Guest Essay by Kip Hansen — 12 December 2023
Snow – those marvelous little crystals of frozen water that drift down from the sky – in gentle silence, in the fury of an arctic-like blizzard, or in any and everything in between.
Where I grew up, snow was something that we traveled a couple of hours to visit for the day. Once a decade, we’d rent a cabin up in snow- country and spend a week with aunts and uncles and cousins. But I never had to live where it snowed in the winter – I surfed in the winter. Sometimes university friends and I would drive up to sled and toboggan on Saturday and drive back down to surf on Sunday.
[This essay is only 1500 words — with a lot of graphics….]
I saw a few weeks ago that some climate skeptic had twitted (Xed?) that snow was not decreasing, but rather increasing. He used little graph:
Well, fair enough, that is the Rutgers Snow Lab graph for Fall Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent covering the satellite era (1967-present). Most readers here are generally familiar with the climatic history of the last century or so, and might notice something: during the “Global Cooling Period” late 1960s through the mid-1970s there were years with very high fall snow extent, over on the left side, which are similar to the last couple of decades, on the right.
Note: NOAA and NASA (for weather and climate) use: Meteorological seasons: “spring … includes March, April, and May; meteorological summer includes June, July, and August; meteorological fall includes September, October, and November; and meteorological winter includes December, January, and February.”
But, this is just the fall months: September, October, November (although Astronomical Winter does not begin until 21 December). And it is only the Northern Hemisphere. Only the Northern Hemisphere [NH hereafter] because almost all of the planet’s snow, excluding the ice caps, is found in the Northern Hemisphere – there is some in the south up in the Andes of South America – but its extent is insignificant. NASA’s Earth Observatory offers this for Winter 2022:
If you look closely, you can see the little strip of white snow atop the western mountains ranges of South America.
It is not valid to show just the Fall NH Snow Cover Extent and then say: “See, more snow, I told ya so!”.
Total NH snow cover extent has been really very stable across the satellite period:
Both the highs and lows are pretty stable, at least since 1972 [I have some personal doubts about the two very high ‘lows’ prior to 1972 and will query Rutgers on those two data points ***]. The high extent seems to be centered on about 45,000,000 km2, maybe a little more. The lowest extent somewhere between 25 and 75 million km2. between 25 and 75 million km2. (h/t Rick C)
*** Update: from Rutgers snow Lab: “Yes, it was early in the satellite record! For this reason, there are some missing snow charts. They are as follows: Weeks with no data: 1968 27-30, 1969 23-43, 1971 28-39 Missing months: July 1968, June-Oct 1969, and July-Sep 1971” ….. “It looks like those two data points represent May 1969 and June 1971 instead of August, which is missing during those years. I plan to add placeholders for this missing data in the text files. There is a note on the website but reformatting the data file will make the missing months more visible.” — from the very helpful Tom Estilow, at Rutgers Snow Lab
Here’s another way to look at it:
The red and blue traces are “…extremes are calculated using the 56-yr record from Jan 1967 to Dec 2022 “ so the highest for that week in the 56-year record and the lowest. So, we can see that 2022, the black trace, was very near the highest extent in early Fall (late September) and Oct-Nov. Otherwise, right on the mean through the Spring, and quite low late spring and through the summer.
The point of that exercise was to show that snow cover extent is variable, year to year, and within the same year, season-to-season – 2022 from lowest in 56 years in July to highest in 56 years in November – shifting to dropping below average Dec to Jan. That is just one year.
Now, here’s what all that is composed of during the seasons:
So, snowier Falls, a bit snowier Winters, and less snowy Springs. The vertical scales are very close, about million Km2 top to bottom, but each graph is a different portion of the whole vertical scale, it is not appropriate to set them side by side. Properly, they look like this:
So, we see that the increase in the Fall and Winter does not quite make up for the decline in the winter and Spring. But, looking back up at the NH Snow Extent graph up a bit (it’s blue) we’ll see that there is a slight decline since the turn of the century, but overall stable.
With snow, Snow Cover Extent is not the same as Amount of Snow – more commonly measured as depth in inches (or cm or feet or meters) or as water content. Snow is hard to measure – obviously there is fluffy snow, grainy snow, wet snow, powder snow — many, many types of and conditions of snow – it is often said that the Inuit or the Greenlanders have “40-50-200-400 – take your pick – words for snow”. [This is not strictly true, of course, but they do have a lot of words describing types of falling snow and snow conditions on the ground.]
The U.S. National Weather Service gives us this:
Three Types of Measurements are Reported:
- Liquid equivalent of snowfall (last 24-hrs) reported in HUNDREDTHS (such as 0.22′)
- Snowfall (newly fallen snow) is reported in INCHES and TENTHS (such as 2.4″). It is taken as soon as snow has stopped falling if possible and no more than 4 times a day.
- Snow Depth (total depth of snow on the ground) is reported to the nearest WHOLE INCH (such as 11″). It is typically reported at 7am.
