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.
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…