To anyone with a higher IQ than a turnip, it should be obvious that snow is associated with cold. But Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth apparently don’t.
Colder winters in New York tend to have more snow. Warmer winters tend to have less snow. All ten of New York’s snowiest winters had below normal or normal temperatures.
To quote “Barbie” (the children’s talking doll that was recalled because of political incorrect). “Math is hard”
more snow cover means more sunlight reflected/deflected off from earth.
so more of the world covered by snow means…..
http://www.cosmographicresearch.org/Images/glacial_maximum_map2.jpg
(Artistic rendition of Wisconsin Glacial Maximum)
Unfortunately, the ice sheet didn’t quite make it to Washington, D.C.
If recent history is any guide, there seems to be a perpetual dome of hot air surrounding the DC area.
Making sausage, no matter how crappy it is, generates a lot of heat.
When there is Ice into the middle of Summer : that is an even bigger indicator of Cooling..! Not just places like the Great Lakes but take a look at Scotland. There is evidence, showing the early stages of the return of Glaciers . Also, there is this interesting Ice formation that could not exist in a so called Warming world::
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3198450/Scotland-s-winter-snow-hasn-t-melted-Incredible-network-tunnels-caves-clings-mountains-cold-summer.html
August 27 2015
https://weatheraction.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/wpid-scottish_snow_patches_20150827t140213.jpg
Those are Scottish Snow patches or Neve the first stage of glacier formation.
Oh man, sorry for the snow dance, that has anthro written all over it.
Yep! The onset of glaciation is characterized more by lack of summer melt than by the winter accumulation.
Who woulda thunk it!
That colder winters should be snowier in a wet climate that averages near zero C in the winter, and where half or more of the precipitation falls as rain, should be a no-brainer. So no wonder it takes a billion dollar model to make it otherwise. Steve’s graph for New York has confirmation in these charts for Boston:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NE2.png
And Philadelphia:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PHLwthrwntr.gif
The full articles are here:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/in_the_northeast_february_like_no_other_in_our_lifetime_jfm_harshest_since_/
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/are_huge_northeast_snow_storms_due_to_global_warming/
Yes, during our record warm December, there was no snow in DC, but after a week of subfreezing weather in January, we got a blizzard. As difficult it is for alarmists to believe, snow is correlated with cold and the further south you go, the more it is correlated with cold anomalies! But even in Boston, you don’t want it above normal.
What exactly is a “normal” temperature?
I am assuming that the “winter” temp. is Jan/Feb/March, combined.
so the long term average for those 3 months measured over a period of [longer] time would be regarded as the “normal” winter temperature.
It is indicated as zero [0.0] on the x line of the top of the two graphs from Richard Keen
There is no “normal” when it comes to climate, weather, or temperature. There are only averages over time.
Hi GATOR
Ever heard of a normal distribution?
Has to do something with stats.
Just check it out.
The point in the middle of the [x] normal distribution is the average or the assumed normal.
Mind you, as to the weather, I discovered that in the relationship of the sun with earth, there are what we [I] call: “dead end stops”
in 1927/8 and 2014/5 we had dead end stops, related to the strength of magnetism of the solar poles.
The point that I am trying to make, materializes when you study things like rainfall [the weather]
https://i2.wp.com/oi64.tinypic.com/vyxdld.jpg
Yes, there is “normal distribution” in statistics, but no “normal” in climate or weather. Let’s be precise, and stay on topic.
Almost right; winter on my PHL graph is Dec/Jan/Feb, and I think that’s also true for Joe’s Boston chart. “Normal” has nothing to do with these graphs; what counts is that when winters are colder, they tend to be snowier. Note that the PHL graph uses actual tempertures, while the Boston graph uses anomalies (with some “mean” subtracted out), but they give the same result. Statistically, subtracting the mean on the X axis will change the intercept of the linear regression line, but it will not change the slope. And the slope is the story here.
Hi Richard
technically, winter in the NH starts a few days before Xmas, and usually there is little snowfall before Xmas anyway. It is still regarded as very “fortunate” to have a white Xmas. Looking at Jan, Feb, March might give you better results,
i.e. higher correlation [Rsquare=0.3 is not that very impressive [to me],
I don’t see the Rsquare on Steven Goddard’s graph but he does use January, February and March as “winter”. Might be interesting to hear if he knows what the Rsquare is on his graph there?
