Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting?

Posted on February 18, 2010 by Anthony Watts 

Guest post by Steven Goddard

Several people keep asking why am I focused on winter snow extent. This seems fairly obvious, but I will review 

here:

Snow falls in the winter, in places where it is cold. Snow does not generally fall in the summer, because it is 

too warm.

1.

2. Winter snow extent is a good proxy for winter snowfall. Snow has to fall before it can cover the ground.

So what about summer snow cover? Summer snow cover declined significantly (from the 1970s ice age scare) 

during the 1980s, but minimums have not changed much since then. As you can see in the graph below, the 

overall annual trend since 1989 has been slightly upwards.

click to enlarge

Data from Rutgers University Global Snow Lab

Note in the image above that there has been almost no change in the summer minimum snow extent since 1989, 

and that the winter maximums have increased significantly as seen below.

Summer snow cover is affected by many factors, but probably the most important one is soot, as Dr. Hansen has 

stated.

Watts Up With That?

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 1 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
The effects of soot in changing the climate are more than most scientists acknowledge, two US 

researchers say. In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they say reducing 

atmospheric soot levels could help to slow global warming relatively simply. They believe soot is 

twice as potent as carbon dioxide, a main greenhouse gas, in raising surface air temperatures.

... The researchers are Dr James Hansen and Larissa Nazarenko, both of the Goddard 

Institute for Space Studies, part of the US space agency Nasa, and Columbia University Earth 

Institute.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3333493.stm

The global warming debate has until now focused almost entirely on carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gas emissions, but scientists at the University of California – Irvine, suggest that a lesser

-known problem – dirty snow – could explain the Arctic warming attributed to greenhouse 

gases....The effect is more conspicuous in Arctic areas, where Zender believes that more than 

90 percent of the warming could be attributed to dirty snow.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070506202633data_trunc_sys.shtml

In summary, winter snowfall is increasing and currently at record levels, and summer snow extent is not changing 

much. Earlier changes in summer snow extent were likely due primarily to soot – not CO2.

This entry was posted in records, snowfall, weather. Bookmark the permalink. 

254 Responses to Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting?

news1.newsmax.com Ads by Google

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:16 am

As you can see in the graph below, the overall annual trend since 1989 has been slightly upwards.

And what is R^2 for that graph?

bushy says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:22 am

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 2 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Quite possible, however temperatures seem to be falling on landmasses as well and so the soot problem might turn out to be 

a good thing.

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:23 am

Just to be clear and avoid getting off on irrelevant tangents, snow cover did decrease from 1970 through 1989. Winter snow 

cover has returned to the unusually high levels of the 1970s. Summer snow cover has not returned to 1970 levels, but has not 

declined since 1989.

terry46 says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:26 am

It is interesting how Henson tries to do the global warming spin.If the first theory doesn’t work then change theory.Folks 

these people could care less about what is really happening .The planet is cooling .But this goes against thier theory and 

goverment control.

Eddie says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:27 am

Could we get a close up view of the summer snow extent, like we did for the winter to see what tend looks like over the same 

period?

Leo G says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:29 am

Soot – mostly man made. yet somewhat easy to cleanup. does not stay around for hundred years, washes out with the 

melting. tackle this first, then see where we are....IMHO

JJ says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:31 am

The X axis in the first graph is mislabeled. Are those weeks? Can you show data from 1970 -present?

Sonicfrog says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:32 am

Is the first graph the one you meant to accompany this post? It doesn’t match the description.

PS. I just woke up, so maybe my brain ain’t workin’ yet.

pauly says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:33 am

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 3 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
‘When you’re in a hole, stop digging’ is a sound piece of advice.

vukcevic says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:36 am

Keeps deep frost away from the ground surface. Any farmer will know benefits of the winter snow cover.

John Phillips says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:37 am

We may be reaching a tipping point for the next glacial period. Humans are surely to blame. I just haven’t quite figured out 

how yet.

Christian A. Wittke says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:38 am

So there is more humidity in the Northern atmosphere during winters – so what? 

That is doing what in relation to climate change?