[This copy-and-pasted quote from weather.gov contains an error. Liquid equivalent of snowfall is reported in hundredths of inches – ” – not feet – ‘ – as indicated above, see here. I have requested a clarification. Just heard from NWS and they are correcting the typo.)
Snowfall totals are complicated and determining ground snow conditions can be complex. This is illustrated by the many factors reported daily by National Weather Service’s National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center on its National Snow Analyses page:
This is the National Snow Analysis for 11 December 2023. It is not yet winter in the northern hemisphere, only late fall. In the U.S. Northeast, much of the existing snow was melted by extensive warm rain just yesterday (10 December) but higher elevations are now again snow covered this morning as temperatures plunged overnight while rain was still falling. There is an amusing error in the Automated Model Discussion portion in the upper right: the model reports 2,888.6 inches (240 feet) of snow as the maximum snow depth (cue: rants about models in comments).
How about across the world?
If we want the statistician’s answer (statistical trends) to the question: “Are we seeing more snow this century than previously?”, we can again go to Rutgers Snow Lab for that answer – at least for Snow Cover Extent (not the same as “more snow”):
Over the satellite era (1967-present), Snow Cover Extent is increasing at a rate of about 2% per year for both Eurasia and Northern Hemisphere (alone) or NH+Greenland. Note that including Greenland in the NH calculation reduces the percentage of increase. Why? Greenland doesn’t change much, if at all. (It’s a math thing….)
Snow Cover Extent is important climatically because it changes the albedo of the Earth’s surface. But in many other senses, such as hydrologically, the water equivalent of the snow is much more important, because as the snow pack slowly melts it percolates down into the aquafers and provides water to streams and rivers.
So, do we know the answer to the question:
“Has global warming/climate change resulted in More or Less snow worldwide (say, over the last 50 years)?”
We don’t know.
Even with satellites and advanced computer algorithms, the most recent paper on Snow Water Equivalent—amount of water falling as snow—measured by satellites concludes:
“At present, information on water stored as seasonal snow is highly uncertain. Because of surface monitoring limitations, satellite measurements are critical, but current missions are inappropriate for determining snow mass with the spatial, temporal, and accuracy characteristics required to deliver climate services, effective water resource management, and skillful environmental prediction such as streamflow.” [ source ]
Bottom Line:
1. As with many things climatic, the best answers to the posed question: “Are we getting more or less snow over the last 30 years (1 climatic period)?” is “We don’t really know.” And “It depends on what you mean.”
2. If we just mean Snow Cover Extent, the answer is “Yes, we are seeing an increase of about 2% per decade over the last 50 years” which is a pretty good estimate from satellite measurements. This does not mean that everywhere is seeing more snow – but only the worldwide and regional totals are seeing more snow.
3. Astronomical Winter arrives next week – and I say “Let it snow!”
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
The snow issue, as part of the overall global warming/climate change meme, is a mess. The IPCCists and Climate Crazies demand that there must be less snow, less ice, shrinking glaciers because “global boiling”.
It is much better for your mental and intellectual health to look at the actual measurements in a scientific way — just look at them and let the measurements have their say.
Like so many climate-related metrics, the numbers available for snow may not be as accurate as we need and, in many cases, available metrics don’t measure what we want to know.
So, Let It Snow!
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
Another case of “the inadequate evidence we have contradicts global warming”. I wonder if the lack of reported adequate evidence is deliberate.
Tom ==> I doubt it, these WW metrics are hard to “measure” (in most cases, calculated from some other metric).
For climate, I suspect we will have to satisfy ourselves with Snow Cover Extent — affects albedo and we have a way to measure it.
They’re lobotimized- maybe the extra terrestrials have done it. Some people claim there with us now! I don’t believe that- other than when I read climate lunacy.
I do not trust climate data
unless they are
Infilled
Improvised
Levelized
Homogenized
Pasteurized,
Digitized
Magnetized
Circumcised
Notarized
Sanitized
With 5 or more
decimal places
and have been compiled by
a government bureaucrat scientist
who had been Lobotomized.
After being
AlGore Scrutinized
Decarbonized
And they get a Nobel Prize
I have my standards
No Compromise
Raw data are for losers!
Great article.
Best of a good day here so far
Will be on my daily recommended reading list at
Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
You missed “Monetized”.
Hey Kip,
You mentioned regarding the seasonal trends…
But your Winter Graph actually has a slightly Increasing trend line.
Is Winter Snow extent declining or slightly increasing?
Bryan => Caught me! My text is not quite right….I’ll fix it.
Kip: You might also look at this in the paragraph after the NH snow extent graph.
“The lowest extent somewhere between 25 and 75 million km2.”
I think you meant 2.5 to 7.5 million km2.
Rick C ==> By Golly – You’re right. Too many little zeros on that scale….. fixed it with credit.
I used to love deep snow- snow shoeing is a blast- but now at 74, I don’t miss it if we don’t get it. I only wish I could afford to move to a warmer climate, like many others here in Wokeachusetts. They’re not heading north.
