Readers may recall our story from Dec 15th, 2013: Over half the USA covered in snow, the most in 11 years
Now, it’s even more. See the map and the 3D image:
February 7, 2014
| Area Covered By Snow: | 67.4% |
| Area Covered Last Month: | 48.1% |
The map is from NOAA’s National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center
The 3D image is from this KMZ file and Google Earth:
h/t to Joe Bastardi of WeatherBell
UPDATE: Values of snow cover for this date show this is the highest in a decade.
February 7, 2014
Area Covered By Snow: 67.4%
February 7, 2013
Area Covered By Snow: 34.8%
February 7, 2012
Area Covered By Snow: 25.5%
February 7, 2011
Area Covered By Snow: 48.9%
February 7, 2010
Area Covered By Snow: 60.8%
February 7, 2009
Area Covered By Snow: 33.2%
February 7, 2008
Area Covered By Snow: 51.1%
February 7, 2007
Area Covered By Snow: 38.9%
February 7, 2006
Area Covered By Snow: 26.6%
February 7, 2005
Area Covered By Snow: 26.4%
February 7, 2004
Area Covered By Snow: 53.4%
You mean its natural solar cycles and not witchcraft?
Wheres ManBearPig to scare everybody into giving him $5?
Fred:
Your post at February 9, 2014 at 8:22 am says in total
I do know “the difference between climate and weather”, and when I look out the window here in the UK I see rain.
Importantly, “GLOBAL” warming stopped at least 17 years ago.
Try getting your facts from scientists and not alarmists.
Richard
“Words have meaning and names have power.” Anon
It is distressing to see on a forum devoted to science the improper use of certain words. At least twice in this thread we see a statement like this: “With the current lack of warming we may be going into another ice age.” This presupposes that we are not at present in an ice age. Which is not correct. The earth has been in an ice age for about 2.6 million years. We are lucky enough to be living in an Interglacial Warm Period. We may be slipping into another Glacial Period, or not. It is all part of the same ice age. Why is this important? By directing attention away from the larger climate picture and focusing on a very limited recent time span climate scientist hope to further their “cause”. The ice age is the elephant in the room they desperately want to ignore and conceal. We know what happens when the earth warms up enough to shift from Ice House to Greenhouse conditions. It is not to be feared; it is not a total disaster. In fact, it is normal and to be preferred as more beneficial to life. Summer is a reminder of Greenhouse Earth; winter is a reminder that we are in an ice age.
[“… it is “normal” (or “abnormal”?) and to be accepted …” Mod]
Janice Moore says:
February 8, 2014 at 12:32 pm
Carbomontanus is a well know warmist troll over here. I know who he is and I’ve seen him in person. The real life version is even more peculiar.
==========================================================
😎 I was about to say something similar when I saw Richard’s response.
(Oh, and Fred, he’s a Brit, not an American. But what you said here, “ It is rather obvious as to why America is rated 23rd in the world in science literacy.“, might have something to do with why anybody believed Al Gore to begin with.)
Gail, your link is right on the money. Stephen should study it.
Fred, too funny. If you live on either side of the cold invasion, you are quite warm (what loops down, loops up). And yes, it is weather right now, and quite extreme. What you fail to understand is how weather can become weather patterns which can exist in short term as well as longer term spans of time, setting up weather pattern variations which will demonstrate an average trend up, flat, down, or noisy. The longer term weather pattern variation trends are popularly known as climate change. Cha ching!
Pamela,
Which portion of Gail’s extensive and broad ranging link should I (and readers) pay attention to ?
I am well aware of the Brewer-Dobson circulation which fits well enough into my hypothesis in that it can slow down or speed up as necessary to exert a negative system response to any internal system forcing element.
Just directing readers to a mass of information without specifying its relevance would seem to me to be a diversionary strategy.
Stephen, I take the time to study such involved things. You should too. There is no quick learning here. But I will point out one specific area among many. I have referred readers to bottom-up versus top down influence on stratospheric changes (thus tropospheric thus weather pattern changes) before. Rossby waves are a bottom-up invasion into the stratosphere. Something I know you are well aware of. Yet you nearly exclusively deny such bottom-up invasions into the stratosphere which can then form a top-down driver back into the troposphere. You place solar changes at the top of the list of stratospheric drivers of tropospheric changes without refuting this intrinsic source as being the primary driver. Do you not?
Pamela Gray said:
“The longer term weather pattern variation trends are popularly known as climate change. Cha ching!”
Quite so.
Solar variations (via wavelength and particle variations rather than TSI) cause changes in weather pattern variation trends (shifting jets and climate zones) which we perceive as climate change ( ker-ching!)
Glad to see you agree with me after all : )
If you believe that our CO2 emissions have a significant effect compared to that of solar and oceanic variability then please do share your evidence.
I will link this very well done study here. I have already done so on another thread. I find the conclusions very interesting as well as the need for further research into completing our basic understanding of the polar vortex. Yet there are those here who want to jump over that wide span of incomplete knowledge of the thing itself and head for the Sun as the driver. Reminds me of once again, the witch doctor who had a very incomplete understanding of the thing itself yet seemed all to eager to tell us what caused it.