It feels like reading the coffee pot – after having had one coffee, only.

Tenuc says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:42 am

Zender had a little lamb, 

Its fleece was black as soot. 

And everywhere that Zender went, 

It’s sooty foot it put.

Jeff Alberts says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:42 am

Summer snow cover declined significantly (from the 1970s ice age scare) during the 1980s,

The 1970s ice age scare caused snow cover to decline??

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:45 am

Leif,

Please feel free to do any statistical analysis you want, and share the results with us. If you want to repeat for the last 10 years 

that would also be appreciated.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 4 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:47 am

The first graph X-axis shows weeks since 1966. It is pretty easy to pick out winter maximums and summer minimums.

Caleb says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:47 am

Expanded winter snow-cover must increase the albedo-effect. I’d like to see a discussion by people wiser than myself about 

what the difference might be.

I have some questions regarding the effect the bounced-back sunlight would have on the temperature of the atmosphere.

I assume that when snow reflects sunlight the sunlight doesn’t change into infrared waves, but remains the same long(?)-

wave radiation it was on the way down. Therefore it would not “excite” CO2 on its way out. Is this assumption correct?

Does such long(?)-wave radiation warm the atmosphere at all, as it passes through?

If it does, would not the albedo-effect increase the warming of the atmosphere, because the light would warm on its way in, 

and also on its way out? 

If this was true then, even as expanded snow-cover reflected a lot of heat back into outer space, we might see some slight 

warming of the troposphere. This might lead to the false impression things were getting warmer, even as we lost a lot of heat 

to outer space.

Are Oxygen and Nitrogen warmed at all, when sunlight passes through them?

If my ideas are way off base, I don’t mind being educated in the slightest. Thanks in advance.

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:54 am

jj,

Here is the entire Rutgers weekly data set going back to 1966. 

https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?

key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdHBkREJtSmNlbm9xNnlza0JEcXUwZ2c&oid=2&v=1266508331457

Note the near record maximum on the right edge.

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:55 am

Steve Goddard (07:45:02) : 

Please feel free to do any statistical analysis you want, and share the results with us. If you want to repeat for the last 10 

years that would also be appreciated.

Come on. You have that data handy. And have software [Excel?] to put in the trend line. Just ask it for R^2 to gain some 

credibility.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 5 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Richard Telford says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:56 am

The data start in 1966. So why does your analysis starts in 1989?

MinB says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:56 am

I notice that you only cite NH snow extent. What does SH look like?

Does measuring snow extent give any indication of temperature trends in Arctic and Antarctic? Or is this more of a measure 

of mid-latitude variation?

What would slope for winter snow cover look like without 2010, i.e., how much flatter might it be?

DirkH says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:00 am

“Christian A. Wittke (07:38:51) : 

So there is more humidity in the Northern atmosphere during winters – so what? 

That is doing what in relation to climate change?”

The post doesn’t talk about “humidity in the Northern atmosphere”. How do you conclude that the humidity has risen? And 

while we’re at it, do you think that the mean humidity has risen? The peak humidity? Both? In which layers of the 

atmosphere? Any idea? 

Or have you been confused by The Time with their “In the meantime, warmer air could be supercharged with moisture and...” 

at

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962294,00.html?xid=rss-fullhealthsci-yahoo

(which was pretty hilarious, i mean, SUPERCHARGED WITH MOISTURE. Like, more than 100% – which usually leads to 

precipitation, even when The Time doesn’t notice.)

Tom P says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:01 am

Leif Svalgaard (07:16:08) :

I was going to write something about fish and barrels, but the analogy rather breaks down when the fish start shooting 

themselves.

Henry chance says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:05 am

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 6 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Snow cover is God’s gift to winter wheat fields. It is so many times better than mere rain fall. 

As we read about the permanent dustbowl and reality shows us great ground cover for wheat. 

Wheat can grow in the subsoil zones when covered by insulating snow.

Ralph says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:10 am

Ah ! So the snow was not rotten, ıt was dırty !!

.

