Essay by Eric Worrall
Ignore your lying eyes, what you are seeing is frozen heaps of global warming?
Don’t Be Fooled, Snow Is Becoming a Thing of the Past
Storms will keep happening, but the long-term trend is warmer winters with less snowfall, which will bring severe consequences such as water shortages and lost economic activity.
8 January 2024 at 22:00 GMT+10
By Mark Gongloff…
Winter storms like the one that blanketed parts of the Northeast in snow this weekend will keep happening but less frequently. The long-term trend, especially in the normally colder parts of the US and other countries, is one of warmer winters with less of the white stuff.
…
Snow has been scarce in the US lately. Aside from the blizzard that swept the Plains and Midwest around Christmas, snarling travel, most of the country has been well below snowfall averages for this time of year, according to the National Weather Service. Only about a fifth of the country was covered in snow before this weekend’s storm, the lowest in more than a decade.
…
At the rate we’re cooking the planet, this is all just a taste of what’s to come. The best thing we can do now is turn off the oven. As that’s unlikely any time soon, scientists and policymakers should be busy adapting to the headaches that shrinking winters and snowfall will bring — the agricultural impacts, longer allergy seasons, resilient pests, water shortages, lost economic activity and more. Whatever our feelings about the season in the past, there is no doubt we’ll miss it when it’s gone.
Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-08/winter-storm-aside-snow-is-disappearing-because-of-climate-change?embedded-checkout=true
Back in the real world, the East Coast of the USA might have gotten off lightly for a couple of years, but China and Russia have endured extreme cold this year, and Europe and Britain are enduring freezing weather.
Given the widespread extreme cold in most of the Northern Hemisphere this year, calling the end of snow because the US North East got lucky with the weather seems profoundly ignorant.
Update (h/t Anthony, MW) :-
Bloomberg seems to be denying the veracity of the UN IPCC’s recent sixth assessment report, which unequivocally says there is “Low confidence in the direction of change” of “Snow, Heavy snowfall and ice storm or Hail”, globally or regionally. Here is a link to the relevant pages of the UN IPCC’s recent sixth assessment report: Extreme Weather Assessment by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) • Watts Up With That? Does Bloomberg no longer believe in the UN IPCC’s scientific conclusions?
Anyone who cherry picks an El Nino year as if it typifies “the future” and talks about how “WE” are “cooking the planet” (ROTFLMAO) is, by definition, profoundly ignorant.
The oceans are boiling, don’t you know? Now is the time to plant date palms in Canada. Be the first to realize, just like buying Xerox.
“The oceans are boiling”
Right, I’ll bring the tea-bags
Lobster, don’t forget the lobster.
Turtle soup back on the menu.
“The oceans are boiling,”
Well they did reach 100 degrees in a shallow lagoon near an energy outflow…once. 😉
Heck, the sea around here is currently at around 303 degrees. (speaking loosely)
Reality aside, alarmists are always right. 🙂
They are in positions of power, not just out there. The tipping point is everything that makes us civilised is run by “reality is whatever you can get away with” crowd.
Nice!
Yeah I guess with a touch screen in your hand there’s always some nasty weather event somewhere to get neurotic about. Follow me and my cronies and we can soothe all that petals.
Sounds like an excellent opportunity for simple mitigation… If more precipitation falls as water in winter, build more reservoirs. Store it as water instead of snow pack.
Absolutely. A short warmer Winter is just what the Doctor ordered (sorry skiers!)
In relative time we are not that far from the end of the most recent mini ice age (1865), so it is entirely natural for there to be some warming- don’t think we want those winters – more golf – yahoo
Who are you calling a yahoo?
Snowpacks in the west have not declined during the modern warm period. Invalidated projections are being treated as unquestionable empirical data and idiots are falling for it.
When ⅔ of the Arctic cold spills out over Asia breaking old cold records, guess what? The frigid air that left needs to be replaced from the south elsewhere! No vacuums allowed. But let me riddle you this, Bloomberg, how did that record cold air get to be there?