“They’re not heading north.”
______________________
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
Claiming that a warmer world is a problem
fits the classic definition of the big lie Wikipedia :
A big lie…how people could be induced to believe
so colossal a lie because they would not believe
that someone could have the impudence to distort
the truth so infamously.
To be specific, the warmer weather since 1975 has mainly been in the colder nations of the N.H., in the coldest six months of the year, and at night (TMIN) That’s good news climate change.
…which fits to a “T” the definition of Urban Heat Island Effect. There is no Global Warming™.
Hypothesis: Prevailing winds blowing across urban heat islands would produce more melting downwind from the UHI than in other directions. Are satellites tasked in a way that this could be measured?
I believe that even that could be inflated. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S000143381509011X#/page-1
The climate enthusiasts don’t like change – it get’s messy and interferes with how they think things should be.
It’s a bit warmer than average so far here in Wokeachusetts. And so far, no snow. Yet, nobody is complaining. We save on heat and don’t have to shovel snow. What’s not to like? Yet, our idiotic state government thinks we’re having an emergency- a disaster- a crisis. They’re all insane, like Gore, Mann, et. al. They’re never challenged by ANY politicians, nor the media, nor the academics. I challenge them but they just ignore me.
Joseph ==> Your state government will soon declare that “too much snow” is the disaster — when they find Boston shut down due to lack of enough snow plows.
“Boston saw slightly north of a foot of snow during the 2022-2023 winter season, but in 2023-2024, AccuWeather predicts 38-44 inches of snowfall for the city with a storm possibly forming as early as November.” [ source ]
Or their New Electric Snow Plows just can run long enough in the cold to keep the streets clear…But they work Oh So Well in the Summer
Will have to be kept in heated sheds as we know batterys and cold weather dont go together
Not off-topic, but related: What about increasing world-wide droughts? . . . you know, one of the major claimed results of the “existential threat of global warming” asserted by climate alarmists.
Do claims of “global droughts” merit the same #1 bottom line as given in the above article, i.e.:
“As with many things climatic, the best answers to the posed question: ‘Are we getting more or less
snowdroughts over the last 30 years (1 climatic period)?’ is ‘We don’t really know.’ And ‘It depends on what you mean’. “ToldYouSo ==> Absolutely, you must read my recent piece: Doubts about Droughts. The situation is very much the same for droughts as for “snow”.
“What about increasing world-wide droughts?”
______________________________________
Not mine to answer, but there’s this:
IPCC AR4 Chapter ten page 750 (Page 3 pdf)
Mean Precipitation
For a future warmer climate…Globally averaged
mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation
are projected to increase.
Hardly a recipe for world-wide drought. The IPCC
wants you to believe that there will be more severe
droughts and sever floods in a future warmer climate.
It’s part of the big lie, and politicians are either falling
for it or using it.
Snow cover is snow cover and I’m sure ther are just as many words used in the UK describing ‘precipitation’ as the Eskimo use for snow.
The albedo part is where it all unravels for ‘Snow and Climate’ especially so when you include Emissivity.
Again, Human Hubris and Kindergarten Science rule the day and trashes sceince.
Just because we see snow as dazzling white does not mean that is it – snow is an immense absorber of Near Infra Red light. (NIR)
NIR is in the range of 700nm to 2,000nm and El Sol produces 35% of its total output within that range
It is the stuff we feel on a bright sunny day and it penetrates deeply into us, about 3inches – our forearms are transparent to it. (Hence the little red-LED blood oxygen monitors that a hospital nurse might attach your fingertip to check your red-cell count)
NIR us ‘feel happy’ because the mitochondria in all our cells simply lap it it. It needn’t even be a sunny day, most clouds are also transparent to it so for our mitochondria, stepping outside on a cloudy day is for them a trip to the beach for the rest of us.
As the primary energy producers within us, when they are = happy, we are = happy.
Also why, as often stated, we think that clouds ‘trap heat’ and that we can feel it.
No, what we feel is the NIR from El Sol coming straight through the cloudy sky and our mitochondria are always rapid in showing their appreciation.
i.e. We feel a ‘sugar/energy’ rush.
We are NOT feeling downwelling radiation from the GHGE, it is faaaaar too long wavelength.
The Emissivity of snow is the absolute pig.
Unlike water which can be said to be fairly constant at about 0.90 – Emissivity of snow can be anywhere from 0.7 to 0.98, depending on (big surprise) temperature but also simply the texture of the snow.
As also does its Albedo
Aha, now you know why the Eskimo have so many words – they are describing the ‘sugar rush’ from the NIR = describing how it makes them feel and not esp what they see.
Who would have thought, we have ‘eyes’ at the very centre of each and every one of our cells
Will stop there but hopefully we see why there are well over 7 Billion descriptions of what ‘climate’ actually is.
Because as both Albedo but esp Emissivity are extremely difficult things to measure, NASA can make up whatever numbers they like from their Sputniks and like a stopped clock, sometimes they are actually correct.
