2001-2010 Snowiest Decade On Record

[Pick It Down]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/02/2001-2010-was-the-snowiest-decade-on-record/

I wonder if the Independent are yet regretting this piece of Settled AGW Science from March 2000? http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

Snow leads to a brighter earth so more sunlight gets reflected back to space rather than absorbed. This is what got the consensus of scientists so worried in the 1970s, before they got so worried in the 1990s about the opposite. I wonder how long it will take before we see another Ice Age scare from a consensus of scientists?

[Bossybabe]

Don't worry. I'm sure world governments will work out how to tax us on another ice age!

[6538]

Don't worry. I'm sure world governments will work out how to tax us on another ice age!

Salt tax, peak salt, crisps and salted nuts (along with non-carbonated drinks) becoming socially unnaceptable. It's all so predictable.

[Northwest Smith]

salted nuts becoming socially unnaceptable

And then they came for me

[Orsino]

This data tells us nothing about climate change, although it might be of vague interest if you work for a toboggan company.

[bobthe~]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/02/2001-2010-was-the-snowiest-decade-on-record/

I wonder if the Independent are yet regretting this piece of Settled AGW Science from March 2000? http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Snow leads to a brighter earth so more sunlight gets reflected back to space rather than absorbed. This is what got the consensus of scientists so worried in the 1970s, before they got so worried in the 1990s about the opposite. I wonder how long it will take before we see another Ice Age scare from a consensus of scientists?

Why 1967 - 1970? Why not 1961-70?

Maybe it is because the records don't go that far back, but I would be interested to know.

Edit to add: It could of course be a typo.

[scottbeard]

What are the units on that chart?

The difference between 44.5m and 45.5m in most contexts is statistical noise.

[Pick It Down]

This data tells us nothing about climate change

An interesting comment - could you explain further?

[bobthe~]

What are the units on that chart?

The difference between 44.5m and 45.5m in most contexts is statistical noise.

I think it is how many pople are able to write their names in the snow.

That difference is indeed noise, but it looks as though the earlier 2 decades could have been an anomaly.

Obviously we need many more decades than just those. The 30s and 40s were warm in the NH and there are no figures in this chart for those.

I am not sure there is any evidence that snow is a proxy for temperature though. Likelier to be a combination of temp and precipitation?

Edit to add: Aaah I just saw what you meant. That scale! Grrr

[CokeSnortingTory]

This data tells us nothing about climate change, although it might be of vague interest if you work for a toboggan company.

Absolutely correct. Climate behaviour, and the way it changes, has nothing to do with climate change.

[Pick It Down]

I think it is how many pople are able to write their names in the snow.

That difference is indeed noise, but it looks as though the earlier 2 decades could have been an anomaly.

Obviously we need many more decades than just those. The 30s and 40s were warm in the NH and there are no figures in this chart for those.

I am not sure there is any evidence that snow is a proxy for temperature though. Likelier to be a combination of temp and precipitation?

Edit to add: Aaah I just saw what you meant. That scale! Grrr

Is it km^2? SO long as it is a standard unit it doesn't really matter but should be on the graph (it's not mine btw). You may or may not think it is small difference, but Arctic Ice extent only varies by 0.2m km^2 each year on average, and that was enough for catastrophe theorising by the climate change alarmists (before it reversed )

More decades would be interesting, I don't think we are likely to have decent data from then though for various reasons - satellite coverage, wars, reliability of measurements etc.

Snow is of course a proxy for temperature. You get more snow in colder places than in warmer ones (except at places at so high latitudes where there is snowcover year-round anyway), more snow in colder seasons than in warmer ones, and more snow in colder winters than in warmer ones - so this is a sign of expansion of snowzone into lower latitudes, thus reflecting more sunlight back out to space.

[Northwest Smith]

This is the one the IPCC use and the trend has gone into reverse. Edit: it's a bit of a hockey stick but the

black line 12 month mean moves up so fast it's hard to see against the bars.

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=2

[Pick It Down]

This is the one the IPCC use and the trend has gone into reverse. Edit: it's a bit of a hockey stick but the

black line 12 month mean moves up so fast it's hard to see against the bars.

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=2

"Hiding the incline" at the end aren't they? Running means can also give the wrong impression depending on how the padding is done for values at the end/start.

[Orsino]

An interesting comment - could you explain further?

No climate scientist would claim that you can extrapolate one set of data over a 50-year period and use it as an indication of long-term climate for an entire hemisphere. We have detailed ice core data from Antarctica going back 160,000 years and yet still we are a long way from understanding the mechanisms of global climate, let alone being able to accurately predict it.

