three-year study.
“One of the big issues right now is human-induced climate change from carbon dioxide,” Christy said Monday. “Actually, it appears temperature change in the valley could be due to a different human factor, and that is irrigation.”
The preoccupation with global change can distract from observable phenomena on a regional level. Given that all parties apparently are willing to accept significant increases in temperature and humidity within the San Joaquin Valley, and given prevailing winds generally to the east (IMO, haven’t checked), one would expect substantial increases in Sierra Nevada snowfall. His current findings should perhaps be seen as a regional test of the currently accepted assumptions relating temperature, humidity, and precipitation.
My comment at 06:38 am sounds rather selfish but it is not intended as such.
I am a firm believer that we should adapt not mitigate. The reason for this is many fold, but primarily (i) for many climate chage would be advantageous so why deprive the many of that benefit, (ii) for quite a number, climatte change will be neutral, so there is no problem, (iii) for some, climaye change may well cause more problems than benefits.
Accordingly, it is likely that the need for adaption will be less than presently claimed. Adaption can be a targeted response focusing on just the problem areas.
Rich countries can afford to do their own adaption. Poor countries may not be able to. In which case, the richer countries can help out. In this regard, the costs to the rich country will not be so great. First, much money is spent in overseas aid already and unfortunately most of this is wasted. This could be used more efficiently to target the problem areas. Second, the rich countries could send in their own civil engineering teams thereby creating employment for their own citizens and reducing the unemployment bill. The, they will get tax revenues from their own citizens who are now working. Fourth, it will stimulate their own economies since materials will need to be manufatured and shipped. So there is quite a bit in it for the rich countries such that the expense will not be that large in helping out poor countruies.
This also has to be balanced by the economic consequences of mitigation. This is very costly and is and will decimate the economies of the developed countries. If they do not mitigate, they can keep their economies vibrant and hence this too is of much benefit to them and it will more than outweigh the bill that they will have to incur in helping out poor countries that cannot themselves afford the costs of necessary adaption.
The economic case greatly favours adaption over mitigation.
Christy did protest to the Chronicle reporter the biased reporting style.
The study measured that snowfall neither increased nor decreased. This is not consistent with a theory relating snowfall to temperature if temperatures have in fact increased. Therefore either the theory is wrong or temperatures in the region responsible for precipitation in the Sierras have not changed.
@Klas
You forgot /sarc
Eric (skeptic) says:
February 18, 2012 at 6:09 am
Doug Cotton, can you explain the increase in measured downward radiation from clouds at night? For example: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450%282002%29041%3C0734%3ATIOSVA%3E2.0.CO%3B2 in figure 3. If that measurement in that figure is accurate, wouldn’t that decrease the nighttime cooling potential (as explained in the rest of the paper)?
Just a thought but in clouds at night as the atmosphere cools there will be water vapor condensing onto cloud droplets and other condensation nuclei. Water condensing gives up latent heat and presumably this can be measured. It would be interesting to see if the same level of downward radiation is visible when temperatures are increasing.
“Adam Gallon says:
February 18, 2012 at 3:48 am
It’d be interesting to compare this graph, to one of temps in the area.”
Here’s a John Christy- William Norris paper on California surface trends.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3627.1
What they found was NO temperature trend in the Sierra Nevada, and a WARMING trend in the
San Joaquin Valley. In the valley, daytime temps were slightly lower and nighttime temps were significantly higher – probably caused by irrigating the valley and turning desert into agricultural land.
Klas,
So explain why there appears to be no change in snowfall.
Cycles, cycles: Sierra and Andean summits will replenish its glaciers. All along the coasts of a nice La Niña. Sorry Al!
Klas
Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models and consistent with our expectation of more extreme precipitation events.
– Now I am confused. Klas which one looks to be the record snowfall consistent with global warming? Was it 1890 or 51-52 as shown on the chart?
Klas says:
February 18, 2012 at 3:27 am
Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. This includes more heavy snowstorms in regions where snowfall conditions are favourable. Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models and consistent with our expectation of more extreme precipitation events.
_______________________________
Why would warmer air with a commensurate increase in moisture cause more extreme precipitation events?
-30 degree air is potentially more moist than -40 degree air. 10 degree air is potentially more moist than 0 degree air. 30 degree air is potentially more moist than 29 degree air. My understanding is that it’s the change in temperature that leads to precipitation. So, taken cumulatively, if global temperature is rising it would lead to more moisture being held in the air than at lower temperature, and therefore less precipitation. If global temperature is declining there should be a decline in cumulative moisture potentially held in the air, and therefore more precipitation.
Moreover, the more precipitation in total the more likelihood of an extreme precipitation event statistically speaking. Moreover, the more rapid the decline in temperature the more likelihood of an extreme precipitation event as the ability of air to hold moisture drops rapidly. In general the reverse is true for increasing global temperature.
Of course local weather is always subject to local temperature changes with both rapid rises and rapid declines in temperature, leading to weather variability.
Over the past 100 years of thermometer temp. data it appears that we’ve had both rapid rises and rapid declines of temp. with a slow overall warming trend, so far. There has been no research I’m aware of that can quantify global changes in precipitation events through these rapid increases and decreases in temperature.
No, sorry, I’m not buying the “global warming causes extreme precipitation due to higher atmospheric moisture content” argument. A global cooling causes extreme precip. argument is also iffy, but more plausible.
I think it’s time to abandon the “global warming causes anything and everything bad” strategy.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Generally speaking most climate changes cause roughly equal amounts of good as bad, except when it comes to ice, where it’s almost always good for life when there’s less. But that’s a whole other subject.
John 6:35: Dr. Christy is not claiming temperatures are not rising, although it’s widely accepted that they have not risen in the past 15 years. In fact, very few people are claiming temperatures have not risen over the past century and most of those people seem to believe the temperature record has been skewed by UHI.
You may resume reciting the AGW narrative now . . .
Actually, this study confirms that the temperatures of present are within the bounds of the Holocene. World wide temps, as presented by acceptable data, show that we are well within the temperatures of the Holocene period. Being that we are in that temperature range, one would expect “climate” to respond accordingly.
That is…..our climate is normal, with annual flucuations.
DC > Hence radiation from a cooler source can only have frequencies which can resonate with those of a warmer body.
This is wrong (or, perhaps more accurately, Not Even Wrong). Whether radiation is absorbed or not has nothing to do with the temperature of the body-that-might-absorb it. It is entirely dependent on the albedo of the body for that wavelength / frequency. In a pure blackbody the albedo is 0 at all wavelengths and all incoming radiation is absorbed. This is basic radiative physics. If you heat up a blackbody enough it will start emitting visible light, but it will still have an albedo of 0 and absorb all incoming radiation (by definition).
I’m curious that so few people pick up on DC’s wrongness. He seems to post it in most threads. Do people believe it, or just ignore it?
richard verney> Isn’t the the temperature record for the US showing no warming and possible cooling?