Henry,
If one wants to be really formal about the stats, perhaps J-F-M, or D-J-F-M might give better results. But I’m of the mindset that the valid purpose of statistics is to quantify the obvious, and if isn’t obvious (in the raw data) you could be finding artifacts. In this case, it’s obvious from all three graphs – mine, Joe’s, Steve’s – that colder winters are snowier, which puts the lie to the warmer’s apologetics about warmer = wetter = snowier etc.
Many people, including many weather types use “normal” when they’re talking about the average temperature for a particular place at a particular time or period of time.
For example for my area in central Indiana the average temp range for the month of January is:
High – 34 F or 1 C
Low – 19 F or -7 C
Anything outside that range would be abnormal. These maximum and minimum temperatures are based on weather data collected from 1981 to 2010 by the US National Climatic Data Center.
There will come a time when the “adjustments” being made to create a record that is warmer than the actual data indicates in the present or recent past will not be able to be sustained in the face of reality. When that happens the government will have to “adjust” the past records to show it being even cooler than it already does in order to prevent new lows becoming common. Eventually their house of cards has to collapse in the face of reality.
Close, but no cigar.
Anything outside that range would be abnormal.
No, it would simply be outside of the known average. There is no “normal” in climate or weather. We humans have a very narrow scope of observation, and tend to think that if we have not seen something before, it is “abnormal”. When speaking of terrestial events, it is important to recognize that our subject has seen it all.
Well we are talking about humans talking to other humans about nature with the frame of reference being what humans have experienced or measured. And so something that lies outside of the norm is considered abnormal. According to my thesaurus abnormal is a synonym for anomalous or anomalistic. And temperatures outside the average range are most certainly an anomaly.
And temperatures outside the average range are most certainly an anomaly.
Outside of whose average? We are discussing the climate of the Earth. A housefly would think that 2 sunsets are “abnormal”.
I’ll repeat: “we are talking about humans talking to other humans about nature with the frame of reference being what humans have experienced or measured.” It is that frame of reference that your refusing to recognize. I’m talking about recorded history and records of the human experience of weather and climate. Your apparently talking about a much longer frame of reference.
For something to be “abnormal’ it doesn’t have to be unprecedented over all of time or even recorded history. If it got up to 70 F today here in central Indiana that would be abnormal despite the fact is may have happened once before in the meteorlogic record. Same with the snows in Cairo.
I understand what you said Rah, humans talking to humans, but this human prefers to be precise in his speech and for good reason. This especially applies to the subjects of climate annd weather, which can cause some to panic, raise taxes, and take away liberties.
When we explain to the climate ignorant that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate and weather, we do all of humanity a huge favor.
I get you. The terms “abnormal” and “unprecedented” are constantly being abused.
Exactly. By using the term “normal” when discussing weather and/or climate, we are setting ourselves up conceding “abnormal” conditions. Once upon a time this was not an issue.
I corrected my state climatologist who used to describe conditions as “normal”, and he no longer does so, he now says “observed average”. He actually sent me a thank you letter, explaining that he had never really thought about how incorrect it was to suggest that weather and climate have norms.
gator69 : I believe, the wished for “normal” or “abnormal” applied to climate & weather, stems from the human condition to have a finite term of reference ; much in the same way people often can’t accept the Universe being infinite. You’re technically correct, but it goes against human nature…
Gator, I agree with you on the use of ‘normal’ as propaganda. It is one of the reasons I toss out the ‘Coming Ice Age’ hysteria to yank the Alarmist chain. (The data supports that catastrophe better than CAGW.)
It never ceases to amaze me how willing people are to adopt the language of the left. The language of indoctrination is a subtle poison, that takes time and many doses to reach it’s ultimate effect. First it numbs reason, and then if not rejected, it kills all thought.
Gator, It is not ‘willing to adopt’ it is getting screamed at and abused if you do not. Try using the old polite word Negro or even Black today instead of African American or whatever the new word is and some people go ballistic. Yet vulgar language I never heard or knew the meaning of when I was growing up is now routinely used on the radio in songs, in book and movies . So it is certainly a control issue.