In my opinion we MUST complete our knowledge and understanding of INTRINSIC weather pattern drivers before shoving a finger elsewhere at other drivers. Whether that be us, the Earth, or something outside our highly variable globe. I prefer to examine intrinsic drivers (which have not been extensively studied yet) before I look at other possible drivers and I will continue to encourage others to do the same. And it is my opinion that those who look elsewhere have need of further study in intrinsic drivers.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1204/pdf
Pamela Gray says:
February 9, 2014 at 11:29 am
A sensible comment deserves a sensible response so:
i) I do not deny bottom up invasions of the stratosphere.
ii) I do not deny that bottom up invasions of the stratosphere can affect the solar induced top down effect.
iii) I am on record as asserting that the climate response at any given moment ( via the latitudinal position of the climate zones and jets) is a consequence of the net balance between the top down solar and bottom up oceanic influences.
iv) Thus I say that the top down solar effect on stratosphere temperatures can indeed be modulated by the bottom up effect from the oceans which must include the Rossby wave effects that you have noted.
The thing is that I distinguish between the bottom up Rossby wave effects which give rise to sudden stratospheric warming events and the top down, long term solar effects across a millennium or so.
Those bottom up effects occur all the time but beneath and behind them lies the top down solar effect which influences the frequency and intensity of sudden stratospheric warming events across decades, centuries and millennia.
Indeed I have often referred to those SSW events because they do lead to more meridional / equatorward jets giving cooling middle latitudes.
In exactly the same way it requires a warming of the stratosphere towards the poles to produce the more meridional / equatorward jets and climate zones that we observed during the Little Ice Age.
Do you not see the similarity between the ‘weather’ of short term SSW events and the ‘climate’ of solar induced long term changes in the frequency and intensity of such SSW events ?
Stephen, I am of the opinion that solar enthusiasts and CO2 enthusiasts have the same degree of knowledge regarding knowledge and understanding of intrinsic drivers of weather pattern variation trends, with CO2 scientists maybe slightly ahead of solar enthusiasts. Neither camp have followed proper refutation of intrinsic drivers of the recent warming trend.
An idea for you Stephen, the link I provided above has very good data in it. As does the link I have included elsewhere authored by the master’s candidate. Use that data and see if there is a link with your solar parameters. Don’t eyeball it. Use standard tests of significance. As they have done. Note: you and they are limited by the short data span so your tests of significance must be set at a very high level else you find spurious significance and tout it as evidence.
Pamela.
Both solar and CO2 enthusiasts may well be working from the same body of knowledge.
I think I am ahead of both in placing the primary influence on solar variability (top down) as modulated by oceanic variability (bottom up) leaving the effects of human CO2 emissions nowhere in comparison.
The late 20th century warming trend (now deceased) showed poleward / zonal jets, reduced global cloudiness, increased ocean heat content, cooling of the stratosphere and warming of the middle latitudes at a time of active sun.
Now we see a less active sun, stabilising if not reducing ocean heat content, increased global cloudiness as per the Earthshine project, equatorward / meridional jets and a cessation of the warming trend in the troposphere and a cessation of the cooling trend in the stratosphere whilst the middle latitudes become cooler.
Everything has gone into reverse since around 2000 as the sun became less active.
What more evidence do you need ?
Again, Stephen you rely on observation as the beginning and end of your thesis. Low level discourse at best. And you fail to refute intrinsic drivers. Granted that is more advanced in terms of classic scientific investigation, but you still fail to even link to the many pieces of research on intrinsic drivers.
Pamela,
What do your ‘intrinsic drivers ‘ suggest ?
What are your ‘intrinsic drivers’ beyond sun and oceans ?
GHGs could be regarded as ‘ intrinsic drivers’ but how far would our emissions shift the jets and climate zones as compared to solar and oceanic variability ?
Do you have any idea ?
If I am ‘more advanced in terms of classic scientific investigation’ then how do you come to the conclusion that my thesis is low level discourse at best ?
I want the correct diagnosis, do you ?
Stephen
You ask: What do your ‘intrinsic drivers ‘ suggest ?
1. Intrinsic oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections appear quite able to drive natural weather pattern trends in short and long term time spans and clearly vary the amount of solar incoming energy to a far greater degree than solar variation itself does. There is both intrinsic plausible mechanism and correlation in weather pattern trends.
You ask: What are your ‘intrinsic drivers’ beyond sun and oceans ?
2. Intrinsic drivers are a combination of Earths rotation and geography combined with oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections. Not to mention the atmospheric soupy chaotic movement akin to those you find in fluid dynamic theory. Besides, it is accepted theory, even doctrinal, that oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections are far more powerful in driving measurable temperature anomaly trend than the Sun is. At best solar driven changes to measured temperature are calculable but not detectable in weather noise averages be they anomaly or actual temperatures.