Apriori ‘reasoning ‘ is what a clever teenager uses when he argues with his parents because he has no empirical knowledge to use. Wokies also fancy informationless thought.
Clearly, nature abhors a vacuum much more than alarmists abhor cherry picking.
If nature abhors a vacuum, why did she make so many climate activists?
Winner!
The temperatures for snow to fall are important but so is humidity. Colder air is drier air so less chance of snow in the much colder temperatures. Having the right balance of humidity and temperature to get snow isn’t always going to happen, whether we get cold or mild winters in the future.
Then of course, one could actually refer to real data, a technique Mr. Gongloff seems unaware of.
That will ruin his daydream.
Snow depth.
https://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nsa/js_animate.html?year=2024&month=1&day=10&type=nsm_depth®ion=National
Oh, I don’t know. Just tilt your computer screen by 15 degrees clockwise and you’ll see a clear decline in snow cover.
I just figured out how to go back in time.
Northern hemisphere snow cover has had 53-week average holding rather steady so far, in part from parts of interior and northern Asia (in and near Siberia) having snow replacing lack of precipitation while the Arctic Ocean adjacent to Siberia is refreezing later in the year than it used to.
The Lost Angeles Crimes newspaper having lost the “unprecedented drought” meme with full reservoirs and replenishing aquifers is now pushing some strange “snow drought” myth. One can only hope the series of storms on track derail these newest alarmist myths.
No amount of empirical evidence can impact alarmist delusions. Reality isn’t their “thing”.
Neither is Truth.
Mark Gongloff is a Bloomberg Opinion editor and columnist covering climate change. He previously worked for Fortune.com, the Huffington Post and the Wall Street Journal.
Is he also a clairvoyant? Does his stay at the Huffington Post give him mystical powers to devine the future? He should quit his job at Bloomberg and go to North American Midway Entertainment where he could use his predictive powers to make big money and also sample the violent climate change that “trends” will produce.
Bloomberg…Fortune…HuffPost…WSJournal
Sounds like the guy has trouble holding a job
I’ve been at my place of employment since 11/13/84 (40 years this year)
In this World… Congratulations are in order for both you and your Company.
I’m curious to know what they think will be the negative “agricultural impacts” of less snow. Less ice wine?
But the real question is, will the children of the future know what “don’t eat yellow snow” means?
Upvoted for the Zappa reference 🙂
Central Washington State has much irrigated agriculture and dams producing power. The water for this is stored in the snowpack in Washington, Montana, and Canadian mountains. With less snow and/or early warm springs there is less water. There is a SNOTEL program; read about it here:
Automated Snow Monitoring (usda.gov)
Search this page for “Gouse Camp” — That’s the Station closest to me.
See on Google Earth, here: 47.281015, -120.487546
The USDA gives an update so users will know early in the year how much to expect.
Farms can change planting decisions, especially in low-water years.
Search this page: {sorry for the non-link} for Grouse Camp.
Washington SNOTEL Snow/Precipitation Update Report (usda.gov)
Living on Cedar Mountain in Utah, the Midway Valley site is my/ go to.
https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/nwcc/view?intervalType=+View+Current+&report=WYGRAPH×eries=Daily&format=plot&sitenum=626&interval=WATERYEAR
The above is today’s graph of where we are to the median based on the 30 year “climate” that for some reason aligns with 3 decades, not the last 30 years of records. IMHO 30 years should be the LAST 30 years, but I can understand them keeping the 80s in the CLIMATE averages/medians since at least in the west, we had big snow numbers leading to Lake Meade topping Hoover Dam.
The people running the Snotel site have been “upgrading” it and making it WORSE IMHO.
The graph shown has a list of clickable items across the top. One is “Add a graph”, which in the past gave you a drop down of years to add to the graph. Now it just reproduces the same graph. Yep, they are making it better.
I attempted to add last year to this graph to show that last year was a BIG snow year, while this year is about 60% so far, better than I thought it would be. If we were comparing to the 1980 to 2010 Median, we would probably be at well under 50%.