John Innes says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:12 am

For coal-fired power stations, and perhaps to a lesser extent for other soot-generators, it should be cheaper to reduce the soot 

emissions than to extract and sequester the CO2 generated and emitted. Electrostatic precipitation has a head start, but CO2 

separation and sequestration is only just out of the starting box in recent years. Hohlfield observed in 1824 that an electric 

discharge cleaned dust laden gases, and not too many years later, Lodge, and later Cottrell made and installed practical dust 

precipitators for smelter fumes. In 1935, Penney announced the development of the Precipitron, with a major reduction is 

size and voltage and an improvement in efficiency. This horse is already half way to the finish line.

Surely we can work from this as a starting point, and get more bang for our warming reduction buck by reducing soot instead 

of CO2? For a start, simply slowing the exhaust gas velocity through larger precipitators would reduce soot emission. It 

should be a simple matter to calculate the improvement that can be achieved per dollar spent, even without new 

developments. Considering the millions of dollars being thrown at CO2 studies, let alone action, we could not only be 

reducing AGW right now, if in fact it exists; we could reduce real pollution and breathe cleaner air. What were those numbers 

for coal-fired plants in construction or planned, again?

DirkH says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:15 am

“Caleb (07:47:41) : 

I assume that when snow reflects sunlight the sunlight doesn’t change into infrared waves, but remains the same long(?)-

wave radiation it was on the way down. Therefore it would not “excite” CO2 on its way out. Is this assumption correct?”

Yes. Only you got the “long” wrong – the longwave part of the spectrum we usually talk about here is the Longwave Infrared 

that is absorbed by CO2 and to a larger extent by water vapour, > 1 mikrometer. Visible light has shorter wavelengths, around 

350nm IIRC.

“Does such long(?)-wave radiation warm the atmosphere at all, as it passes through?”

No, not in a significant way, as it is not absorbed. 

“If it does, would not the albedo-effect increase the warming of the atmosphere, because the light would warm on its way in, 

and also on its way out? 

If this was true then, even as expanded snow-cover reflected a lot of heat back into outer space, we might see some slight 

warming of the troposphere. This might lead to the false impression things were getting warmer, even as we lost a lot of heat 

to outer space.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 7 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Are Oxygen and Nitrogen warmed at all, when sunlight passes through them?”

No interaction between visible light and O2 or N2, otherwise air wouldn’t be transparent for visible light. So visible light that 

is reflected e.g. by snow will go outwards. There might be refraction by water droplets, so clouds will diffuse visible light. In 

the absence of clouds, the light reflected by snow (or white roofs, or any part of the surface) will just radiate into space 

without warming anything significantly.

Matt says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:17 am

Leif, 

R^2 correlation wouldn’t make sense on a X vs T plot. Its typically used to compare the degree of correlation of two separate 

variables (i.e. on a scatter plot).

kwik says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:18 am

Norway has already given lots of money during many years to the Soviet’s to put filters on them large factories up in Nickel 

....they never used it to filter the smoke anyway....the whole area was black for kilometers after kilometers.

Dont know how it is at the moment.... but back then you could see when you crossed the border to Soviet-land.

Free country; Clean. 

Communist land; Dirty.

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:18 am

Richard,

The analysis starts in 1989, because that is when the current upwards trend started. The 1970s was cold and had an unusually 

large amount of snow. Snow cover declined during the 1980s from the 1970s peak.

Winter snow cover has now returned to the record high values.

atmoaggie says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:21 am

Trends aside for the moment, this past winter is reaching for the snowfalls not seen since the winter of 1977-78 (as has been 

well covered). What do this year and the winter of 1977-78 have in common? An El Nino combined with a near-neutral to 

negative PDO index. That notable winter was the last time this combination happened.

Just as the causes of the PDO’s behavior is not well understood, I am of the opinion that it’s teleconnections are poorly 

understood, as well. (no surprise, it is a 60 year cycle and we have measured one half of one cycle via global coverage by 

satellite...and there is no guarantee that this particular cycle is representative of the norm as variability exists in the cycles 

themselves)

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 8 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
PDO index by month: http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

PDO index history plot here (only through Sept 2009): http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

another plot...a little experimental: http://www.esr.org/~gunn/pdo/pdo_fig1.png

kyle says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:30 am

Snowmageddon provides a “teachable moment” to explain the reality of the effects of Global Warming pollution. 