This says warming, since 1976 (in DJF – but we’re talking about winter snowfall, no?). Or you can see the distribution of trends by month if you like. I imagine someone else will find a suitable period to get a different result.
> each country would consider its own interests
A fair point. Some countries will benefit, others lose. Switzerland doesn’t care about rising seas, but likely cares about loss of snow.
> Can you name something that wouldn’t be “consistent with” the CAGW hypothesis?
You’d need to define that hypothesis first. You won’t find CAGW in the IPCC reports. The IPCC view of warming, with “noise” of natural variability obscuring the trend sometimes, is consistent with current observations.
> very few people are claiming temperatures have not risen over the past century and most of those people seem to believe the temperature record has been skewed by UHI
Including the ocean temperatures? Which makes up 2/3 or the weight of the global record anyway.
richard verney says:
February 18, 2012 at 7:05 am
I completely agree that adaptation is preferable to mitigation. Mitigation implies certainty, that is, you know what is going to happen and you use resouces to lessen the impact. Adaptation means preparation for uncertainty.
When I read California State publications describing the impact of climate, there are dire warnings about future climate impacts, scary figures and the like, especiallly in the Executive Summary section. When you read further, there are usually a few paragraphs stating the predictions are uncertain. Who reads that far?
Over the last few years I strongly advocated adaptation over mitigation, even when I was the only person in the room making the case for it. It made no sense to blindly go along with standard language supporting CAGW. We were responsible for recommending policy positions for a state-wide organization. These positions would support decision making for numerous public agencies large and small across the state. It would have been irresponsible to advocate spending millions of dollars on projects that could prepare us for the exact opposite of what might actually occur.
When you have an opportunity to speak up, do it. You alone can make a difference.
John says: February 18, 2012 at 6:35 am
[…]
How do weather stations measure snow depth, aren’t they only measuring snow fall which isn’t the same thing?
I have a 4″ diameter standard issue gauge from which I remove the funnel and calibrated cylinder when things get below freezing. I weigh it on a .1gm resolution balance beam scale where 2gm=1″ of water. Then I take a core of the fresh snow and weigh it, and measure the depth with a ruler. Then a core is taken weekly of the total snow depth, weighed and the depth is measured.
William M. Connolley says:
February 18, 2012 at 9:09 am
Actually, when taken on a clmatic scale of a century, the temps of the USA have been flat.
Yes, warmed after 1973 or so, but again, it was much warmer than that temp during the early 20th Century.
On a century mean, the temperature has been flat with swings to the upside and swings to the downside, which of course, is to be expected as neither warmth nor cold is a stationary function of our dynamic climate.
I can only recommend to you that you think climate instead of a few years of weather as climate.
As far as DC?…..well…..he is free to post.
The beauty of this site is that anyone is free to post, whether you are a AGW alarmist of a Ice Age alarmist. Ya see, folks who come here have a brain and we do not need someone else to tell us how to think and are not afraid of being exposed to all sides of an arguement.
I understand now that you have something to do with Wikipedia. I have tried to correct blatant errors on that site, and now I understand why the updates are not posted. I have lost all confidence in that site as a source of credible information as there are so many inuendoes and flat out errors that never seem to get corrected. Maybe you can infuence some to fix this?
“I had to manually input 100,000 station-months of data.” – Ouch! All that work, and not even a hockey stick to show for it, just … pretty much what the null hypothesis would suggest. Good work, and a darn sight more believable than Just Another Model.
Perhaps we should have a whip-round to buy you a new keyboard.
Camburn says:
” I have lost all confidence in that site as a source of credible information as there are so many inuendoes and flat out errors that never seem to get corrected. Maybe you can infuence some to fix this?”
Camburn, Connolley is the censor of honest scientific debate at Wikipedia. He is the reason Wiki is unreliable regarding any information between cosmology and quantum mechanics. Everything else is tainted. You are asking him to change his nature, and allow both sides of the debate. That’s like the frog asking the scorpion to not bite him.
And no mention of the PDO/NPI ?
http://virakkraft.com/PDO-snow.png
[Moderator’s Note: You may want to check your graph again. -REP]
Smokey:
OT but…….ya mean that Mr. Connolley decides what Wiki shows in regards to climate science etc? I have tried to up date their site, and have papers as a reference, but I have never gotten the site updated.
So……….if he doesn’t like the findings of published research, somehow he has the power to not let it be part of the encyclopdia????????
Are you really sure about this? I mean, some of his writings here show how non-informed he is, but……..call me surprised is all I can say.
[Moderator’s Note: Do a google search on “Wikipedia + Connolley”. -REP]
Klas says:
February 18, 2012 at 3:27 am
Unless, of course, your assumption is incorrect and there has been NO meaningful warming–at least not enough to impact the evaporation/precipitation balance (the SIerras being a typical example, albeit not a compilation of all snow-accumulating areas).
For several years (at the minimum) we here in Reno, NV, at the eastern edge of the Sierra, have been constantly bombarded with cries of impending doom when it will snow no more.
Endless story after story in the local rags are meant to scare us into believing that CO2 is dooming the Sierra with drought and will kill all its creatures. Never mind that the Great Basin region periodically endures decade long droughts with some regularity,,,, and we’re enjoying a period of non-drought at the moment. (see tree stumps at the bottom of Lake Tahoe for clarification).
If this dry/no snow doom and gloom is true, why then are the ski resorts preparing to spend millionns and millions of dollars on improvements, including new chair lifts, restaurants, and lodging facilities??? It’s because the resort owners aren’t swallowing this drivel. What do they know that we don’t?
The latest exercise is to convince the Olympic powers that be to bring the Winter Games to Tahoe in 2022. Why on earth would they propose that if……SNOW IN THE SIERRA WILL BE A THING OF THE PAST???
http://www.renotahoewintergames.org/
Camburn,
take a look at this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/
“Warmer air also can hold more water vapor than cold air, so rising temperatures should increase the amount of water vapor available for snow and other precipitation.”
The above is taken from paragraph 13 of Mr Christy’s writings and I think it may be a mistake, at least according to http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadClouds.hmtl.
I would just like to know that what I read is correct.
Keep up the good work Anthony.
Steven L. Schwab says:
February 18, 2012 at 3:43 am
Steven,
Those reading here do not have unlimited time. Therefore, we much appreciate comments that make sense.
The material in this post was authored by John Christy, the Alabama state climatologist. It is doubtful that the Great State of Alabama reimburses him on an article by article basis.
What “the tune of 90,000/year” means is a mystery. Do you mean dollars per year – not tunes? Thought so. So then, just who’s earning that amount of money? Here’s an example. About 10 years ago a small amount of money was available at the university where my wife taught. She filled out a request form and a $300 digital storage device was purchased by the computer science department in whose classrooms she taught. Do you think she should have claimed that $300 as personal income on a regular basis, year after year? Is she now $3,000 richer? Not even the IRS would buy into your shrill screed.
So, for your comment you are awarded the Shrill Screed Award.