So why pick 30 years? Because it is just too short a time to judge changes in Climate. They can use partial cycles to show things are getting worse, whatever that means.
“30 years”
In the mid-1930s, the “Climate Normals” were defined in such a way that an adult could relate to the numbers used for comparison. Before computers and digital everything these were published in the local newspaper.
The idea was not to define “climate” as it is used today. The term “Normals” puts some folks off, but it is just a word defined in a certain way — somewhat in the sense of a score in tennis known as “love.”
U.S. Climate Normals | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (noaa.gov)
The National Weather Service has been using 3-decade periods ending with a year ending with a 0 for “climate normals” at least as far back as the early 1970s, with usage of 1941-1970 as “climate normal” through the 1970s including the 1976-1978 time when there was a bit of talk in some news media of an ice age returning, as well as all earlier times in the 1970s after the 1941-1970 normals got calculated.
Per definition, cold has nothing to do with AGW
Actually, he got one thing right: “scientists and policymakers should be busy ADAPTING…” (emphasis mine). If this Armageddon is really heading our way, adaptation (by everyone) is the only path. Pumping meaningless volumes of C02 underground won’t help.
Air-conditioned jackets using thermoelectric cooling could be made for far less than the $US200 trillion Bloomberg estimates it will cost to stop warming by 2050.
How come they don’t want to warm up the winters? That’s when most people die from temperature-related causes.
Does it matter if I can’t spell Armagedeon?
It’s not like the end of the world, or anything!
That’s what you say when things get really hairy !.
Arm-a-geddin-outa-here. !
Oh look.. someone likes them “hairy”.
Is that you, fungal?… waiting for the next leftie hairy male to come along.
lt was the lack of a warming trend in my first snow record that first made me question the cause of the warming trend in UK winters since the 1960’s. As any of the claimed warming of the Arctic and the seas around the UK should certainly have been impacting on the timing of the first snow over the last 46 years. So l felt the cause layed elsewhere.
Am now thinking there have been 2 causes of the winter warming trend since the 1960’s.
The first cause is likely to be a tread of decreasing northern blocking along side a increase in high pressure setting up over the Azores and europe allowing a increase in warmer SW winds.
But since the mid 1980’s this natural cause has been boosted by a man made cause, namely the switch from glass thermometers to electonic ones.
As my current study on this topic is showing that electonic therometers are very sensitive to the warming by the winter sun. The up right casing containing the thernometer warms up quicker then its surroundings due to the low angle of the winter sun. Because of their sensitvity electonic thermometers are effected by this warming quicker and stronger then glass would be.
This sensitvity boosts the day time temps they record and so boosts the day time highs they record.
lts this tendency that has helped to boost the winter warming trend since the mid 1980’s.
Except, nighttime temperatures are increasing more than daytime temperatures when it comes to surface station temperature recordings used for global temperature datasets.
The main complaint I have been hearing claimed so far of electronic thermometers is that they detect short term peaks of daytime air temperature of air heated by paved surfaces, buildings, and airplane engines. Or when none of these are around, electronic thermometers detect short term peaks of air temperature that have always been happening but not detected by mercury thermometers.
Then again, the alltime record high temperatures of most of the US 50 states and many major US cities were set in/before 1936 and untied after 1937, despite being recorded by using mercury thermometers.
Temperature records for many US cities have many high temperature records dating back to before they mostly had official temperature recording locations being moved from downtowns to airports.
“quicker thAn”
With proper basting, there is no need to turn off the earth oven. I mean, let’s not be hasty here.
Mark Gongloff, who is this hack? he’s obviously paid to have a very short memory.
December 2022, winter storm Elliot.
A category 4 crippling winter storm, including blizzards, high winds, snowfall, and record cold temperatures across the majority of the United States and parts of Canada.
Maximum snowfall 56.5 in (144 cm)… that’s a lot of “thing of the past” snow.
A glance at the side panel (Real-time Global Temperature) on this very site will confirm that global temperatures are currently +0.43C warmer than average for this date.