Listen to the Earthbeat Radio podcast: http://bit.ly/a7m4n1

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:30 am

Leif,

While the trend is slightly upwards, there has been no statistically significant trend in weekly snow cover over the last 20 

years. Winter maximums have increased significantly while summer minimums have stayed relatively constant. 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/snow_response1.png

It has been claimed repeatedly in the press that snow cover is declining, but the evidence does not support that over the last 

two decades. A Google search of snow cover decline turns up over one million hits.

What is your point? Do you think that winter snow cover has not been increasing and is not at or near a record maximum?

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:34 am

Matt (08:17:53) : 

R^2 correlation wouldn’t make sense on a X vs T plot. Its typically used to compare the degree of correlation of two 

separate variables (i.e. on a scatter plot).

R^2 value does make sense in evaluating a trend. A trend is just that: a correlation of a variable with time. Remove the 

connecting lines [which are artificial anyway] and the graph is indeed just a scatter plot.

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:40 am

Steve Goddard (08:30:34) : 

While the trend is slightly upwards, there has been no statistically significant trend in weekly snow cover over the last 20 

years. 

What is your point? Do you think that winter snow cover has not been increasing and is not at or near a record maximum?

My point is that it is a bit silly to open a post with a graph that has no significant trend with the words: “As you can see in the 

graph below, the overall annual trend since 1989 has been slightly upwards” 

And we still do have any explanation why the first 20+ years were left out. If you leave out all the data except the last two 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 9 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
years, you’ll get quite a correlation. So what was R^2? You are beginning to sound like Mann who wouldn’t reveal his R^2 

either :-)

MattN says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:41 am

What the hell will R^2 tell you here?

Fredrick Lightfoot says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:41 am

Now Steve, I can see this is going to get interesting.

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:42 am

I am completely at a loss as to what some people are disputing.

We have been told over and over again since Hansen spoke to Congress in 1989, that winter snow is declining and that winter 

storms are moving north. 

Clearly that is not happening, quite the opposite.

Richard Telford says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:45 am

Steve Goddard (08:18:41)

There is nothing wrong with that. Provided you make it explicit what you have done, and acknowledge that by selecting the 

start point, you inflate the risk of a type I error. The post, as it currently reads, is deceptive. I am not implying that this is your 

intent. Plotting the entire dataset would be a good idea to clarify matters.

UnfrozenCavemanMD says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:02 am

I’ve made my own Excel analysis of the data. The R^2 for the graph above is 0.3, and the slope is 87,000 km^2 increase in 

Winter snow cover per year. But, this is very sensitive to the choice of starting year. 1989 is a cherry-picked minimum, and 

the current year’s data is not completely in yet. If you plot from the cherry-picked maximum of 1978-2009 you get a decrease 

of 8,700 km^2 per year and an R^2 of 0.0035.

Using the Rutger’s data from 1974 onward, the slope of the trend is 19,000 km^2 increase per year, on a standard deviation 

of 1,400,000 km^2 per year, with an R^2 of 0.02, which is, for all practical purposes, flat.

Karl B. says:

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 10 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
February 18, 2010 at 9:05 am

@ Tom P (08:01:37)

Tom P, that doesn’t add anything to the conversation, and is actually insulting.

Reminds of the comments when I used to read RealClimate.

Lonnie Schubert says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:07 am

John Phillips [above] suggests we may be at the beginning of earth’s next glaciation of the northern hemisphere. I see that 

possibility too. It is overdue, geologically speaking. The short chart (last 20 years of winter snow extent) would fit a 

logarithmic increase, which is just what would be expected for the beginning of the creep of the ice sheets south. (Lookout 

Manhattan Island!)

However, as I recall my geology lessons, the northern ice sheet should need to completely disappear so as to provide 

sufficient extra open water surface to provide sufficient moisture for the extensive increase in snow, to provide the extensive 

increase in snow cover, which keeps driving the temperature down with increased albedo and all the water phase change, 

keeping the ice sheets growing south until the earth cools too much to keep the precipitation cycle going.