Wear it proudly:
Steven L. Schwab, Shrill Screed
Woodshedder says:
February 18, 2012 at 10:29 am
Again OT………thank you for the link. All i can say is…..what qualifications would allow Mr. Connollay to be a site admistrator? It is most obvious from his posts on WUWT that he knows very little about climate and its interactions, workings etc. Do they just let any old person be a censur per se at Wiki?
How very disappointing!!!!!!
William M. Connolley says:
February 18, 2012 at 9:09 am
Including the ocean temperatures?
True enough. The ocean temperatures did increase along with the air over the last 100 years as we came out of the LIA, but they also have not risen over the last 15 years. And am I correct in assuming that if we get to17 years of no change that CAGW will be over?
See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1995/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.08/trend
Camburn> Actually, when taken on a clmatic scale of a century, the temps of the USA have been flat.
You seem to have made that up. Notice that I gave you a link to actual data, and you just provided words, which you didn’t bother check? It isn’t that hard to do, e.g. http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html shows that you’re wrong.
> Wikipedia. I have tried to correct blatant errors on that site
Well, if you tried to insert the falsehood you’ve used here, I’d hope that it was removed. Feel free to tell us what page you updated, and with what, then we can all judge whether you were correctly reverted or not.
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/
I’m glad you bring that up. Its rubbish.
> “Warmer air also can hold more water vapor than cold air”
It is a regrettable way to state it (your link, corrected). Air doesn’t “hold” water vapour. But (for the level of discussion we’re having here) its close enough. BadClouds.html will explain the fine details, if you care.
Insofar as this is a posting about snowfall in the westeren US, I might note the on-going snow event in the Cascades of Washington State:
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SEATTLE WA
900 AM PST SAT FEB 18 2012
…AND HEAVY SNOW IN THE MOUNTAINS. THE SNOW IS SOMEWHAT HEAVIER THAN EARLIER FORECAST…WITH 20 INCHES SO FAR AT HURRICANE RIDGE IN THE OLYMPICS…18 INCHES AT MOUNT BAKER…AND A FOOT OR SO IN THE PASSES AND AT PARADISE. HAVE ALREADY UPGRADED TO A WARNING FOR THE OLYMPICS. IT LOOKS LIKE THIS STORM WILL BE ONE OF THE BIGGEST SNOW PRODUCERS OF THE WINTER.
The NPS, here:
http://www.nps.gov/mora/photosmultimedia/east-webcam.htm
. . . has a list of web cams – orange text. The link is to the “East” camera and it brings up a postage stamp size photo. Then you have to click on the “View Webcam” [orange text in the box] to get the current view. An updated photo comes in every few minutes.
Klas says: February 18, 2012 at 3:27 am
Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. This includes more heavy snowstorms in regions where snowfall conditions are favourable.
——————————————————————–
Not according to AGW scientist David Vitner it doesn’t. Independent Newspaper, UK – “snow a thing of the past”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Global Warming causes less snow – unless it is snowing heavily and then it apparently causes more snow. Now we all experienced this ‘heads we win, tails you lose’ trick, but most of us left it behind in the playground. It looks like the AGW crowd are simply big kids that have never grown up.
.
For the record, here is a link to William M. Connolley’s deletion log on Wikipedia. It appears that he lost some admin privileges in 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&type=delete&user=William+M.+Connolley&hide_review_log=0&month=&year=
Now, somewhat off topic;
DJ: That would a terrific choice for hosting the Winter Olympics, only it is too logical for the Oly. committee members. But, I wish Reno and Tahoe communities the best of luck in their efforts! They could probably run the luge slide all the way to Sacremento; now that would be some ride!
Back on topic:
Really!? Show us any references to that official prediction that predate the recent years of record snowfall. CAGW climate predictions have consistently been adjusted to match after record events ocurred; with the possible exception of higher temperatures, and there are darn few of them. Records that beat all previous recorded weather events are darn few.
Good catch R. Barker! What I want to know, does this mean they’re going to redefine “amateur” so they can keep out these records or do they plan to trash all manually collected records in their rush to censor science?
Excellent article Dr. Christy!! In my career, I’ve occasionally had to input thousands of data entries. My mind boggles, and my hand cramps, at the thought of entering 100,000 data points and then my eyes cross and water at the thought of double checking them. You’ve been verry busy!
William M. Connolley says:
February 18, 2012 at 10:58 am
Thank you for your generous offer to correct Wiki. I have sent you an e-mail and look forward to your reply.
> Global Warming causes less snow – unless it is snowing heavily and then it apparently causes more snow
Sort of. Its a bit more complicated than that, if you’re actually interested:
1. GW makes the world warmer; and this (to first order) makes for more WV and hence more precipitation.
2. In areas well below zero, the snow remains snow, even if it warms. But with more WV, there is more precipitation, hence more snow.
3. In areas near zero oC, some of the precipitation becomes rain now snow, so there is less snow (and some of the snow on the ground melts, obviously).
This, roughly, is why Greenland loses mass under moderate GW but Antarctica gains.
That is all to first order. There will, obviously enough, be areas where moisture decreases not increases.
William M. Connolley says:
February 18, 2012 at 10:58 am
a link to actual data,
My mother was born in the year where the blue curve is at a minimum, while I was born at the peak of the blue curve in the 1940s. As she bundled us up in layers of clothing and mittens and shoved us out the door into the snow and cold, she would say “Quite complaining. It was much colder and snowier when I was a kid.” She often would hold her hand at her waist and tell us how she had to walk 2 miles to 1st grade in snow so deep – all uphill. Both true. Then she would tell us it was uphill on the way home, too. My older sister would then say that Mom’s waist wasn’t as high at age 6 as at age 40 and the part of the story about “up-hill both ways” was a fabrication. That made a skeptic out of me.
Thanks, though, for upholding mom’s argument — She was spot on about that temperature difference.
there was a clear trend of lower minimums during the warming from ca 1910 to 1940 and a clear trend of higher minima during the warming from ca 1977 to 2007. Clearly warming from CO2 affects snaowfall differently than warming from unknown causes.
Adam Gallon says:
February 18, 2012 at 3:48 am
It’d be interesting to compare this graph, to one of temps in the area.
______
A big mistake that is made is thinking that local conditions in California have a high degree of influence as the cause of high or low snowfall years. Much greater correlation is found in temperatures of the Pacific Ocean in regions many thousands of miles away in the central and western pacific. It is here that moisture either is or isn’t picked up by storm systems and brought to California. Those same warm areas of the Pacific, far from California, also have a high degree of correlation with the jet stream tracks which will dictate the path of storms as the come in, or don’t come in from the Pacific. This year, for example, California has seen less snow but Alaska has gotten dumped on. All of that moisture (what CA didn’t get and AK did) would come, or did come from the Pacific. The jet stream brought that moisture to Alaska and California has been largely dry so far.