But, it’s cold in parts of Europe so let’s just pretend it’s cold everywhere. No one will check.
That’s the whole problem with a global average of anything, it assumes that something is happening everywhere when it is not. You can’t have it both ways and say the whole planet is warming but the cold is only localized.
Nobody is saying there aren’t places that are colder than average at any given point in time. But on average, it’s more often warmer than usual than cooler on a global scale. Like it is today.
Thank goodness we are not still in the LIA with very low atmospheric CO2, hey , fungal !!
Cold places are generally warming, especially the Arctic. Climate activists are erring when they claim global warming is making cold weather events worse. There are a lot of record cold temperature records in recent decades in USA suburbs due to weather stations only a few decades old and big mowed lawns replacing forests, but overall global temperature has mostly had its variance slightly decreasing as it has gotten warmer.
It is cold in Russia, Mongolia, China, Korea, and Japan, and the US is starting to cool down as well.
Yes, but the global average temperature is still strongly positve; so for all those cooler than usual regions you mention, others must be much warmer than usual.
No, it is NOT strongly positive
It is a totally un-noticeable fraction of a degree.
Still well below what it has been for nearly all the Holocene.
And of course, as you are well aware, ..
… there is absolutely no evidence of human causation, (except Urban warming, errant thermometers and zealot mal-adjustments)), on the highly beneficial warming since the LIA.
“And of course, as you are well aware, ..” ERROR!
“so for all those cooler than usual regions you mention, others must be much warmer than usual.”
WOW, fungal has finally figured out “averages”
Well done, fungal
“Participation” award coming your way !
What temps are driving up the average? Daytime highs? Nighttime lows? The temps of the oceans? Continents? Polar areas? Until you answer those questions you have no clue what, if any, impact there will be. If average nighttime lows are 0.43 warmer there will be zero effect on anything. If polar regions average 0.43 degrees warmer, there will be zero effect on anything. If everywhere averages just 0.43 degrees warmer there will be zero effect on anything. The global average is a worthless number.
Your task is to find anyplace on Earth whose climate is different today than thirty years ago, then tell us the negative AND positive effects that change has brought. If the day comes that there is a CLIMATE change (not weather) negatively affecting people somewhere, then you can try arguing Man is responsible. Good luck.
“let’s just pretend it’s cold everywhere”
Who said that?
It’s strongly implied in the article.
Most places in the NH are cold..
No need to imply anything.
I am always astonished that there are crowds of people protesting a half a degree of warming while wearing heavy overcoats. And this isn’t even in winter. There’s no point holding a protest in winter because the TV cameras freeze up.
You obviously have a keen eye for that sort of thing.
… meanwhile snow stubbornly refuses to become a thing of the past in Europe, Russia, China, India, Japan, Canada and the US of A.
Snow REALLY not helping the Japanese at the moment.
That is why he is unhappy thus trying to get us think about off topic stuff.
“You obviously have a keen eye for that sort of thing.”
It is actually a deep-seated paranoia.
[ Enter “pedant” mode … ]
No, it was “immediately inferred” by you (second-person singular).
[ Exit “pedant” mode … if possible … ]
The global temperature anomaly has been trending downward since late autumn; it seems that whatever caused the record warmth last year is declining in influence. That’s pretty consistent with a Hunga Tonga signature. The El Niño influence is still strong; its peak doesn’t show up until February or March. I wouldn’t be surprised if Monckton returned with his 9-year or os pauses later this year.
Still setting new monthly temperature records every month for the past 6 months, including UAH. Trending downwards yet still setting record warm monthly temperatures… says something, doesn’t it?
Did you read my reply with regards to Hunga Tonga?
It certainly does and probably not what you intended it to either.
“says something,”
Yep.. that your deliberate DENIAL of the strong El Nino event is way, way passed ridiculous and delusional. !!
Now.. Evidence of human causation… you have admitted there is NONE.
“above average/below average” really winds me up. I see weather forecasters using the terms all the time. I think to myself “do the sods think the temperature should always be “average”. Any ignorant ploy to keep the alarm going.