Would you, imagined as Captain of Planet Earth base your decisions on a stopped clock.
Cancel NASA and delete everything they ever did.
Thank You.
Very interesting and enlightening! The relevance of snow in the ecosystem is little understood. Perhaps, because of the enormous and wasteful amount of money and attention given to trying to prove that humans are the cause of “climate change”? But, that can also be said of the many other naturally occurring phenomena.
dhsay ==> “that can also be said of the many other naturally occurring phenomena.” Literally thousands of journal articles are written by mostly well-intended scientists trying to unravel the mysteries of Earth’s climate — why it does what it does — but the majority of those men and women are constrained by the seeming necessity of of at least appearing to confirm the current required narrative of CO2 driven climate change.
Thus they must spin and twist existing measurements of assumed climate metrics to show “bad things happening more often and getting worse” and “good things happening less”.
Deep within the science sections of the major IPCC reports one can find the straight scoop — very few bad things are happening more often (and that idea is supported by admitted weak evidence).
“”It is much better for your mental and intellectual health to look at the actual measurements in a scientific way “”
And then to relax; greens aside, you’ve never had it so good. And that is their problem.
strat ==> Our problem is that we are being presented with graphs of metrics that do not represent the things they claim they represent. Such as “% of the world currently in drought”. of “Worldwide reduction in snow”. Metrics do not exist for those types of claims…so they show us something “sorta like”. This bamboozles the heck out of journalists, who accept and pass on the nonsense because “numbers don’t lie”. (but liars sure know how to use numbers to lie).
They invent to suit the narrative. That, unlike the climate, will not change.
talk about an exercise in semantics for pedantic’s … when someone says we had more or less snow this year they don’t mean the weighted average amount of snow … good lord … they mean how many inches did we get this season and by season they mean winter … Kip must have been a lawyer in a previous life …
The Dark Lord ==> When the man/woman-in-the-street says “We had more/less snow this year” they can mean the pragmatic “We had a foot more snow in my driveway this winter” or they may mean “We had snow on the ground for months when we usually only have a few weeks.” And they are perfectly justified in that. They may also say “Gee — we haven’t had nearly as much snow the last few years.” Perfectly fine.
But when the IPCC or some Climate Alarmist says “Snow will be a thing of the past because of climate change” (which has been said, btw) they don’t mean what your neighbor means. And when the IPCC says “As would be expected under the influence of global warming, the simulations indicate that the area covered by snow will decrease in both the southern and northern hemispheres.” [ IPCC FAR Chapter 7 ] they mean something quite different.
This essay is about the world of Climate Change Science and not “another beautiful day in the neighborhood world“.
And, No, studied religion and pre-med, with a side of radio journalism, followed by half-a lifetime at sea then a stint at IBM’s International HQ developing massively dynamic website technology. Retired now for 20 years.
I live in the Sierra Nevadas, 4000 feet, and used to love snow. But PG&E reliability has soured me. I keep a log of hours I’ve run my Honda 2200 generator, and for 2021-2022, it ran 30 times for 4 hours. For 2022-2023, it ran 19 times for 70 hours. And that’s just winter, November through March. The rest of the year adds a half dozen more times, usually all day 8 hour affairs while changing poles.
I just leave the extensions out year round now. Snow is a lot less fun with a generator running so often, even one as quiet as the Honda. The whole house generator gobbles too much propane to use so often.
Of course it’s not really PG&E’s fault, it’s the PUC and the state gov in general. There was a story going around several years ago that the unexpected surge of roof-top solar installations getting paid premium prices blew PG&E’s budget apart, and when they went to the PUC to ask pretty please to raise their rates, they were told to cut expenses, so they did, including tree trimming, replacing transformers, etc, and that is what is causing so many power outages. I have no idea if it is true or not, but everyone believed it, and it used to be just 2 or 3 outages a winter. Something has sure changed, and winters aren’t nearly as fun any more.
Shoot, that should be 47 hours for 2021-2022. Key is sticking.
Scarecrow ==> Everything in life is a trade off — one just wishes that the idiocy of others would stop tipping the scales the wrong way. Many years at sea has taught me to depend on generators when other sources of electricity are not available. Keep two small gen sets maintained to “start on the first pull” in Upstate NY for those eventualities — often lent to neighbors.
Loved and hiked the Sierras all through my youth — in the summer.
I have three generators. An 11kw whole-house Generac which eats 1 gallon/hour of propane, the Honda which runs for about 10 hours on 1 gallon of gasoline, and a “dual fuel” 4400 watt one which runs for about 15 hours on a “standard” propane bottle (3? 5? gallons). The main need is to keep the chest freezer and house fridge from melting food, which is an expensive proposition. I don’t have to start the generators immediately, it can usually wait 2-3 hours, which makes the actual number and duration of the outages a lot worse.