The fearsome Connolley is among us! All hail the Infallible One, for his Truth is the Only Truth, and when he stamps his foot and plants his staff majestically in front of himself and says, “NONE shall pass!”, he really means it, smiting all the Skeptical Balrogs into non-existence with his Wikipedia Eraser of Doom! Go Connolley! Smite them with your fantastic knowledge of unknown forcings and missing heat signatures – crush them with your solid understanding of how little is known about clouds and feedback mechanisms! Frighten them with End of the World scenarios and keep deleting all dissent – that’s the best way to force the non-believers into submission! That’s Post-Modern Science at its finest – emotion trumps truth while empirical measurements languish, forgotten…
Dr. Roy
Here is a source from the eastern slopes of the Sierras that goes back to 1968. I entered this into an excel spreadsheet for my own entertainment a year ago and no trend there either.
http://www.mammothmountain.com/MyMammoth/#mountainConditions
Oh OH……One might expect more snowfall in the near future. I was looking at temperatures, and this surprised me.
We are colder now than in 1945……
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1945/to:2012/magnitude:2
If global warming does increase snowfall, and snowfall feeds glaciers. Then glaciers should be getting larger/thicker as a result of global warming – certainly in their upper reaches. But apparently they are decreasing – and this too is due to global warming. I’m getting confused.
A – Just ignore it.
B – Interesting that you choose your start year in the deepest part of a cooling so strong that there was concern at the time that it was the start of the next ice age. It’s also a very different time period from the original piece, which starts in 1880.
C – The ocean temperature measurements were so sparse before ARGO that ascribing any warming or cooling to the oceans is nothing but guesswork (and I’m being kind in using that term). The atmospheric temperatures above the oceans is guesswork before satellites. In any case, the original post was about the Sierras. As I pointed out earlier, the lack of change in snowfall in the Sierras means that either the temperature – snowfall theory is wrong or the temperatures that affect the snowfall in the Sierras hasn’t changed.
> We are colder now than in 1945
I’m surprised to see you say that; the plot you link to doesn’t show it, and the saem plot with the trend added indicates that it is warmer now.
> you choose your start year
Check the source. I just posted what was available. Feel free to do your research and find a contrary trend, if you can.
> ocean temperature measurements were so sparse before ARGO
You’ve made that up.
> Then glaciers should be getting larger/thicker as a result of global warming – certainly in their upper reaches. But apparently they are decreasing – and this too is due to global warming. I’m getting confused.
Yes, I think you are. You could try reading some science, it might help.
Dr. Christy: Thank you for your effort in bringing old records to light. There is another set of California records going back to 1769 that you might consider, related to the “Lynch Index” that was in the California Weather Sumary CD. Jim Goodridge sent me a California Weather CD in 2002 that contained the file “Lynch Index.xls” that tabulates Southern California rainfall from 1769-1770 to 1999-2000. The CA Weather CD updated to 2009 does not appear to have that file. The state climatologist at http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/hafoo/csc/ might provide some information.
The Lynch Index was based on the August 1931 report, “Rainfall and Stream Run-Off in Southern California Since 1769” by H. B. Lynch, for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The report is available on-line at http://cepsym.info/history/RainfallStreamRunoffSoCA_since1769.pdf
and
http://books.google.com/books/about/Rainfall_and_stream_run_off_in_Southern.html?id=sJMJAQAAIAAJ
The Lynch Index spreadsheet correlates the index from the 1931 report with the rainfall record for Los Angeles. The index stops at 1930, and DWR did an extension to 2000. I did a linear regression analysis on the data, and also an extension (ref Bedient & Huber) of the data to present. Slopes of the regression lines are close to zero.
Moderators: The following text is verbatim from the spreadsheet. Truncate if it does not fit within your format and perhaps I can provide the information another way.
Thank you.
6.698624097
Lynch Year LA Rain Los Angeles
155 1770 23.14 1
125 1771 18.66 2
145 1772 21.65 3
110 1773 16.42 4
115 1774 17.17 5
90 1775 13.44 6
135 1776 20.15 7
75 1777 11.20 8
75 1778 11.20 9
125 1779 18.66 10
135 1780 20.15 11
125 1781 18.66 12
55 1782 8.21 13
65 1783 9.70 14
115 1784 17.17 15
110 1785 16.42 16
75 1786 11.20 17
90 1787 13.44 18
75 1788 11.20 19
135 1789 20.15 20
10 1790 1.49 21
90 1791 13.44 22 0.318
115 1792 17.17 23 0.338
85 1793 12.69 24 0.339
65 1794 9.70 25 0.342
65 1795 9.70 26 0.345
95 1796 14.18 27 0.347
65 1797 9.70 28 0.348
55 1798 8.21 29 0.350
115 1799 17.17 30 0.352
85 1800 12.69 31 0.355
95 1801 14.18 32 0.361
73 1802 10.90 33 0.397
80 1803 11.94 34 0.410
125 1804 18.66 35 0.407
75 1805 11.20 36 0.405
125 1806 18.66 37 0.422
65 1807 9.70 38 0.426
75 1808 11.20 39 0.432
65 1809 9.70 40 0.443
115 1810 17.17 41 0.448
155 1811 23.14 42 0.446
110 1812 16.42 43 0.416
85 1813 12.69 44 0.415
110 1814 16.42 45 0.415
195 1815 29.11 0.414
85 1816 12.69 0.410
155 1817 23.14 0.426
135 1818 20.15 0.441
135 1819 20.15 0.435
85 1820 12.69 0.432
145 1821 21.65 0.446
65 1822 9.70 0.450
65 1823 9.70 0.455
65 1824 9.70 0.450
220 1825 32.84 0.446
45 1826 6.72 0.451
65 1827 9.70 0.447
75 1828 11.20 0.456
35 1829 5.22 0.450
75 1830 11.20 0.444
55 1831 8.21 0.438
45 1832 6.72 0.438
165 1833 24.63 0.438
120 1834 17.91 0.452
110 1835 16.42 0.452
105 1836 15.67 0.459
95 1837 14.18 0.444
100 1838 14.93 0.443
145 1839 21.65 0.467
210 1840 31.35 0.482
40 1841 5.97 0.493
145 1842 21.65 0.491
65 1843 9.70 0.490
45 1844 6.72 0.483
65 1845 9.70 0.477
70 1846 10.45 0.470
135 1847 20.15 0.452
110 1848 16.42 0.450
75 1849 11.20 0.448
135 1850 20.15 0.444
60 1851 8.96 0.432
95 1852 14.18 0.427
125 1853 18.66 0.424
100 1854 14.93 0.428
120 1855 17.91 0.424
85 1856 12.69 0.429