The average is just a mathematical value based on a prior period. What’s the problem?
WOW.. fungal makes it to year 1 Junior high !!
Finally figures out what an average is.
Another point for “participation” to the class dunce. !
Using average is certainly much better than calling those average temperatures ‘normal’. But .43 Cabove average….really? Today the temperature where I live ranged from -14 C to -10 C. Who would notice a change of .43 C? It’s nothing!
Since 1960 the trend line for winter mean temps has risen from 3C to 4.3C, yet this large increase in winter warming is having no impact on the timing of the first snow over the last 46 years.
So a question for you.
” How is man made warming causing this”?
Not saying it is. Just pointing out that the world is warmer than average today for the date, despite cold temperatures in parts of Europe.
SO WHAT !!
It is not as if you have any evidence of human causation.
Why to totally NATURAL warm spikes from El Ninos SCARE you so much ???
“Just pointing out that the world is warmer than average today for the date”
Does this alarm you to the point that we need a total overhaul of our energy infrastructure?
Averages are about as telling as political polls. Both can be seriously skewed by sampling a small amount of outliers, and sometimes this is the case.
Imagine if you take 100 men (the population of a tiny town or neighborhood) and you measure the height of each to get the average height of men in that area. In general, you’d probably get a number that is very close to the average male height of surrounding areas with much larger populations. But, what if there are a half a dozen or so basketball players in the sampled area – all of whom are close to or over seven feet tall? Once those men are added in, your average male height is going to skew higher than most other averages. And that higher number will not reflect on the height of the vast majority of the men in the group.
Same thing with temperature – you have a handful of unusually warm locations (most all having to do with UHI and some due to natural phenomena like El Nino) mixed in with all of the other data, it isn’t surprising that it will skew the entire dataset to being warmer.
Take your concerns up with the global scientific community and the WUWT team, who feature several global and regional average temperatures here on a daily basus.
TheFinalNail,
Please stop trolling.
Look up “context”
People show data.. doesn’t mean they agree with it
UAH shows no warming except from El Ninos.
No human causation.. you have already agreed that is the case.
Actually UAH dataset shows some UHI warming in the lower troposphere data. Given that the mean sample height is around 5,000m then that means, for their to be any detectable warming at that height, there must be a massive heat plume going up several thousand metres. Also given that the temperature difference between the sample height and the surface is over 20°C and that most of the heat has dissipated/cooled at that altitude, there must be a truly massive and widespread UHI signal at ground level. Mind-boggling when you really think about it.
“No one will check.”
I just checked. A few hundred miles north of me, say Great Slave Lake, Canada,
it is about -30°F, or -36°C. The US National Weather Service thinks it is headed my way.
Let’s PRETEND it is HOT everywhere.
That is your fetish !
Despite knowing the planet is actually at a TEPID stage compared to the rest of the Holocene.
0.43C… roflmao… no-one would ever notice.
It is meaningless and irrelevant and probably well within measurement error.
DON’T PANIC, chicken-little !
Do you realize just how much money has been made yammering on about less than a half a degree in temperarue change over a long period of time?
But it’s the fact that it’s warming twice as fast there as it is some other places where it’s only warming twice as fast as every other place
My friends in Ft. McMurray will be glad to learn it could have been -30C instead of -29.6.
Again and again, you insult us with the long-known warming trend reports that are shown on this blog front page all the time thus no one here is unaware of it, but you are doing it because you are a climate cultist who plays a one note message.
This topic is about Snowfall trend that doesn’t agree with the dumbass authors claims of snowfall decline which the IPCC has also stated back in 2001 report there would be less snow and more freezing rain/rain in the future well it has been 23 years later still no change in the data.
It is clear you are here because it bothers you so much.
Well now you’ve got me panicking.
Here I was thinking that global temps were only 0.4C warmer than average for this date.
But 0.43 ??
This calls for an immediate family emergency conference.
Thanks for alerting us to this unprecedented existential threat.
