http://news.discovery.com/earth/snow-cover-shrinking-maps.html
One minor problem. Snow cover has been steadily increasing and last winter had the greatest snow cover on record.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=namgnld&ui_season=1
 | gelcarrion0t on “You Can’t Hide Yo… |
| gelcarrion0t on Doubling Energy Costs |
| gelcarrion0t on Australia Permanent Drought Up… |
| gelcarrion0t on “New computer modeling… |
 | Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp |
 | Christopher Simpson on 1896 : Japan Hit By Earthquake… |
 | energywise on What’s At Stake? |
 | Robert Cherba on Too Hot To Live |
| gelcarrion0t on Too Hot To Live |
 | Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
Truth does not apply to warmists.
I think the operative phrase in that article is “researchers made overdue adjustments”.
These clowns are trying to adjust the world into something no one will recognize….
“So places that have snow on the ground tend to be colder than nearby places without snow, said Gong. ”
Well I would not have guessed that.
Here’s his paper, the 2009 report.
He stopped at 2009, which does make it #13.
Unfortunately, we will have to live with his 2009 report forever,
which does not include 2010.
2010 throws the whole thing off……..
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/
They just made the discovery of a sharp decline in snow cover between 1980 and 1990? Wow, very impressive. No one noticed it at the time.
I feel so much better about the state of our climate now that these guys have gone back and done the proper adjustments to data from the 1980s. I mean, how could it have been missed? Thank goodness for the really cool computers and software they have created to alter reality. Think of what else we can do now.
This, said Robinson, is just how models have suggested…….
He’s in the Borg, ahhhhh!
Don’t let facts get in the way of a good BS story….
Lance, the facts are that he’s right, if you stop at 2009,
which he did,
but 2010 blew him out of the water.
I hate to be a kill joy, but the article’s referring a decline in spring snow as shown in this chart:
Fall and winter snows are just as extensive as ever, but the snow melts earlier in the spring.
You’re not being a killjoy. The graph starts in the 67 when the earth was cooling and there was all the talk about a coming ice age. PDO shifted and caused what you see in the first 1/2 of the graph. But PDO has shifted again and in time the trend in the graph will reverse, as you can see happening over the last 3 years.
The conclusion by the scientist in the article was done using cherry picked data. He had to narrow things down to a small area to get a conclusion that confirmed what a climate model predicted. This is so usual that it is now easy to detect these things.
I’m not saying he’s right, only pointing to the chart the author of the article was referring.
As for the charge of cherry picking, perhaps that’s the wrong term when all the data available is used. I doubt this scientist is responsible for the fact a satellite wasn’t launched to study this snow extents until 1967. Even I’m not old enough to have had any input into that decision. 😉
As for the PDO shift, you’re probably right, but the snow extent over the last three years don’t show any particular trend, not in the spring.
Not only focusing on Spring, but Spring in only 2 parts of the world. I thought AGWers like to say, “well North America isn’t GLOBALLY!” or “Europe isn’t GLOBALLY!” Then we see stuff like this. They twist themselves in such ways it’s astounding to see continual defense of it all.
Strick says:
December 17, 2010 at 4:22 pm
As for the charge of cherry picking, perhaps that’s the wrong term when all the data available is used.
He chose just the USA.
Strick says:
December 17, 2010 at 4:22 pm
I doubt this scientist is responsible for the fact a satellite wasn’t launched to study this snow extents until 1967.
Of course. But he is responsible for not pointing out the obvious—that he is using a sort data set.
By picking a period shorter that what is shown to be a full climate cycle you can find any trend to fit your desire. By picking 1970 to 1989 then 1990 to 2009 the results are what would have been expected. of course they also had to apply the proper Al-Gore-Rhythm to achieve those results. Somewhere it is said to let the numbers speak for themselves. I wonder if they used Water Boarding to get the numbers to confess? From the answers it may have been the RACK and a bit of stretching!
you can find any trend to fit your desire.
Exactly.
I want to see the graphs he is using. Whenever I see the word “trend” attached to a global warming alarm story I like to see the graphs for myself. Trends are easily manipulated.
AAM, follow the link I posted.
What happened in 1981 that caused such a low snow cover record?
Reagan was elected and the liberals went balistic – melting all the snow!
These people know no shame!
I would think that if you are going to comment on the science you would at least look at the numbers. http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2
The point was how fast the snow melts not how much it snows.
yes, it’s melting earlier.
NOT!
You do understand what Mean is right? Would you not expect larger snow packs to take longer to melt? Show me a graph of a smaller then the mean snow pack that lasts longer then the mean melt time.