45 1857 6.72 0.429
85 1858 12.69 0.431
65 1859 9.70 0.436
125 1860 18.66 0.439
90 1861 13.44 0.480
220 1862 32.84 0.472
40 1863 5.97 0.458
50 1864 7.46 0.459
95 1865 14.18 0.453
110 1866 16.42 0.439
135 1867 20.15 0.455
140 1868 20.90 0.451
110 1869 16.42 0.456
55 1870 8.21 0.461
50 1871 7.46 0.468
75 1872 11.20 0.469
80 1873 14.84 0.470
129 1874 23.78 0.468
92 1875 18.93 0.482
143 1876 26.07 0.498
38 1877 5.54 0.510
124 1878 21.26 0.507
54 1879 11.35 0.499
118 1880 20.34 0.495
71 1881 13.13 0.497
69 1882 10.40 0.497
68 1883 12.11 0.494
240 1884 38.18 0.475
61 1885 9.21 0.462
147 1886 22.76 0.449
90 1887 13.82 0.451
118 1888 13.76 0.450
134 1889 19.78 0.457
206 1890 34.32 0.460
109 1891 13.33 0.462
79 1892 11.80 0.451
158 1893 26.27 0.438
49 1894 7.47 0.434
123 1895 15.37 0.434
62 1896 8.54 0.441
119 1897 16.83 0.447
50 1898 7.15 0.442
41 1899 5.51 0.424
64 1900 7.90 0.431
117 1901 16.41 0.442
72 1902 10.48 0.452
137 1903 19.75 0.450
61 1904 8.74 0.443
137 1905 19.07 0.447
134 1906 18.75 0.398
152 1907 19.20 0.394
88 1908 13.02 0.391
140 1909 17.92 0.390
95 1910 12.64 0.392
121 1911 17.36 0.391
82 1912 10.37 0.345
81 1913 13.45 0.346
163 1914 23.63 0.351
120 1915 17.04 0.342
131 1916 20.69 0.332
100 1917 14.49 0.333
92 1918 14.53 0.377
66 1919 9.20 0.381
97 1920 11.27 0.369
103 1921 14.23 0.350
150 1922 19.04 0.344
72 1923 10.14 0.349
53 1924 6.12 0.345
64 1925 7.94 0.358
115 1926 17.56 0.361
119 1927 17.76 0.366
69 1928 9.77 0.378
76 1929 12.98 0.391
82 1930 11.21 0.395
1931 12.78 0.397
1932 16.83 0.397
1933 11.75 0.397
1934 14.68 0.397
1935 21.63 0.400
1936 12.02 0.410
1937 22.35 0.418
1938 23.44 0.432
1939 18.74 0.434
1940 13.54 0.438
1941 35.60 0.443
1942 11.80 0.439
1943 19.65 0.439
1944 18.78 0.442
1945 10.87 0.436
1946 11.07 0.434
1947 13.08 0.434
1948 7.00 0.438
1949 7.73 0.450
1950 10.65 0.444
1951 7.47 0.442
1952 26.98 0.439
1953 9.76 0.443
1954 13.07 0.447
1955 12.79 0.462
1956 18.17 0.461
1957 10.66 0.466
1958 23.37 0.471
1959 6.13 0.475
1960 9.37 0.495
1961 5.59 0.506
1962 21.46 0.508
1963 10.88 0.478
1964 7.12 0.490
1965 15.57 0.494
1966 18.92 0.503
1967 22.84 0.511
1968 15.72 0.506
1969 27.81 0.505
1970 7.77 0.500
1971 12.09 0.499
1972 7.43 0.496
1973 21.14 0.487
1974 14.92 0.483
1975 14.35 0.489
1976 10.12 0.495
1977 11.67 0.497
1978 31.57 0.498
1979 19.29 0.522
1980 26.46
1981 8.98
1982 11.53
1983 33.63
1984 8.28
1985 12.38
1986 19.82
1987 5.61
1988 12.47
1989 8.34
1990 7.02
1991 16.03
1992 20.86
1993 27.36
1994 8.11
1995 24.37
1996 12.44
1997 12.85
1998 30.57
1999 9.08
2000 11.79
Average 15.02
1884 Max 38.18
1790 Min 1.49
Count 230
Eric (skeptic) says:
February 18, 2012 at 6:09 am
Doug Cotton, can you explain the increase in measured downward radiation from clouds at night? For example: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450%282002%29041%3C0734%3ATIOSVA%3E2.0.CO%3B2 in figure 3.
Probably due to increased water vapour – seems pretty obvious to me.
If that measurement in that figure is accurate, wouldn’t that decrease the nighttime cooling potential (as explained in the rest of the paper)?
No for the reasons explained in my post above. The paper makes incorrect conjectures about the effect of radiation from a cooler source because, if such were to slow the rate of cooling of a warmer surface, then it would be violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The authors do not appear to be aware of some of the basics of physics and, like you, have been misguided by those who promulgate the greenhouse hoax.
It would be appreciated if you could read my posts and try to understand my points before responding, as you have a tendency not to do so in numerous responses you have made to my posts of other forums and here, in all of which you merely quote biased papers which are not based on correct physics.
William M. Connolley says:
February 18, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Look at the anomoly in my linked post. We are colder now than in 1945, in fact, colder now even than in 1950. This is indisputable.
Yes, the long term trend is up, that is also indisputeable, but the 2011 recorded anamoly is below 1945, and potentially through the early 50’s anamoly..
1951 approx .535 to .54 anamoly
2011 .30 anamoly.
I had not realized we had cooled below the late 1940’s, early 1950’s level.
William M. Connolley: “I’m curious that so few people pick up on DC’s wrongness.”
If we chose to debate him on every thread then every thread will be the same. But despite the tediousness of reading it all, I appreciate the efforts of yourself, Joel Shore, R. Gates and others to explain things to Mr. Cotton. In the other direction, Mr Cotton makes the rest of us reexamine what we believe to be true. We could have some concepts wrong.
Ian W: “Water condensing gives up latent heat and presumably this can be measured. It would be interesting to see if the same level of downward radiation is visible when temperatures are increasing.”
It seems to me that a lot of that condensation in clouds is around freezing, and the clear sky temperature is -20 or -30C, but it’s probably a bit more complicated than that.
R Gates according to you the snow record is then showing no change in ocean temperature for over 100 years, so no Increase in temperature for 100 plus years!
REdcar54:
The quality of the data prior to ARGO makes the error bars so large that one can not say with any degree of certainty what the temps of the oceans were 100 years ago.
There have been too many changes……buckets to XBT’s to different XBT’s…to……one only wonders.
The ocean temps prior to 2004 have very little statistical meaning.
RockyRoad says:
February 18, 2012 at 10:25 am
“”Klas says:
February 18, 2012 at 3:27 am
Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. This includes more heavy snowstorms in regions where snowfall conditions are favourable. Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models and consistent with our expectation of more extreme precipitation events.””
Unless, of course, your assumption is incorrect and there has been NO meaningful warming–at least not enough to impact the evaporation/precipitation balance (the SIerras being a typical example, albeit not a compilation of all snow-accumulating areas).
And of course the fact that relative humidity appears to be dropping might also have some bearing.