But the author, who’s claim about snowfall is the topic of this article, referred to snowfall in the Northeast US. Global temperature is irrelevant here.
And tell us, do you really defend someone who uses the term “cooking the planet” with a response of citing a measly 0.43C? Note that it’s the self-procalimed “climate scientists” and their propagandists like Mark Gongloff who use terms such as “cooking”, “boiling”, “oven” when referring to 0.43C, a typical temperature difference between a bedroom and a living room in the same house at the same time.
And clicking on the link to the “temperature.global” website has lots of pretty pictures including the one attached below.
It clearly shows just how “unprecedented” that +0.43°C anomaly is in the “recent record”.
Oh ! … Wait …
This is WUWT. Always check your assumptions.
“At the rate we’re cooking the planet, this is all just a taste of what’s to come.”
Right. Hiroshima bombs, boiling oceans, and all the other catastrophized outputs of the fictitious “heat trap” misconception are lost in space. Because in reality, it’s NOT a “trap.” The emitter is working just fine, as we can see for ourselves on the CO2 Longwave IR band.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
(Full explanation in the description box on Youtube.)
And you can rest assured that the author of the article uses FF every day without exception, but the peasants need to give up certain luxuries, like…everything.
I think “profoundly ignorant” is the silent middle name of every Bloomberg reporter …
Did anyone visit his profile page??
Profoundly hysterical more like – the guy really has lost it.
It’s folks like him that need help, not the planet.
Especially because, hysterical panic-stricken people like him always do the most wrong and worst things to try save themselves
Hey, at least he admits that COAL is here to stay, and just get bigger. !
And there is absolutely NOTHING he can do about it.
That is a wonderful thought that this clown has to live with. 🙂
Bloomberg doesn’t seem to know that the Earth is in a 2.56 million-year ice age, named The Quaternary Glacial, in a warmer but still cold interglacial period named the Holocene that alternates with very cold glacial periods.
Joe Bastardi correctly predicted December to be dry and warm due to a positive phase in the Pacific North American teleconnection pattern, or the PNA. When the PNA is in its positive phase, the only way for North America to experience a cold and snowy pattern is for a negative North American Oscillation phase to occur simultaneously, countering that influence. Both indexes were positive this year; it’s no surprise North America was very warm in December. However, January is proving quite different; Joe Bastardi also predicted that. If climate alarmists want to claim that winters are getting warmer, they have to show how those indexes are changing in response to greenhouse gases. But they often link climate reactions linearly to influences, which is far too simplistic. Those indexes play an overwhelmingly more important role than any small change in average temperature.
Simplistic myopic fixation on CO2 is the source of the false attributions dominating alarmist pseudoscience.
“Simplistic myopic fixation on CO2″
Simplistic fixations….. its all the AGW clowns and stooges have !!
The real evidence for a warmer world is that now it is much nicer for the players and fans to play in January than it was back when I was younger. But is that a bad thing?
OK, the fans are not playing but I couldn’t edit it.
Profound ignorance is the reason they get away with the false narratives. California and Utah shattered snowfall records last year. The West is getting hammered with snow now.
It’s properly called Magical Thinking
Borne of chronic, chemically induced depression
It’s what happens when fat-eating critters decide to eat sugar instead
I don’t think enough attention is paid to how much of an increase in average global temperature the CAGW crowd is making such a fuss about. We are talking about tenths of a degree C increase from today. We are letting them off the hook way to easy. They need to prove how 2 to 3 tenths of a degree C increase is going to cause catastrophe. Worse than that is reports that we have already surpassed the dreaded 1.5 degree C increase from preindustrial times. It is all nonsense.
Always succinct and to the point.. Well done, Bob 🙂
Yes, it is nonsense. I believe those claiming that CO2 is warming the planet need to explain how the physics works for that to happen. Good luck.
ERA5 for 2023 came in at 1.48 degrees C above pre-industrial, and JRA-55 came in at .05 degree C cooler than ERA5. These are for a single spiky year, while 1.5 degrees C warming that is climate change needs to sustain this as an average for 30 years in order to be counted as climate change as opposed to weather.