America’s Ruling Class
I use “black” to describe people, just like I use “white”. I cannot ever remember referring to a black person as “African-American”. And people generally do not scream at me.
“My tshorniya druzi! What is the ups?”
gator says
Yes, there is “normal distribution” in statistics, but no “normal” in climate or weather. Let’s be precise, and stay on topic.
henry says
there is a ‘normal” in the weather but on longer times scales, typical at least 87 years.
http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
Table II and III
No Henry, that is an average over a period of time. There is no “normal” in climate or weather.
The indoctrination is strong in you Henry, so strong you cannot even see it. Step back, think.
clearly
it is fair to look at the weather on longer terms
and it it is predictable
https://i0.wp.com/oi62.tinypic.com/33kd6k2.jpg
It is getting cooler!
I just heard that Hong Kong had its coolest day today in 60 years…..
@Richard
this data
https://i2.wp.com/oi61.tinypic.com/ju7fw9.jpg
shows a similar linear downward trend in ozone concentration versus time, but you would be wrong in drawing the conclusion that ozone is going down….[although that is what many people did in the past]
clearly ozone is going up [now]
http://www.oxidationsystems.com/products/ozone_formation.GIF
http://www.oxidationsystems.com/products/ozone_wavelength.GIF
Ultraviolet light creates and destroys the ozone layer depending on the wavelength so the changes listed in the chart below matter. A shift in the ratio will shift the amount of ozone created vs that destroyed. Ozone production is driven by UV radiation of wavelengths less than 240 nm. Ozone is a highly unstable molecule so when it absorbs low energy UV (240–310 nm) it splits into an ordinary oxygen molecule and a free oxygen atom.
In the three decades prior to the 2009 solar minimum and the switch to a ‘quiet sun (1979 to 2009) the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth’s surface increased markedly. This energy would be absorbed by the oceans at depths up to 100 meters.
http://www.john-daly.com/sverdrup.gif
FROM NASA:
Solar Radiation: Sources of Energy for the Earth’s Atmosphere
Solar Radiation – – – – – – – – – – – Energy Flux – Solar Cycle Change – Deposition Alt.
TSI (mostly Visible & Infrared) – 1366 W/m2 – 1.2 W/m2 – – 0.1% – Surface
MUV (200-300 nm).- – – – – – – – – – 15.4 W/m2 – 0.17 W/m2 – 1% – 15-50 km
FUV (126-200 nm) – – – – – – – – – – – 50 mW/m2 – 15 mW/m2 – 30% – 30-120 km
EUV (0-125 nm) – – – – – – – – – – – – -10 mW/m2 – 10 mW/m2 – 100% – 80-250 km
Gail says
In the three decades prior to the 2009 solar minimum and the switch to a ‘quiet sun (1979 to 2009) the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth’s surface increased markedly. This energy would be absorbed by the oceans at depths up to 100 meters.
Henry says
we are going a bit off track here, but this is a very interesting subject.
I see a bending point in my poly nominal at around 2005 or 2006.
So the reason for the recent [natural] warming of earth can indeed be explained by more UV reaching and warming the oceans.
However, as shown, ozone [ + peroxides & N-Oxides] are now increasing, TOA, as earth protects itself from the the sun’s most energetic particles, of which more are released now due to the lower solar polar magnetic field strengths. Clearly 1997-8 was a defining point.
https://i0.wp.com/oi62.tinypic.com/33kd6k2.jpg
It will get cooler.
It will get cooler, as less UV will reach the oceans.
You got it?
Don’t forget the oceans are just part of what ozone does to the climat.
Climate Change Look up, Look out
Basic Description
Gail says
Don’t forget the oceans are just part of what ozone does to the climate.
Henry says
First of all: It is not only ozone.
Above the oceans peroxides are being formed preferentially to ozone from the OH radicals.
Hence, there never was a “ozone hole”.
The sun’s most energetic particles also lets nitrogen and oxygen react, making a cocktail of nitrogenous oxides.
Note that the absorption spectra of H2O2 and ozone look very similar.
Hence the effect of all these substances being formed by the sun’s most energetic radiation [which would otherwise harm us] is a labyrinth for anyone not understanding the solar spectrum, as it appears to us at sea level….