A climate model has been produced that, among other things, predicts snow cover to fall over the next 100 years. The accuracy of this model will be assessed based on measurable data. Data from the first 10 years does not show a downward trend but even if it did that would not represent evidence that the model was correct, just as a single heavy snowfall doesn't tell us anything either.

A confirmed long-term increase or decrease in snow cover may indicate climate change. However, the causes of that climate change are another debate altogether. Parts of Antarctica have become colder in recent decades and the extent of sea ice has increased. One theory holds that this is a result of the depletion of the ozone layer due to man-made pollution which has affected Antarctic winds. It's a theory that needs to be scientifically tested through the analysis of data.

Individual climate data sets have been hijacked and manipulated by all kinds of interest groups to support their views. Theories and hypotheses have been presented as fact by people with neither the ability or the inclination to discover the truth. Unfortunately some scientists have been seduced into pandering to this unscientific approach (on both sides of the argument). It would be great if more people were genuinely interested in climate sciences; it's an important and fascinating area of research.

[Guest anorthosite]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/02/2001-2010-was-the-snowiest-decade-on-record/

Just in case anyone is wondering what this graph would look like if the origin was set to zero, a few minutes in photoshop reveals it to be like this:

[CokeSnortingTory]

Just in case anyone is wondering what this graph would look like if the origin was set to zero, a few minutes in photoshop reveals it to be like this:

Couldn't you have spent a few more minutes changing the blue colour of the bars to some more attractive designs?

[Guest anorthosite]

Couldn't you have spent a few more minutes changing the blue colour of the bars to some more attractive designs?

Yes, I could have.

[Pick It Down]

Yes, I could have.

Next time somebody posts a "global temperature anomaly" chart, will you please adjust it into Kelvin, thanks.

[CokeSnortingTory]

Yes, I could have.

Theming them epochally would have been good. Pictures of Hendrix etc. in the 1967-70 bar, then glam, then punk etc.

[dissident junk]

You know what I would really like?

Somewhere where I could go and ask people in the know about climate change, where those people would answers my questions in a thoughtful and considered manner.

The thing that always gets me about climate change is that I can't ever fit the ideas that come out in the MSM into my own understanding of how the climate in my own area has changed in the last 1,500 years (I'm an amateur local historical bod in a region that has barrows, old settlements, neolithic sites and Tudor homes in places that are now totally uninhabitable, even with mod cons).

I am not looking to advance an argument or anything, but I would just love to get some idea of how our area has managed to become so obviously bleak in the last 1000 years to the point that climate change, over hundreds of years, made areas totally inhabitable for travel or living.

[Guest anorthosite]

Next time somebody posts a "global temperature anomaly" chart, will you please adjust it into Kelvin, thanks.

With pleasure, after all, so many people think 20C is twice the temperature of 10C. That way, it'll be quite clear that such a tiny amount of CO2 will produce a tiny change in terms of %, but a change that's a big deal to us.

I love the way you laugh off having your data revealed as being distorted, twisted and mis-representative.

[shipbuilder]

You know what I would really like?

Somewhere where I could go and ask people in the know about climate change, where those people would answers my questions in a thoughtful and considered manner.

Maybe not here then.

[Pick It Down]

With pleasure, after all, so many people think 20C is twice the temperature of 10C. That way, it'll be quite clear that such a tiny amount of CO2 will produce a tiny change in terms of %, but a change that's a big deal to us.

I love the way you laugh off having your data revealed as being distorted, twisted and mis-representative.

It's common graphing practice to shorten the axis where all the data are in a small range ffs.

[Pick It Down]

You know what I would really like?

Somewhere where I could go and ask people in the know about climate change, where those people would answers my questions in a thoughtful and considered manner.

The thing that always gets me about climate change is that I can't ever fit the ideas that come out in the MSM into my own understanding of how the climate in my own area has changed in the last 1,500 years (I'm an amateur local historical bod in a region that has barrows, old settlements, neolithic sites and Tudor homes in places that are now totally uninhabitable, even with mod cons).

I am not looking to advance an argument or anything, but I would just love to get some idea of how our area has managed to become so obviously bleak in the last 1000 years to the point that climate change, over hundreds of years, made areas totally inhabitable for travel or living.

Try http://www.wattsupwiththat.com - if you can put together an interesting article about what your studies have revealed I am fairly sure Anthony Watts will put it up as a blog on there as he likes that kind of thing. Maybe see if one or two of the posters there will help you out with climatic references to link to/where to find data etc.

[Guest anorthosite]

It's common graphing practice to shorten the axis where all the data are in a small range ffs.

Especially by people who want to distort the data.