Story tip – The complete fantasy of climate science – American Thinker
We can see why the United States is getting hit with arctic air, the jet stream is bringing it right into the center of the nation.
Russia was first to get hit with this arctic weather and now it is the turn of the United States.
Don’t worry, it’s perfectly normal to get an arctic cold air excursion at this time of year. Right on time.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/01/10/2100Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-100.92,40.27,264
And here is where the real cold air is located:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/01/10/2100Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-100.92,40.27,264
Have you noticed that Nullschool takes longer to download in the past few weeks?
I haven’t noticed any difference.
It was 36 F. in my neighborhood today. Tomorrow the predicted high is 6 F. Who do I call?
My area is supposed to get down close to zero F in the next couple of days. I’m going to let my water drip so I don’t have to call anyone. 🙂
“Don’t be fooled, Bloomberg is lying.”
— Me
Perhpas it’s to distract from the highest sea ice in the Arctic at this time of year since before 2004?
My post above referencing what was called the Bureau of Reclamation noted they are using the 1991 to 2020 30 year “Climate”, which makes current snow totals look better than they would compared to the 1981 to 2010 “climate”.
The graph you have provided is still using the 81 to 2010 median.
3 years into the decade. For a reason.
So you are right It doesnot add up!
The chart by ‘It does not add up’ is for Arctic sea ice extent not snow totals. And I’m still not exactly sure what point you’re trying to make? Can you be a bit clearer and, yes, I know your comments were aimed at ‘It does not add up’ but I’m interested.
The graph is using OLD data from 1981 to 2010 for the magic 30 year comparison, 3 years after the newest data is available.
Why use the OLD out of date 30 year “climate” numbers
Because the sea ice extent looks worse.
If you note, two ranges in this NASA sea ice extent, orange, mostly in the 80s and the green, part of the 80s are the two highest levels. Now This is the FIRST page I pulled up on a search for “sea ice extent”. The lowest is the dark grey 2012.
It would appear obvious if you dropped the orange and green years of 1981 to 1990, and then added the 2011 to 2020, the average and median extents would be LOWER and by comparison the current year ice extent would be nearer the 30 year average for 1991 to 2020.
The inset in this chart shows that every year from 2013 to 2020 added to the 30 year comparison would make 2024 look better (larger extent) and therefore worse for the alarmists. And don’t forget that 1012 was by far the lowest ice extent year in the first graph, which would also be included in the new 30 year average.
Of course the easy answer is that the graph provided by IDAU, wherever he got it from, is picking cherries to make things look worse. Not blaming IDAU, btw
Sorry, I thought I only copied the sea ice extent, and that is what I was discussing.
This graph shows what is happening with Arctic sea ice.
Levelled off at a still very high extent, compared to most of the Holocene.
The chart shows its source quite clearly at the bottom right: try clicking on it. It also show explicit traces for every year back to 2004, which really makes your comment pretty redundant. We know that the start of the satellite era marked a relative high point in the history of Arctic ice. The interesting question is whether the evidence that is accumulating starts to support the idea that ice cover is cyclical, as the anecdotal historical record suggests, and perhaps connected to the AMO.
Thanks. Even expanding the chart the source is really small.
The source, being from Boulder Colorado, a leftist enclave, I now can confirm that they are intentionally cherry picking the 30 year comparison using the 1981 to 2010 years instead of the current 1991 to 2020 years.
Looking at the chart provided by bnice2000, it would appear, using average, we would have a (Mockton) pause of ice loss from 2001 to 2022, and using minimum, the pause would be ongoing.
Yep, they skewed the comparison for a reason. BAD SCIENCE!
Again, I was not blaming you for their malfeasance. I am sure if asked they would claim they just forgot, for the last 3 years, to update the “climate” 30 years to the most recent 3 decades. LOL
So, instead of using actual sea ice totals, which is what I’d assumed, they’re also using anomalies based on a derived mean?