Your freezer is likely to keep foods fine for, I believe, a dozen hours or more. “A full freezer will keep the temperature for approximately 48 hours (24 hours if it is half full) if the door remains closed. “
Lots of good charts here but the NH snow extent 12 month running mean anomaly chart at the link below does not seem to send the same message as the NH snow extent chart in the rticle. Both from Rutgers snow Lab. Does anyone know wht they are visually so different?
Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab
My own snow extent index is how often we have to shovel snow off our Se Michigan driveway. About once a week in the 1970s versus once a month last winter, and the prior winter. Same driveway since 1987, and just four miles south from 1977 to 1987
We love global warming
Our plants love more CO2 in the air
Our cat could not care less.
Richard ==> A great example to pick up –thank you. This is really what this essay is about — More or Less Snow? is all about exactly what you ask and What do you mean by More and Less?
The graph you show is “ 12-month running anomalies of monthly snow extent are plotted on the 7th month using values calculated from November 1966 to December 2022. Running anomalies are plotted on dates from May 1967 to July 2021.”
As one can see, there were some of those “12-month running anomalies of monthly snow extent” that are high in the 1967-1987 period when compared to the 1991-2020 period as normal……with a vertical scale of +/- 2 million sq. km.
The EUASIA and NH graphs (with the trends) have a vertical scale of 14 million sq km. These graphs show the first decade (1967-1977) having some exceptionally highs (above the long-term mean, the green line) but not the 1980s.
So, if you were intent on PROVING that snow is decreasing due to Climate Change, you’d want to use that anomalies graph and avoid, at all costs, the Snow Cover Extent graphs, from the same lab, which show increasing snow cover.
Ain’t statistics useful? (Think of the use of anomalies in the global temperature graphs in this context….)
The chart highlights why you should never use anomalies as a means of assessing change. Anomalous data hides most of the useful information.
There is a dramatic upward trend in early season snow extent. That is indicative of the NH oceans warming up.
You have to realise that the NH oceans have only had increasing solar intensity for 500 years and have only been warming for around 250 years. There is a lot more warming to come. Summer solstice solar intensity will increase by 21W/m^2 over the next 9,000 years. (Think how much debate occurs over CO2 ECS of 1 to 2W/m^2 as an imaginary change compared with a real change of 21w/m^2).
The thing about snow is that it is reflective and not easy to get warmer than 0C so it has a habit of hanging around. So far Greenland is the only location in the NH where elevation and permanent ice extent is increasing but more land will begin to gain permanent ice as the early snowfall and maximum extent continue to trend up.
Ice flows advance down from mountain tops and from north to south as the ice accumulates. Low lying places will see more autumn rain until the ice flows arrive.
A number of years ago, I predicted that snowfall records will be a feature of weather reporting for the next 9,000 years. My prediction remains on track. This year was bound to be a good one because ocean surface temperature in the NH in September hit a record high for the satellite era. Earth’s orbital precession is now at the same state it was 120,000 years ago when the last interglacial ended.
Since moving from California to Colorado a decade ago I have become somewhat of an expert on snow. I specifically focus my studies on the feel of snow under my skis. At this point in my research my opinion is softer and deeper is better. I will continue my studies seeking robust reproducibility as every snowfall has unique aspects. I know moving to a warmer climate is popular as one ages. I however highly recommend retiring and becoming a ski bum it is a very rewarding field of research.
Thomas ==> Retiring and becoming any kind of “xxx bum” — I choose boat bum.
Skis are much cheaper than boats (both to purchase, & maintain).
I have always lived where it snows in winter {and sometimes summer}.
At the moment (2nd one) there is only 2 inches. First 5″ melted.
nice post
John ==> Nice counterpoint.
About 2/3 of the planet has ice crystals fall from the sky at some point during the year. At any given time the equator is about +30C and the poles are about -30C. Anyone who thinks a degree of overall warming is going to make much difference to that 2/3 is kidding themselves….
DMacKenzie ==> Javier Vinos has a new book out — Solving The Climate Puzzle — which digs into many things including the effects of snow covered ground and albedo. Well worth reading — I will have a Book Review of it soon-ish.
Ah yes, I see it available by Kindle….will have to get it, the graphics of last book “Climate of the Past, Present and Future” are top notch.
______________________________________________________________
Yeah, if you have some actual measurements to look at. Here in Wisconsin we have The Wisconsin State Climtalogy Office and if you follow that link you will find a bunch of glitzy graphs, no data. That wasn’t always the case. Up until a few months ago there were very nice charts down to the daily level that told the story. You can find stuff on the Internet Archives Way Back Machine up until last year information on snow fall for Milwaukee is here. I expect that if you were able to get an honest answer from whoever is running the page today they might say:
“Yes we changed it because we have a narrative to defend,
and we don’t want denier a$$holes like Case & Hansen
combing through the data to find stuff we really don’t want
them to see.”
Well that’s my opinion.
Steve ==> That’s odd, with the state of Wisconsin. Many other agencies around the country and nationally, are making data more public. Many of them use “data obscuring formats” — such as anomaly maps — with data for that format — but hide or obscure the actual raw data from which the maps are created.