Of course, there were those making similar statements in the 1970s. 

Hopefully it will take centuries (perhaps millennia) to cool enough regardless. 

We still have engineers. I suppose I’m not worried.

Tom_R says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:12 am

>> DirkH (08:15:05) : 

No interaction between visible light and O2 or N2, otherwise air wouldn’t be transparent for visible light. So visible light that 

is reflected e.g. by snow will go outwards. There might be refraction by water droplets, so clouds will diffuse visible light. In 

the absence of clouds, the light reflected by snow (or white roofs, or any part of the surface) will just radiate into space 

without warming anything significantly. <<

Visible photons are not absorbed by N2 or O2, but they are scattered by collisions, moreso for shorter wavelengths (hence the 

blue sky). The scattering process has to add some momentum, and thus kinetic energy, to the air molecules.

Hmm, as I write this I realize that the photon changes direction, but doesn't lose energy since the wavelength doesn't change. 

How is energy conserved when the air molecule gains kinetic energy but the photon energy remains the same?

nofreewind says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:19 am

Here is where you can find lots of Snow Cover data.

http://www.climate4you.com/SnowCover.htm#NH%20seasonal%20snow%20cover%20since%201966

Here, Rutger, is where much of that data comes from. 

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 11 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Robert says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:24 am

“Earlier changes in summer snow extent were likely due primarily to soot – not CO2.”

If Zender is correct, yes. And what is the CAUSE of all that soot, accord to Zender? From the abstract:

“Applying biomass burning BC emission inventories for a strong (1998) and weak (2001) boreal fire year, we estimate global 

annual mean BC/snow surface radiative forcing from all sources (fossil fuel, biofuel, and biomass burning) of +0.054 (0.007

–0.13) and +0.049 (0.007–0.12) W m−2, respectively. Snow forcing from only fossil fuel + biofuel sources is +0.043 W m−2 

(forcing from only fossil fuels is +0.033 W m−2), suggesting that the anthropogenic contribution to total forcing is at least 

80%.”

At least 80% of the soot is caused by BURNING FOSSIL AND BIOFUELS. So his theory is very interesting, and I hope it 

holds up, since it suggests the Arctic ice could rebound much more quickly if we took corrective action. But that corrctive 

action continues to be drastically reducing burning carbon compounds for energy.

hotrod ( Larry L ) says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:25 am

In the 1970′s when worries of “the coming ice age” were all the rage, they were watching the snow extent closely as a leading 

indicator of possible cooling. The concept was based on the albedo changes, and the snow’s effect on heat storage on the land 

mass areas.

A reasonably good analogy would be to think of the land mass as a thermal capacitor, charged with thermal energy by an AC 

signal. 

A given parcel of land grows warmer through the summer, then cools during the winter, eventually reaching some thermal 

equilibrium, where each year on average its temperature oscillates around a uniform temperature. In the northern temperate 

region this temp is approximately the ground water temperature and in much of the U.S. is about 55 deg F. (12.8 deg C).

The period of the global cooling concerns was also about the time the TAPPS study came out for Nuclear Winter, and one of 

the results of that were analysis of the effect of albedo changes on this stable thermal equilibrium temperature. 

If you get early snows in the fall, and late snows in the spring, the increased albedo at times when the sun’s elevation angle is 

high would have much more impact on the thermal energy balance than the same snow extent occurring in the dead of 

winter.

A deep long lasting snow late in the spring would drastically slow the early spring heating (which would slow the entire 

summers heat storage). If you also had deep long lasting snow early in the fall, that would cut off solar heating of the ground 

early.

The worst possible situation would be deep long lasting snowfalls early in the fall, and late in the spring and very little snow 

(thin snow cover) in the depths of the winter. This would minimize heat insulation effects of the snow in the peak cold of the 

winter while still maintaining high albedo.