Camburn says:
February 18, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Oh OH…… magnitude:2
You surprised me too! That is until I figured out what was happening. According to the raw data, January 1950 had an anomaly of -0.469. And this is what is plotted when the normal graph is done. However since you requested “magnitude” the negative sign was omitted and it came out as +0.469. But having said that, there may be the odd points on the real graph that are higher than the present point. Specifically, August 1945, at 0.352, is higher than December 2011 at 0.252 at
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
The media is showing its bias again. What else is new? It’s pretty hard not to notice that whenever the media publishes anything on global warming that disagrees with the CAGW scare that the author gets “climate skeptic” attached to his name. But when they publish anything that does agree with the CAGW scare, “climate alarmist” is never attached to the author’s name.
Werner Brozek says:
February 18, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Thank you……I was thinking……..this is impossable…….but the graph is showing this……
Shows that I don’t understand what using magnitude on those graphs means.
And how foolish I now appear…..oh well, not the 1st time.
@William Howard M. Connolley
Sort of. Its a bit more complicated than that, if you’re actually interested:
1. GW makes the world warmer; and this (to first order) makes for more WV and hence more precipitation.
2. In areas well below zero, the snow remains snow, even if it warms. But with more WV, there is more precipitation, hence more snow.
===============
IPCC:
“Warming in western mountains is projected to cause decreased snowpack, more winter flooding, and reduced summer flows, exacerbating competition for over-allocated water resources”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spmsspm-c-12-north-america.html
Eric (skeptic) says:
February 18, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Ian W: “Water condensing gives up latent heat and presumably this can be measured. It would be interesting to see if the same level of downward radiation is visible when temperatures are increasing.”
“”It seems to me that a lot of that condensation in clouds is around freezing, and the clear sky temperature is -20 or -30C, but it’s probably a bit more complicated than that.””
It really doesn’t matter what temperature the water is at when it condenses or freezes it will always give up the latent heat of state change. Stefan Boltzmann does not apply to latent heat output.
That’s what your side is saying NOW, after their original predictions of decreased snowfall failed to pan out.
Reviewer not sure about measuring snow depth? Ever heard of a marked stick in the ground?
http://www.thestormking.com/tahoe_nuggets/Nugget_205/Nugget__205_2011_Mar_Alpine__Snowstake.jpg
The consistancy over time beats the heck out of SSTs that used buckets, intake water, etc. (BA… Before Argo) or tree rings. I’d say Christy has reasonable data to work with to come up with those results.
Well my eyeball-ometer says a very slight negative trend, but I am guessing not statistically significant.
I don’t think thus kind of study proves very much.
1. There is a very vague claim of what climate models are supposed to say. I am betting that the climate models or climate scientists in general are NOT actually claiming that we should be seeing significant reductions in Sierra snow falls.
2. The effect of higher temperatures on snow is not simple. In general it is expected that the snow line will move up and the snow thickness will increase with changes in the degree of compaction also complicating things.
3. We can expect different effects at different locations. Parts of the Sierras will behave differently from the whole and from the rest if the USA.
4. Time is a factor. Warming has barely begun. Predictions about seriously reduced snow in the Sierras may refer to 50 years from now. So trying to make judgements based on the last 50 years is not valid.
LazyTeenager:
The effect of higher temperatures on snow is not simple.
It’s fine for you to be vague about that now, especially given the last few winter seasons 🙂
However, we all need to recall that statements of a far more definitive and alarmist nature were made prior to the recent winters and their substantial snow falls. For example:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Redcar54 says:
February 18, 2012 at 1:31 pm
R Gates according to you the snow record is then showing no change in ocean temperature for over 100 years, so no Increase in temperature for 100 plus years!
——-
Actually, quite the contrary, the record shows the highly variable nature of surface temperature in he regions of the central and western Pacific that are linked to providing the energy and moisture that eventually finds its way to CA.
-REP
You may want to check your graph again.
Or you may want to put your glasses on
http://virakkraft.com/PDO-snow-2.png
William M. Connolley says:
February 18, 2012 at 9:09 am
DC > Hence radiation from a cooler source can only have frequencies which can resonate with those of a warmer body.
This is wrong (or, perhaps more accurately, Not Even Wrong). Whether radiation is absorbed or not has nothing to do with the temperature of the body-that-might-absorb it.
_________________________________________________________
No it is you who is mistaken William. Go back and read in any physics textbook why the Second Law of Thermodynamics would be violated if any radiation “beam” from any cooler point transferred thermal energy to any warmer point at any time.
[snip]
[Moderator’s comment: this is off topic – I point you to the policy page under ‘About’:
“Some off topic comments may get deleted, don’t take it personally, it happens. Commenters that routinely lead threads astray in areas that are not relevant or are of personal interest only to them may find these posts deleted.”
Remain on topic or be snipped ~jove, Mod]
[snip]
William Connely says
richard verney> Isn’t the the temperature record for the US showing no warming and possible cooling?
This says warming, since 1976 (in DJF – but we’re talking about winter snowfall, no?). Or you can see the distribution of trends by month if you like. I imagine someone else will find a suitable period to get a different result.
=================================
Mr Connely, you know 1976 was the bottom of the cylical ocean driven cooling from the prior 1940s warm period. Please, at a minimum, choose a sixty year time frame and then your comments may be cogent.
@John F. Hultquist says:
February 18, 2012 at 10:45 am
Steven L. Schwab says:
February 18, 2012 at 3:43 am
Steven,
…The material in this post was authored by John Christy, the Alabama state climatologist. It is doubtful that the Great State of Alabama reimburses him on an article by article basis.
……………………
It is common for universities (sometimes supported by funds from central government) to pay the department on a per-paper basis. That sum is usually divided into two portions, on of which (perhaps 30%) goes to further the research of the authors. In this way publication of results is appreciated and encouraged. The authors cannot have the money themselves in most cases – i.e. to spend on skiing vacations in the Sierras’ the non-shrinking snow pack.
In South Africa the universities gets ZAR75,000 per paper (to the Department from the federal gov’t) with up to 1/2 going to the author(s) for further their research. This portion might be ZAR20,000 depending on the institutional rules. None of it is personal income. Prolific Departments doing high quality work can build considerable programmes in this way.
Roger Knights says:
“That’s what your side is saying NOW, after their original predictions of decreased snowfall failed to pan out.”
This has been said for at least 20 years. Please re-read 1st assessment report chapter 7-2 and tell me in what way that is different from what I wrote! (and FAQ 3.2 in the most recent report) What I wrote is not new in any way; However, it seems to take forever to communicate.
Paul says
It’s fine for you to be vague about that now, especially given the last few winter seasons 🙂
—————
Well the message about the non-intuitive relationship between global warming and snow has been around for 10-20 years. So it’s old news. Apparently you missed it.
Paul says
However, we all need to recall that statements of a far more definitive and alarmist nature were made prior to the recent winters and their substantial snow falls. For example:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
—————
Paul somehow you read the article and then the good ole intellectual blinkers then came down. From the very same article Viner says this:
“Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.”