Anomaly maps are NOT data — there are maps about some data.
Here in England the winters since the 1960’s have beem warming and the number of days with snow cover has declined since that time. But what l find interesting is that this warming has had no impact on the timing of the first snowfall.
Since 1977 there has been very little change in the average date of the first snowfall. This is interesting because according to the global warming models the reson for this decline in days of snow is linked to warming in the Arctic along with the warming of the seas around the UK. Well if that is the case then these changes should also have had a impact on the timing of the irst snow as well over the last 50 years.
The fact it has not l think gives important clues to the cause of the warming winters here in England.
In that the warming has been largly due to changes in the weather patterning in the winter during the last 50 to 60 years. A decline in northern blocking along with a increase in the impact of high pressure over the Azores and Europe.
Sorry spelling errors there.
Should be ‘reason’ and ‘first’.
taxed ==> No worries on typos — I make more than most. (and correct fewer than most).
There are some good papers on increasing ocean heat transport to the Arctic which may be playing into your winters. No one wants the Little Ice Age again.
The Spring Snow extent decline from left edge is telling a mixed story because in the 1960-1970’s Spring snowfall was high due to a cooling world, which extended the snowfall season and greater cloudiness to support it then the cooling rate stopped in the late 1970’s which shows up as a sudden decline in spring snowfall in 1980 that lasted for about 10 years when it began to increase once again but then started a new decline in 1997 that has lasted to about 2007 which has become nearly flat trend since.
The fall snowfall increase is easy in comparison to occur because of the normally declining temperature and sunshine rate as the regions cloudiness rate goes up too thus a small decrease in temperature trend will easily increase the snowfall rate.
The Winter change is small because it is already cold enough for snow in large areas with the normal low sunshine rate that hardly change at all at the century rate, but cloudiness rates does vary some but with low temperature normally occurring it doesn’t vary greatly either due to the high humidity rate normally experienced in cold weather.
In my view the bellwether for a cooling world will show up the most in the SPRING snowfall rate and when glaciation begins it will show up strongly in the Spring part of the year too which is how snow and ice can survive the summer time the best as summer will be getting cooler over time as well that will eventually stop melting out the snow and ice then it becomes year around snow cover.
Tommy ==> Yes, maybe, but 1967-1977 winter snowfall wasn’t particularly high (except for 1978) — so that normal-ish extent of of snow just hung around into the Spring. Interpreting these NH graphs is tricky — too wide an area considered where many determining factors are of a much smaller scale.
Like many things, we’ll have to see. It’s a good hypothesis though.
I was stating it in a general way which is why there are gaps to point out but there were some bad winter snow droughts in the 1970’s in the Western states despite that it was often cold enough during that time.
Kip:
You say “The IPCCists and Climate Crazies demand that there must be less snow, …….”
The odd “Climate crazy” has indeed said that.
But the IPCC has not ……
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf
“The processes that govern global precipitation changes are now well
understood and have been presented in Section 7.6. They are briefly
summarized here and used to interpret the long-term projected changes.
The precipitation sensitivity (about 1 to 3% °C–1) is very different
from the water vapour sensitivity (~7% °C–1) as the main physical
laws that drive these changes also differ. Water vapour increases are
primarily a consequence of the Clausius–Clapeyron relationship associated
with increasing temperatures in the lower troposphere (where
most atmospheric water vapour resides). In contrast, future precipitation
changes are primarily the result of changes in the energy balance of the
atmosphere and the way that these later interact with circulation, moisture and temperature”
“On seasonal time scales, the minimum and maximum values of precipitation
both increase, with a larger increase of the maximum and therefore an
increase of the annual precipitation range (Seager et al., 2010;
Chou and Lan, 2012). In particular, the largest changes over northern
Eurasia and North America are projected to occur during winter. At
high latitudes of the NH, the precipitation increase may lead to an
increase of snowfall in the colder regions and a decrease of snowfall
in the warmer regions due to the decreased number of freezing days.”
12.4.6.2 Changes in Snow Cover and Frozen Ground
“Excluding ice sheets and glaciers, analyses of seasonal snow cover
changes generally focus on the NH, where the configuration of the
continents on the Earth induces a larger maximum seasonal snow
cover extent (SCE) and a larger sensitivity of SCE to climate changes.
Seasonal snow cover extent and snow water equivalent (SWE) respond
to both temperature and precipitation. At the beginning and the end
of the snow season, SCE decreases are closely linked to a shortening
of the seasonal snow cover duration,…….. Future widespread reductions of SCE,
particularly in spring, are simulated by the CMIP3 models
(Roesch, 2006; Brown and Mote, 2009) and confirmed by the CMIP5
ensemble (Brutel-Vuilmet et al., 2013). The NH spring (March-April
average) snow cover area changes are coherent in the CMIP5 models
although there is considerable scatter. Relative to the 1986–2005 reference
period, the CMIP5 models simulate a weak decrease of about
7 ± 4% (one-σ inter-model dispersion) for RCP2.6 during the last two
decades of the 21st century, while SCE decreases of about 13 ± 4% are
simulated for RCP4.5, 15 ± 5% for RCP6.0, and 25 ± 8% for RCP8.5
(Figure 12.32). There is medium confidence in these numbers because
of the considerable inter-model scatter mentioned above and because
snow processes in global climate models are strongly simplified.”