In the late 1970′s early 1980′s we had a nearly snow less winter here in Colorado and had major problems with deep freeze 

lines in the soil, causing all sorts of problems with frozen water lines etc. as the sharp cold temperatures in January and 

February froze the ground. Construction nearly ground to a halt over the winter as the ground was too hard to dig even with 

back hoes. A friend of mine spent that winter welding new teeth on backhoe buckets for a local construction company.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 12 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Any way back to the snow extent. One of the theories that came out of all this examination of albedo and timing/extent of 

snow was the theory of the “snow blitz” trigger for entering an ice age. Basically they suggested that a couple short summers 

due to heavy snows at the right time, could basically cut off summer time heating enough to trigger a plunge in seasonal 

average temperatures and that global temperatures would follow.

This pattern would have to repeat for several years running and in both hemispheres to trigger a global ice age. The snow 

blitz theory was one attempt to explain what triggering event pushed the climate over the edge into the actual ice age once the 

orbital cycles were in the proper phase to support long term glaciation. Some archelogical evidence showed that the changes 

in flora and fauna at the time of the shift into glacial dominance might happen very quickly (perhaps decades or even a few 

years). This led to hypothesis’s like the snow blitz hypothesis to explain the sudden change in prevailing weather, that lead to 

the change in the general climate. On the oceans the same theory applies to ice cover, as its extent late in the fall and late into 

the spring would strongly effect solar heating of the water beneath the sea ice do to absorption of solar energy. In that case 

the sea ice switches from acting as an insulator to keep the polar seas warm in the dead of the winter into sun shades 

reflecting away heating in the early and late part of the local summer seasons.

http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/the-global-cooling-scare-revisited/

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19750105&id=HI0sAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-

_oDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7160,928089

Larry

John F. Hultquist says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:27 am

Caleb (07:47:41) DirkH (08:15:05) ‘sun rays and molecules’

Figure 2 in the following may be helpful: 

http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm

A C Osborn says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:30 am

I don’t think that a Trend is even necessary, the human eye can see that there is nothing realy going on with the Summer 

graph.

Robert says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:31 am

Steve, points #1 and 2# are great, but you need a point #3:

3. Because warmer air holds more moisture, it can be too cold for snow. Antarctica, very example, is in many places too cold 

for snow. Warmer conditions may increase snow, if they make it warmer but not too warm for snow.

ventana says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:47 am

Spring snow cover is still trending downwards.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 13 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Zeke Hausfather says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:55 am

Steve,

You got your data from Rutgers University Global Snow Lab.

Have you taken the time to examine their snow cover anomaly chart? Its well done, and tells a bit of a different story:

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1

Similarly, just winter extent:

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1

As Anthony is fond of saying, another entry for the “weather is not climate” department.

Lon Hocker says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:00 am

Michael Beenstock’s paper (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/new-paper-on/) and my brilliant analysis 

(http://www.2bc3.com/warming.html) seem to show that there is a feedback mechanism that makes the temperature 

increase due to CO2 temporary. Why this should be so is in question. Perhaps show cover has a role in this somewhere.

Christian A. Wittke says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:01 am

@DirkH

Did we read the same post?

Snow is atmospheric humidity and temperatures below 32°F – or am I wrong?

We have more snow in winters since 1989 now – on the Northern Hemisphere, that’s what the graph suggests and what it 

feels like – but only this winter in Scotland, not the last 10 or so years. 

Are you suggesting that we have more snow because we have the same amount of humidity in the atmosphere but the 

temperatures dropped considerably so what was rain is now snow? Is there any data on that?

If the temperatures have not dropped and the humidity has not increased then where does the snow come from?

From supercharging?

phlogiston says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:08 am

Leif Svalgaard

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 14 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
I grabbed the data rather crudely from the graph with an on-screen ruler, and looked at the curve in Excel.

If we accept an approximation as a two factor scatter, then we get an R2 of 0.307.

Taking the square root of this as r the correlation coefficient, we get 0.554.

Applying an r of 0.554 to the correlation table, taking (also a crude approximation) the number of years minus 2 as the 

degrees of freedom, then the P value is between 0.01 (r=0.537) and 0.001 (r=0.652).