Both must be considered as Richard Feynman points out: “”It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”
http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/cargo-cult-science-a-lesson-from-richard-feynman-for-scientists-of-today-to-learn
By discounting the significant importance of the recent increases in Winter Snow Extent the authors are biased towards their catastrophic AGW hypothesis and not conducting themselves in accordance with the Philosophy of Science and the Scientific Method as Richard Feynman so eloquently states.
As for Ron’s assertion “that if you are going to comment on the science you would at least look at the numbers”… place the BLAME for a LACK OF NUMBERS upon Rugers gs1 Global Snow Lab! They don’t provide the numbers alongside each graph they present (you have to get the numbers from another link and they are incomplete) and thus one can’t “LOOK AT THE LATEST NUMBERS”
If any PUBLICLY FUNDED science group publishes graphs they must also publish the numbers ALONGSIDE the graph with a FULL and detailed pedigree of each and every manipulation aka fabrication adjustment of the data all the way back to the original unmodified source observational data. It should all be available with the graph, along side it or both in a viewable and downloadable spreadsheet or mathematica workbook. Otherwise they can present anything and change it at a whim and few if any would be the wiser.
Science at it’s core is a skeptical stance that demands EVIDENCE be VERIFIED or REFUTED. That becomes impossible when the scientists are playing games of “oh the data is ours”. No it’s not yours, not if the public paid for it!
Also Ron, 43 years of snow coverage extent isn’t enough to draw major conclusions. As we all know a much longer data set is needed. Also the graphs don’t reveal “causation” at all. As a result no serious conclusions can be drawn, certainly not the catastrophic conclusions of doomsday soothsayers blaming man kind.
Where are all the AGWers saying the headline is misleading? ChrisD? TonyD? Laz? Sense? Implying all snow cover in the headline, then later mention only Spring. LOL
Hi Steve, I’m a bit confused and it’s Rutgers fault for not presenting the data with their graph. Personally that is a major fail for Rutgers right there since how can anyone trust any graph presented by any alleged scientist if it doesn’t have all the data used in the graph along with the ENTIRE pedigree of that data with all of it’s data “manipulations” aka “revisions” aka “fabrications” (potential frauds) fully documented.
Ok, the confusion comes from tying to find the numbers that go with the graph I found this link which shows 11-2010 as Ranked 13/45 here: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_rankings.php?ui_set=1#namgnld.
Maybe it’s that the table hasn’t been updated for 12-2010 yet, or have I got the wrong table? That’s why this is Rutgers fault for not presenting their alleged scientific data in a viable format. Sigh.
Oh, I see the chart is annual but the tables are monthly. Grrrrr…. these nerdy scientists just don’t know how to present information…
I’m not sure what you question is? They won’t post December data until sometime after the month is over.
They’ll post the graph but not the data? Lame.
I suppose the question is where is their “annual” data published other than in graphic form?
A question asked to me by a person from NCAR was what is the pedigree of the data? That really is a question for Rutgers.
To be honest, I would have expected the snowfall area to have decreased since 1975 when the PDO switched. I als0 would expect it to start increasing with the current phase of the PDO.
I remember a few years ago a young man’s body was found with his parachute still attached. He had disappeared in a storm in the Sierras in the 1940’s after jumping out of a military plane. Which told me that the snow extent when they found him (current) was the same as when he disappeared (1940’s).
Data from the Rutgers site show that northern hemisphere snow cover for the winter months has been increasing at the rate of two million square kilometers per decade for the past two decades. The same data also show the reduction cited for spring and summer northern hemisphere snow cover.
Another sad post. Perhaps exposure does result in contamination, and we pick up the bad habits of those we fight. Here we see Goddard again mocking a scientist without even touching upon what he actually said. Much like the Team and Romm mocking M&M.
This builds a big audience (mocking is easy and fun, everyone can join in), but it’s a big fall from Goddard’s great articles at WUWT (Watts would never publish this schlock) and his best work here.
2010 had the greatest snow extent ever recorded in North America.
Yes, but as you know quite well that’s not what he’s refering to. He is quite specific, refering to specific seasonal effects and the average snow extent (not the maximum extent).
This can be seen even in the Rutger’s graphs in the Sprint snow extent — which shows a strong down trend:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2
Even the nearly meaningless annual anomaly is very close to the 45 year mean, and has increased for the past twenty years.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=11
Don’t know where Rutgers gets their snow cover data but it dates from the 1960’s to the present and is promptly updated monthly. NOAA has a nearly identical numbers, which date from the 1970’s, but their data stopped as of January of 2010. Anyone know why?