These statements are accompanied by maps of seasonal precip. which begin at 2046
Snow is not of itself a direct measure of temperature, (as some on here seem to believe)
and the IPCC does not state “there must be less snow” … as you allude – it’s complicated.
In addition, the feedbacks into the NH Rossby wave-train of snow-cover are well known and so SCE is important meteorologically.
The 2001 IPCC report does state in their future scenario that there would be LESS snow and more rain/freezing rain maybe they have changed since then as I stopped reading their reports by 2007 and then they DELIBERATELY broke all the links to their failed predictions/projections as part of their cover up of their unreliability problem they have thus no longer care to read about their government backed propaganda anymore.
AR4 link:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter10-1.pdf
Still has snow extent reducing.
It will rain instead of snow if the temperature is too warm.
scvblwxq ==> And this has to do with what, exactly? It is true, it doesn’t snow when the air temperature is too far above freezing at ground level, but no one, not even the IPCC, expects the future non-existence of NH winter.
And frogs would fly if they had wings.
Anthony Banton ==> You make the point which I have made often — what the IPCC Politicos say and what the Science Sections of the IPCC Assessment Reports say are often contradictory.
Predictions/projections of future snow are not the same as measurement of snow.
For instance NASA’s Evidence for Climate Change page says “Snow Cover Is Decreasing
Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and the snow is melting earlier.” And we see that they only refer to SPRING Snow Cover Extent, and ignore the increase in Fall and Winter Snow Cover Extent. They don’t even bother to list the dates of Minimum Snow Cover Extent, which might make their point.
The truth is that NH Snow Cover Extent is INCREASING even if one starts counting in the Global Cooling Period.
Page 750 in AR4 WG1 states:
So the IPCC WG1 changed their tune. And AR4 projection on snow has proven wrong. The maximum extent is trending up.
The IPCC gravy train has been rolling since the 1990s based on the models of that era. The models are based on a fantasy. Each time the models are found to have a gross error they add another parameter to “fix” the error and change their tune. – we always said that snow extent would increase – no they didn’t.
Rick ==> I haven’t had time to look up the point in AR6 – any idea what the latest statement is?
It was stated in the comment further up:
Now that it is obvious, the IPCC story has changed.
The climate deniers are the IPCC. They deny there was climate change before CO2 started increasing.
If you have any appreciation of Earth’s temperature response to solar forcing and take a few minutes to understand the precession cycle then the current observed changes in climate are readily understood. And COP2 is not directly involved. Its contribution is through increasing biomass.
Rick ==> I saw that, but it was labelled AR4.
Story tip – True cost of charging an EV is equivalent to paying $17.33 a gallon of gas, per new report – American Thinker
J Boles ==> The Mod will pickup this tip — from there, who knows. I have seen that ice on American Thinker.
Southern Vermont just dodged a storm that was forecast for up to 1 foot of heavy wet snow right over the spine of the Green Mountains. The forecast was issued by NWS only 2 days before. The day before 1.5 inches of rain, but then nothing.
It was a pretty complicated forecast and the models were all over the place. The only models which were even close were ECMF and ICON. Everything else was pushing for Snomageddon.
Yirgach ==. When the same system passed over the Catskills in NY, the rain washed away existing snow, but the temps dropped the last 12-18 hours if the storm and covered the mountains with snow all over again.
Here in the Northern Rockies there is no snowpack at this time, maybe
a inch or so. It’s a very odd ENSO switch from last year. The local old timers
that irrigated from the stream runoff used to say it’s not the snowpack
but the summer rains that make the hay crops. Still a lot of winter
left to go. My Ski Doo and skis are ready and waiting. Let it snow..
When this climate change narrative started back in the ’90’s
NRCS increased our growing season by around 60 days. That quite a bit
for this region. We went from 2 cutting of hay to 3 plus some regen for late
pasture..a very good thing. We used to do the 1st cutting around the 4th of July
but now I see some around Memorial Day.
We also now have Ag producers growing corn which was
unheard of in past times. Not the same type as in the midwest but a hybrid
variety that is shorter in size and has a shorter growing season. The grizzly bears out
on the Front Range love it…
Mr. Ed ==> Yes and yes again. Only nutters complain when growing seasons get longer.
Snow can be quite variable, year-to-year and season-to-season, first-snow dates, melt dates, etc. The climate system is chaotically stable. (See my series on Chaos).
I like ice in my drink and nowhere else. Winter sucks and there is nothing jolly about it at all. The temp needs to be the same as my pulse, 72, in order for the pursuit of happiness to even begin.
doonman ==> Well, that’s simple enough. The US Virgin Islands remain within a five degree swatch 81-86ºF day and night, no snow, very relaxed, lots of Sun, occasional rain showers to add interest. I have relatives on St. John.