If I’ve cocked this up, let the vultures descend!

Jerry from Boston says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:15 am

“John Innes (08:12:49) : 

For coal-fired power stations, and perhaps to a lesser extent for other soot-generators, it should be cheaper to reduce the soot 

emissions than to extract and sequester the CO2 generated and emitted. ...

Surely we can work from this as a starting point, and get more bang for our warming reduction buck by reducing soot instead 

of CO2? ...”

Well put. Let’s save people who are now inhaling enough soot to kill a half million people per year instead of worrying about 

what people 4 generations down the road will do to respond to gradual sea level rise of less than a foot per century.

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:20 am

R^2 on the winter graph since 1989 is 0.298514013

R^2 on the winter graph since 1999 is 0.312822303 Slope is 317,000 km2/year

R^2 on the weekly graph since 1966 is 0.004697147

R^2 on the weekly graph since 1989 is 5.25176E-05

A C Osborn says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:32 am

Zeke Hausfather (09:55:07) : 

Notice they always use Anomalies, but anomalies from what, there is no “normal” in earth’s climate. They always choose the 

“Base”. Try using the MWP as the base and everything changes. Try using the period when the vikings were in Greenland 

instead and see what you get.

kwik says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:35 am

There are good men in The Netherlands too;

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 15 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
http://www.probeinternational.org/files/UKVersieHenkTennekes.pdf

Matt says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:36 am

Leif,

Couple points – 1. its very rare to use an R^2 value in a time series, unless you expect the relationship to be linear or 

monotonic. 2. Applying an R^2 to a linear fit of an oscillating system also makes no sense whatsoever! Its exactly things like 

this that cause skeptics to not be taken seriously – you fail in basic statistics, but you expect to be able to understand a 

complex climate system? Give me a break!

Lon Hocker says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:38 am

Christian A. Wittke (10:01:43) : 

The world is pretty big, and the climate is wonderfully complex. Dirk H. knows his physics, and is gentle with folks that don’t 

know it as well.

I tend to be a bit more blunt. Be careful using single point variables like atmospheric humidity and temperature to try to 

describe a giga-variabled system.

Matt says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:40 am

A C Osborn,

Setting a different period as the ‘base’ wouldn’t change the shape of the graph, only the zero-intercept of the data. The result 

is still the same.

David Middleton says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:40 am

Steve,

If you plot the average Dec-Feb snow extent against the PDO index, you get a very interesting correlation...

Winter Snow Extent vs PDO

As far as the r-squared goes... It’s a cyclical stochastic process. Unless you have a long enough time series, no reasonable 

trend line will yield a decent r-squared.

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:43 am

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 16 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
phlogiston (10:08:42) : 

if we accept an approximation as a two factor scatter, then we get an R2 of 0.307.

A good way to think of R2 is that it is simply the fraction of the variation that is due to the trend [if the data points are 

independent - which they are not]. So, an R2 of 0.1 means that at least 90% of the variation is not due to the trend, and R2 of 

0.3 means that at least 70% of the variation is not due to the trend. The ‘at least’ comes from the fact hat the autocorrelation 

at log 1 is not zero.

David Middleton says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:44 am

The y-axis for the PDO is reversed (negative is up) in the chart attached to my last post.

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:46 am

Leif Svalgaard (10:43:31) : 

The ‘at least’ comes from the fact that the autocorrelation at lag 1 is not zero.

Max Hugoson says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:54 am

Leif S.

“As you can see in the graph below, the overall annual trend since 1989 has been slightly upwards.

And what is R^2 for that graph?”

Interesting. I don’t recall your EVER asking this for testing out the significance of temperature data. As I have been doing, 

using Student’s T, Mann Whitney, etc. to decide if certain observed changes (comparing year to year, decade to decade and 

century to century) are truely “statistically significant” considering the observed standard deviation. (Of course, these is the 

concept of normalacy and the validty of Student’s versus the non-parametric Mann Whitney test, my judgement is out on 

that. Because if you treat temperatures by “seasons” they are virtually “normal” in distribution. If you go over a chronological 

year, they appear as a bifurcated normal distribution.)