If people want to quote mine , fine go ahead. But remember that I know what you guys are like and so I fact check on a regular basis.
http://en.skiinfo.com/snow-history-details/whistlerblackcomb-ECAWHIST-5831-en.jhtml?season=2011&tp=1y&report_type=mh&tab=4#destLinks
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/kevster1346/wolframalpha-20120118164548020.jpg
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=whistler+bc+temperature
LazyTeenager says:
February 19, 2012 at 1:06 pm
“Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. ‘We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,’ he said.”
Six years down. Fourteen to go.
I haven’t sold my coat.
“Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. ‘We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,’ he said.”
Well that was a wrong prediction too. Here in UK we have had our third snowy winter in succession. And if the Met Office get “caught-out” next year as well, we’ll have to give up on them. I’m beginning to give up on them already.
William M. Connolley says:
February 18, 2012 at 9:09 am
If you heat up a blackbody enough it will start emitting visible light, but it will still have an albedo of 0 and absorb all incoming radiation.
________________________________________________
If this were true, William, then the Sun would absorb radiation coming back to it from the Earth and, however small it might be, you are effectively say that such backradiation would heat the Sun just a little more, just like you say backradiation from a colder atmosphere would help the Earth’s surface to warm at a faster rate every sunny morning. .
Well, I’m sorry but there is no “just a little” allowable in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Backradiation from the relatively cold Earth to the Sun cannot warm the Sun even just a little.
But while speaking of backradiation, have you ever even considered the backradiation by carbon dioxide as it sends back to space some of the infra-red radiation which makes up about half the Sun’s spectrum? Surely that would be a cooling effect.
Please try to get get your physics right, William, even if you haven’t been studying and teaching it for over 50 years as I have. And don’t misquote your “definitions” without realising that nothing acts like a perfect blackbody unless it is totally insulated (in space for example) and in equilibrium at absolute zero (0 K) temperature. All measurements of absorptivity are usually carried out with radiation from a warmer source than the cold atmosphere, but even so, what is not absorbed when making such measurements actually comes from such lower frequency radiation.
The Earth’s surface does not act anything like a true blackbody because it is not insulated by a long shot as it loses more than half its thermal energy by diffusion, conduction, evaporation and chemical processes. This leaves far less energy to be radiated, especially when the other processes bring about close thermal equilibrium between the surface and the first millimetre of the air. Apply S-B correctly in such circumstances and you get very little radiation. So those calculations which say the Earth’s surface would have been 255 K without water vapour and things like carbon dioxide are absolute garbage and not even remotely accurate. Only the whole Earth-plus-atmosphere system acts something like a true blackbody, so the 255 K is a mean somewhere up in the atmosphere. The natural lapse rate dictates that the surface must be warmer than the mean, not the trace gases and water vapour.
There are other pieces of research that note the Sierra’s are somewhat cherry-picked:
Knowles et al 2005 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3850.1) – “A well-documented shift toward earlier runoff in recent decades has been attributed to 1) more precipitation falling as rain instead of snow and 2) earlier snowmelt.”
Mote 2006 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3971.1) – “During the second half of the twentieth century, and likely even since 1916 …, winter and spring warming in the West have reduced spring snowpack at most locations. Increases in precipitation appear to have offset this loss in some places since midcentury, notably in the southern Sierra Nevada mountains, where large increases have occurred.” (emphasis added)
Christy has selected a singular piece of evidence, not looking at the whole set of available data, which is unfortunate. Western US snowpack is reducing with ongoing climate change, and the effects on water availability are not going to be pleasant.
Has anyone pointed out that annual snowfall has decreased? That is, the main changes in snowfall have occurred during fall and spring. Much less snow in fall and spring. Not surprisingly, it still snows in the mountains during winter.
John says:February 18, 2012 at 6:35 am
” So it would just be GW and as I doubt anyone in their right mind would use a study like this to conclude temperatures are not rising.”
*************************
Anyone in their right mind would use this study to conclude that snow pack averages have remained average. And then you go barking off on the temperature rabbit trail.
***
“How do weather stations measure snow depth, aren’t they only measuring snow fall which isn’t the same thing?”
**************************
Visit the SNOTEL site and read up on how they do it:
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/
They actually measure the density or water content. Imagine that.
BillD says: February 19, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Really? We must have missed something…..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/19/north-america-snow-models-miss-the-mark/
“”””” Klas says:
February 18, 2012 at 3:27 am
Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. This includes more heavy snowstorms in regions where snowfall conditions are favourable. Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models and consistent with our expectation of more extreme precipitation events. “””””
Ain’t necessarily so; regardless, or irregardless as the case may be, of what WE expect of “””more extreme””” precipitation events.
True; warming OF THE AIR permits the air to hold more water; so for the same water content, the relative humidity goes down if the AIR Temperature goes up. That would generally result in an extreme reduction of clouds and precipitation, which require high relative humidities to occur.
Now warming of the SURFACE, aka the OCEAN would result in an increased evaporation, and an increased precipitation, since evap and precip must balance, but that would only occur (precip)_ after a dela to bring the atmospheric water up to par.
Fortunately we have actual real non computer simulated modelling, experimental observations of these effects. From SCIENCE July 7 2007 read Wentz et al, “How much more rain will global warming bring ?”
Answer (observed) a one deg C rise in mean global surface Temperature results in a 7% increase in evaporation, atmospheric water content, and precipitation (globally). Models differ by as much as a factor of seven (times less). Planet earth ignores the computer models, and goes with the Wentz observations.
Sometimes the 7% increase in precipitation is accompanied by an increase in (preciptable) clouds (what a concept). This increase in cloud cover by 7% maybe, is likely to result in a sizeable reduction of incoming solar energy captured by the eazrth, which might result at times in cooling.
The result could be extreme cooling.
Lazy says…“Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.”
If people want to quote mine , fine go ahead. But remember that I know what you guys are like and so I fact check on a regular basis.
————————————————————–
KR says
Christy has selected a singular piece of evidence, not looking at the whole set of available data, which is unfortunate. Western US snowpack is reducing with ongoing climate change, and the effects on water availability are not going to be pleasant.
======================================================
KR, I think you meant unpleasent. You and Lazy are simply wrong. There is no world wide, or N.H. wide , or western US trend in declining snow cover, unless one cherry picks the start and stop carefully.
http://www.real-science.com/snow-cover-big-global-warming-lie Please note that if one picks the last ten years the INCREASE has been substanial at all snow elevations in the NH. So Lazy, the “ocassional” snow has been pretty consistent, no? Additionaly KR, the biggest decline is resivors is due to the increase in usage. Now remove the CO2 mankind has produced and we would need 10 to 15% more water, just to grow the same amont of fodd we currently have. The same is true of extreme weather events of all kinds, no global trents outside of normal short term flux.
David – Have you fitted a trend to the data you linked to? If so, you would see a decline.
I would suggest actually looking at the literature. [SNIP: Anthony Watts has made public statements substantially at variance with your assertion, which is a very good example of an ad hominem argument. Don’t do it again. -REP] The sources I posted came from a simple Google Scholar “snowpack western us” search.