Those that consume alcoholic drinks (not me) find that helps regulate pulse.
Personal snow stories about my SW Wisconsin dairy farm. For the first two decades, we usually has at least some snow on the ground opening day of the gun deer season. Next two decades, almost never. First two decades, we had good snowmobiling snow (2 feet or more) by January that would last thru mid-March. Next decade, some years never enough snow ground over to snowmobile the corn stubble. Then the deep winter snows came back.
Its called weather.
Rud ==> And a good illustration how variable snow cover and depth can be.
But trends in the weather are the basis of climate change. The upward trend in early season snow cover extent is evident and follows the higher peak in NH ocean surface temperature that occurs in September. This year was a record temperature so record snowfall will follow.
The area of NH ocean surface exceeding 29C is trending up at 8E12m^2 per decade (2.5% of NH ocean surface per decade). That means a lot more moisture in the atmosphere ahead of the NH land falling below freezing. So snowfall has to increase. This year, the Pacific Ocean off Japan at 38N reached 30C.
Snow is difficult to melt so tends to hang around. So far snow melt is staying ahead of snow fall. But the NH oceans have only experienced 5% of the warming that will eventually come from the changing orbital precession. People living in the NH do not yet know what serious snowfall looks like.
The increasing extent of early season snow will prove to be one of the best indicators of glaciation.
Rick ==> An interesting discussion point. I don’t have SSTskin to hand, I know that El Nino has pushed it up this year.
Rick ==> I’m not a fan of SSTskin to make climatic judgements. I’ve done too much snorkling and diving to thunk that the top 1 mm temperature tells us much about the next 10 feet, 10 meters, 100 meters, 1000 meters etc.
It is a sort of “down and dirty” measurement from space and depends more on insolation than water temperature, especially on days with little wind.
Doesn’t mean you’re not right….
Unless you have snorkelled in tropical warm pools in deep oceans, your snorkelling experience is irrelevant to what occurs in ocean warm pools.
Warm pools are temperature regulating regions with near constant surface temperature. That means there is no net heat flux. The surface cools a little when it rains and warms a little when the sky is clear through day light. But the temperature range is very small. No more than 1C day to night throughout the period of regulation.
I have attached a comparison of satellite (15Jul2017) and moored buoy data measured at 1m depth (All July 2017). They are within a fraction of a degree of each other.
The most reliable indicator of surface temperature I have found is the Reynolds optimally interpolated SST data that combines satellite and moored buoys. The moored buoys are no longer well maintained so have lots of data gaps. The satellites offer high resolution spatial data and are reliable even if not highly accurate. They are a great source for monitoring relative changes. .
What you have to realise is that the NH oceans have only just started to warm up; 500 years of increasing peal sunlight so far and 9,000 years to come. The amount of ocean surface in the NH exceeding 29C in September has trended from 10E12m^2 to 28E12m^2 just this century. A lot more of it will reach the 30C limit before snowfall overtakes snow melt.
If you look at the Rutgers data you will see that Greenland is almost covered in permanent ice and the extent is trending to full cover by the end of the century. And a little known fact is that Greenland has gained 170mm in elevation in the last decade.
https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/greenland-ice-sheet-summit-elevation-change
Greenland is surrounded by water that is warming up so snowfall is trending up. The calving is still overtaking the gain in snowfall but that will reverse in due course.
My best projection for snowfall to overtake snow melt is that permafrost will be advancing southward by 2200.
Each interglacial ends with the peak solar intensity in the northern hemisphere increasing. That began 500 years ago. Snow formation is an energetic process. Releasing a tonne of water from the ocean surface requires as much energy as burning 100kg of coal.
Cooling of land during glaciation is a function of lapse rate as land elevation increases and ocean elevation falls; the high reflectivity of the snow and the difficulty of getting snow above 0C. All lead to land being much cooler than the oceans.
Once climate modellers get snowfall and snow melt right, they will realise glaciation is an inevitable result of the NH warming in response to the precession cycle.
They amount of ocean surface in the SH above 29C has trended from 17E12m^2 to 19E12m^2 this century but may have peaked in 2016 and has trending down since then.
Rick ==> I’ll have to look at the data — do you have a link for “amount of ocean surface in the SH above 29C” (or NH )?
I use the MODIS monthly data starting in 2002 available at the NASA NEO site. I choose the 1X1 degree resolution so I am not handling large amounts of data:
https://neo.gsfc.nasa.gov
September 2023 was above trend with 31E12m^2 of the NH ocean above 29C.
1st para – “arctic” vice “artic”.
Icepilot ==> Marvelous eyes! You a professional editor? (even my spell checker didn’t see that one. )
There is (southern) winter snowfall in Australia. A very small amount, I know, that probably can’t be seen on the world-wide scale.
Hive ==> Sure, but insignificant for this discussion but that doesn’t mean it isn’t important locally or regionally.