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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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]