You state: GHGs could be regarded as ‘ intrinsic drivers’
3. Anthropogenic CO2 is not generally considered to be intrinsic to Earth. Intrinsic parameters are those in nature, including natural CO2.
and ask: but how far would our emissions shift the jets and climate zones as compared to solar and oceanic variability ? Do you have any idea?
4. When looking at the energy available from LW oceanic heating due to the anthropogenic portion of CO2, I do not find sufficient evidence in the literature that demonstrates sufficient energy necessary to drive the recent barely decades long warming trend much less the Jets. I also do not find evidence of sufficient solar energy to do that.
You ask: If I am ‘more advanced in terms of classic scientific investigation’ then how do you come to the conclusion that my thesis is low level discourse at best ?
5. I certainly did not say you are more advanced. I said that refuting the null hypothesis by finding robust fault with it is advanced scientific investigation, a level I find you wanting in.
You ask: I want the correct diagnosis, do you ?
6. I want those who propose alternate theories to use standard scientific discovery methods. You do not use those methods.
[snip – per WUWT policy, ‘Chemtrail’ comments not allowed here -mod]
Pamela,
1) Do you realise that solar effects on internal system features such as ozone amounts at different heights above the tropopause can affect the proportion of solar radiation that can enter the oceans by changing global cloudiness via air circulation changes ?
I’m not sure that you appreciate the implications of that.
2) I agree with all those factors as modulating influences but what if solar effects on ozone outweigh all of them by altering the proportion of solar energy able to enter the oceans in the first place ?
3) I referred to GHGs generally and not just anthropogenic GHGs..I simply think that GHGs whether anthopogenic or not make little difference to the global air circulation compared to the contribution from solar and oceanic variability.
4) You have to look at he the cloudiness changes that result from solar variations. Those changes are out of proportion to changes in raw TSI and would seem to be sufficient to account for observations as per previous threads on this site and elsewhere.
5) You can adjust the intended meaning of your words if you wish but they remain in place. The null hypothesis is that all observed changes are natural and my hypothesis seems to be in line with that.
6) Scientific methods appear to have been somewhat lacking of late. In any event my hypothesis refers clearly to the findings of others and places them within a physically plausible scenario. That is good enough if it leads to any degree of predictive skill and indeed it is doing so. My hypothesis anticipated a reverse sign solar effect on ozone amounts before reports of increasing ozone at a time of quiet sun came in for the 2004 / 2007 period above 45km. I also anticipated a continuing negative AO and AAO, more meridional jets, more global cloudiness and a return to dominant La Nina over El Nino.
What ‘better’ and more ‘scientific’ methods do you propose ?
Refuting the null hypothesis is a long ordeal and you have not even started. That is also true of those who believe in the ozone hypothesis related to solar mediated cloud coverage. The oceans are far more capable of creating cloud cover and the equatorial trade wind is far more capable of removing that cloud cover than anything ozone can do. Stephen, in every instance you reference completely UNSUBSTANTIATED conjecture! Very unscientific. You are proving my case without me.
I have visited your site and you do an extremely poor job of refuting all the intrinsic parameters that are accepted causes of weather pattern variations. That you claim otherwise proves the real old adage, “we are our own BEST critics”.
Pamela.
You are entitled to your opinion.
In the meantime if you come across any real real world data that goes contrary to my hypothesis over a long time scale do please let me know.
I don’t think that I need to ‘refute all the intrinsic parameters that are accepted causes of weather pattern variations’ because they are all subsumed into my general overview.
Nor is my ‘conjecture’ ‘unsubstantiated’ because it fits both observations and basic physical principles.
Best wishes.
Pamela Gray said:
“The oceans are far more capable of creating cloud cover and the equatorial trade wind is far more capable of removing that cloud cover than anything ozone can do”
The oceans do indeed play their part as per my own ‘Hot Water Bottle Effect’ but the oceans respond to the air flows above them and if the sun affects the global air circulation from above by affecting the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles as I propose then all the oceans can do is modulate the solar effect rather than drive anything themselves.
I would say that the sun proposes but the ocean disposes.
Robert Bissett says:
February 9, 2014 at 10:38 am
Earth has been in Icehouse mode for about 38 million years, ever since Antarctica was isolated from South America & Australia by deep ocean channels. Ice sheets have been a permanent feature of our planet since then. The climate got even worse when North & South America joined at the Isthmus of Panama, about 3 Ma, producing the waxing & waning but mostly waxing Northern Hemisphere glaciations you cite.
Warmunistas try to blame CO2 for the Cenozoic ice age, fingering the weathering Himalayas, but the lame excuse doesn’t wash, so to speak. CO2 decrease is caused by cooling climate, not the main driver of it & ditto for its fluctuations during warmer interglacials, such as now
Stephen, you seem to think that ozone changes caused by solar UV changes precede height changes in various atmospheric layers over the Arctic pole. I think you have cause and effect reversed.
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/maps/satellite_feed/ozone/ozone.html