Unfortunately, nobody is measuring all of this happening, TOA….
Let me get back later on this
{suppertime now for me)
ok
where was I?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Solar_spectrum_en.svg/2000px-Solar_spectrum_en.svg.png
thsi is what we call in stats: a Chi-square distribution
And notice it only has the absorption bands for CO2, H2O and O3
What about NOx, O2, Cl compounds, sulfur compounds and all the rest of the stuff volcanoes and organic toss into the air? You and I know there is a heck of a lot of chemistry going on in the upper atmosphere as molecular bonds are broken and reformed with the help of UV but you never hear a peep about it in the MSM.
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap11-26.gif
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap11-60.gif
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap11-59.gif
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap11-61.gif
TROPOSPHERIC PHOTOCHEMISTRY AND ITS RESPONSE TO UV CHANGES
Of course mankind is blamed as usual as if nitrogen and oxygen were not already a major potion of the air.
http://www.ciesin.org/docs/011-457/formulas442e.gif
At least the paper admits
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sybLyK_6K0c/USF-CjwgP3I/AAAAAAAAA4U/2wnYsKBVpWE/s1600/Solar+Irradiance+at+Sea+Level.jpg
What is important to know of a Chi-square distribution is that most of what we are measuring is actually in the first 25% on the left on the x, in this case x = the wavelength.
Note that both of the most popular solar spectra available don’t even mention the effects of the peroxides and Nitrogen oxides. But even if we stick with O3 only: note how much irradiance / energy is being cut away by the presence of the ozone? [=the difference between blue and orange line – in my 2nd solar spectrum graph].
The reason for this is the back radiation caused by ozone & other GH gases formed TOA to protect us from the sun’s most energetic radiation.
So, I think, we can all imagine that varying amounts of ozone [& others] at the TOA will also cause a considerable difference in energy getting into our oceans = 70% of earth’s surface.
Try as much as you like, but normal visible light does not really heat up anything, including water.
However, water does have absorption in the UV and the IR. So, it is the invisible radiation that gets re-radiated [in water]. The oceans have a lot of mass, and eventually the invisible UV and IR gets exchanged with heat in the oceans.
Must say though, that the UV coming through has the most energy and therefore this the radiation to watch to predict a cooling or a warming period.
Agreed?
Feel free to ask me a question.
Actually Henry all the solar energy penetrating the ocean is going to end up as heat although it can go through a lot of pathways.
Explanation and papers
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-greenhouse-gases-wont-heat-oceans.html
http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/follow-the-energy.html
well
I was just saying that the portion of solar radiation that we call “visible’ light does not really very much in terms of heating up anything.
The papers you quote prove my point:
1) energy into the oceans is decreasing [since 2003] due to the increase of Ozone, Peroxides and N-Oxides formed TOA.
[an ironic observation: a brighter sun is causing a cooler earth]
2) “Less ozone in the stratosphere allows more high-energy, ultraviolet radiation to reach Earth: cooling the stratosphere, warming the oceans”
Exactly.
but ozone is now increasing
https://i2.wp.com/oi61.tinypic.com/ju7fw9.jpg
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif
Note that H2O overlaps one of the CO2 wave bands and NOx seems to overlaps the other. I wonder how much of the waveband ‘broading’ is actually NOx and not CO2?
Dr Happer found that the math description in the computer models described the wrong shape.
Slide 22: Lorentzian line shape nor Voigt line shapes are correct in the far wings!
David Burton put up an audio and slides of Dr Happer’s presentation at
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/
SLIDES:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/UNC-9-8-2014.pptx
Slides 22, 42, 43 and 44 are the critical slides.
CO2 is a red herring.
the increase in CO2 does not do much of anything,
possibly even a cooling effect rather than a warming effect,
going by the solar spectrum chart.
All the CO2 increase does is make plants happy and ‘green’ deserts due to increase in water efficiency.
true
more Carbon is OK!
pure carbon (dust) might even help us against the ice age trap –
this is when there is too much ice and snow on earth deflecting too much light off from earth.
If you have not seen this before you might be interested. Albedo regulation of Ice Ages, with no CO2 feedbacks
Remember the switch from the Wisconsin IceAage to the Holocene was within three years.