I find it, well, curious that Christy has selected one of the few areas in the Western US that has had steady snowpack, while the majority of the Western US has seen decline over the last 100 years. That’s cherry-picking – either poorly informed or deceptive.
KR says:
February 19, 2012 at 8:51 pm
David – Have you fitted a trend to the data you linked to? If so, you would see a decline.
I would suggest actually looking at the literature. [SNIP: Anthony Watts has made public statements substantially at variance with your assertion, which is a very good example of an ad hominem argument. Don’t do it again. -REP] The sources I posted came from a simple Google Scholar “snowpack western us” search.
I find it, well, curious that Christy has selected one of the few areas in the Western US that has had steady snowpack, while the majority of the Western US has seen decline over the last 100 years. That’s cherry-picking – either poorly informed or deceptive.
And your cherry picking in Google Scholar found a paper that said:
“Mote 2006 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3971.1) – “During the second half of the twentieth century, and likely even since 1916 …, winter and spring warming in the West have reduced spring snowpack at most locations. Increases in precipitation appear to have offset this loss in some places since midcentury, notably in the southern Sierra Nevada mountains, where large increases have occurred.” (emphasis added)”
Since 1916? And also it then proceeds to say that increases have ‘offset this loss’? What would happen I wonder if the weather of the last 6 years were added to the paper?
You will note that the research you are criticizing is based on actual recorded observations they are not opinion or software code modeling a 1 April SWE. If you have better conflicting actual recorded observations then feel free to produce them – that is science.
Regarding snow extent: Mid-winter extent is not the most telling metric, snow volume (harder to measure) is. For the purposes of water supply, the duration of the snowpack is critical – if it declines, so does water availability.
From the Rutgers University data that Goddard’s link leads to (thank you David), mid-winter and fall extents show essentially no trend. There is still a trend in the totals – the 12-month running mean is primarily above the average before the mid-1980’s, and primarily below the average after that. The spring extent appears to be primarily responsible:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=namgnld&ui_season=2
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=eurasia&ui_season=2
That data shows is a steady decline in spring extent over the last 40 years – the snow is melting earlier. That holds for North America, Eurasia, and the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. And yes, those are “actual recorded observations” from the same source. The persistence of snowpack in certain locations (such as the Sierras) is the exception, not the rule.
KR says:
February 19, 2012 at 8:51 pm
David – Have you fitted a trend to the data you linked to? If so, you would see a decline.
========================================================
It entirely depends on where you pick your start point. ALL of the decline happened by 1986, From that point on their has been an increaseing trend, especially if you run the data through the 2011 period. It is simply another IPCC fail. http://www.real-science.com/ipcc-snow-forecast-fail
I also noticed your fail to address the other statements I made concerning the benefits of CO2 and the other disaster prediction fails of CAGW. “Now remove the CO2 mankind has produced and we would need 10 to 15% ,MORE water and land, just to grow the same amont of food we currently have. The same failure is apparent in other CAGW concerning extreme weather events of all kinds, NO global trents outside of normal short term flux.
David – It appears that we crossposted. Please look at the spring extent data (from the same source as you provided):
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2
The spring extent decline appears to account for much of the total extend decline in the 12-month running mean. Please note that despite a low in 1990 (and one before that in 1968), the declining spring extent continues through the present – it certainly doesn’t stop in the 1980’s.
Again, the persistence of snowpack in certain locations (such as the Sierras) is the exception, not the rule.
—
I would consider your “CO2 is plant food” sideline as off topic for a snowpack discussion.
KR says
The spring extent decline appears to account for much of the total extend decline in the 12-month running mean. Please note that despite a low in 1990 (and one before that in 1968), the declining spring extent continues through the present – it certainly doesn’t stop in the 1980′s.
Again, the persistence of snowpack in certain locations (such as the Sierras) is the exception, not the rule.
I would consider your “CO2 is plant food” sideline as off topic for a snowpack discussion.
================================
K.R. a non problamatic decline in spring time snow pack is indeed seen, however your sentance, ” the persistence of SNOWPACK in certain locations (such as the Sierras) is the exception, not the rule.”” is certainly not true as the N.H. snowpack has increased steadily for the last eleven years. Clearly the IPCC link I presented talked about an overall decline in NH snowpack going into the future. However, this was after ten to fifteen years of declining NH snow pack, (Prophets of the past) Five year after this forecast of declining snow pack, note not “spring” time snow pack, the trend reversed for the next eleven years.
Still waiting for the C in CAGW
Sincerely
David
Is there a 60 year cycle in the data?
David – The NH snowpack has not increased.
See Pederson et al 2011 (http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/julio_pdf/Pederson_etal_2011_Science.pdf):
“Over the past millennium, late 20th century snowpack reductions are almost unprecedented in magnitude across the northern Rocky Mountains and in their north-south synchrony across the cordillera. Both the snowpack declines and their synchrony result from unparalleled springtime warming that is due to positive reinforcement of the anthropogenic warming by decadal variability. The increasing role of warming on large-scale snowpack variability and trends foreshadows fundamental impacts on streamflow and water supplies across the western United States.”
Current snowpack reductions are backed up by observed extent, microwave sounding of depth, and measurements of stream runoff levels. The 1000 year reconstruction was generated from tree-ring data; but whether you trust that or not (many here appear not to) the current decline is supported by basic observations.
Sustained snowpack in some regions (like the Sierras) simply does not tell the whole story.
K.R. now we are going in circles, and backwards. Everything I wrote in this paragraph is true, and your comment is non responsive. “K.R. a non problamatic decline in spring time snow pack is indeed seen, however your sentance, ” the persistence of SNOWPACK in certain locations (such as the Sierras) is the exception, not the rule.”” is certainly not true as the N.H. snowpack has increased steadily for the last eleven years. Clearly the IPCC link I presented talked about an overall decline in NH snowpack going into the future. However, this was after ten to fifteen years of declining NH snow pack, (Prophets of the past) Five year after this forecast of declining snow pack, note not “spring” time snow pack, the trend reversed for the next eleven years.”
All true as is easy to see by the chart here…http://www.real-science.com/snow-cover-big-global-warming-lie while alarmist paragraphs in supposed scientific papers are not meaningful.
David – If you feel that actual analysis is not meaningful, there’s little I can say to you.
Again, the data shows (see for example Gan 2009, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009EGUGA..11.2058G) that the Western US snowpack is decreasing in about 3x as many areas as increasing – hence a steady decline in total snowpack over the last 30 years; about 10-13cm decrease in depth over that time.
Selecting an area such as the Sierras where snowpack is not decreasing, then claiming that all of the Rockies follow that pattern – that’s cherry-picking. Especially when the entirety of the data indicates the opposite – that total snowpack is decreasing, correlated far more with rising temperatures than with precipitation changes.
But again, if you feel actual analysis, actual measurements, etc., are “alarmist”, you’re not going to be convinced. I (IMO) just cannot see that as a rational decision.
Adieu
It might be interesting to see a plot of the maximum snow pack divided by the minimum Arctic ice extent of the previous summer…