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:00 am

Steve Goddard (10:20:59) : 

R^2 on the winter graph since 1989 is 0.298514013 

R^2 on the winter graph since 1999 is 0.312822303

An interesting graph would be R^2 as a function of start year. And another one the same but without 2009-2010.

JimAsh says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:00 am

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 17 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Just so I cam see if I am following this, I’d appreciate if anyone would tell 

me if I have misunderstood Steve’s post.

Steve Goddard (10:20:59) : 

R^2 on the winter graph since 1989 is 0.298514013 

————Means snow cover has increased somewhat since 89.

R^2 on the winter graph since 1999 is 0.312822303 Slope is 317,000 km2/year 

———Means considerable increase sine 1999

R^2 on the weekly graph since 1966 is 0.004697147 

——–Means when averaged out since 1966, no big deal 

indicating (opinion) that maybe the climatologists have mistaken natural variability ( caused by xxxxx?) for one way climate 

change.

R^2 on the weekly graph since 1989 is 5.25176E-05 

—–Showing that measured from 1989 there has been a significant increase in snow cover.

Do I at least read this right ?

Sordnay says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:05 am

I don’t see the growth represented on second graph on the first one, it looks pretty much constant. 

Also, 2010 isn’t quite finished, it just started, so how was calculated 2010 point on second figure? it seems it will look pretty 

much the same as 2008. 

Any way is hard to look for differences on sinusoidal signals, I like better the anomalies graph as in

http://moe.met.fsu.edu/snow/ though their record isn’t as long, it only goes down to year 2000

Paul Coppin says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:17 am

Hmm. Living in a “snow” country as I do, I’m less than convinced that snow extent is anything more than a weak proxy for 

flow of cP and Arctic air masses. Its certainly not a prioria linear proxy for temperature nor for global cooling. While we’ve 

observed snowfall along a lower latitudinal limit this year than in the previous few years, behind the snow line there are large 

areas with much lower than usual snowfall, and more moderate temps. At my place in S. Ont., for example, we’ve way below 

normal snowfall and temps have stayed moderate all winter (but not warm, i.e. +/- average without the usual large variation 

swings).

I’m a little less sanguine about “records” as well. I seem to recall the Washington record this winter was ~ 1/2 in. more snow 

than the previous record. 1/2 in? A 1/2in of snow measure is meaningless in a pile several inches thick, as anyone who lives 

with snow will tell you. This is an anecdotal record, not a scientific one.

Tim Clark says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:21 am

vukcevic (07:36:13) : 

Keeps deep frost away from the ground surface. Any farmer will know benefits of the winter snow cover.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 18 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Henry chance (08:05:49) : 

Snow cover is God’s gift to winter wheat fields. It is so many times better than mere rain fall.

The only advantage to snow versus rain is in cases where slow snowmelt occurs leading to increased percolation resulting in 

reduced runoff in spring (March, April, May). 

Frost actually mellows the ground due to frost heave and aids in spring sowing. It also kills insect eggs and larvae in the soil, 

and some weeds and weed seeds.

A persistent, deep snow cover winterkills winter annuals (wheat, rapeseed, winter peas, etc.).

So no, we don’t want increased long lived snow cover in the US at least.

Gary Hladik says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:22 am

Robert (09:24:32) : “At least 80% of the soot is caused by BURNING FOSSIL AND BIOFUELS. So his theory is very 

interesting, and I hope it holds up, since it suggests the Arctic ice could rebound much more quickly if we took corrective 

action. But that corrctive action continues to be drastically reducing burning carbon compounds for energy.”

...by inefficient soot-producing methods and instead burning them in modern efficient power plants, and switching from 

wood/grass/dung cooking fires to natural gas, and producing abundant energy from nuclear power, etc.

Fixed that for you, Robert. No thanks necessary.

vukcevic says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:29 am

Only thing that makes any sense here is: 

delta area/delta time 

or to make more sense trend expressed as % pa, which is roughly 0.22% pa 

(no calculator or excel needed).

Zeke Hausfather says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:30 am

Perhaps a cherry-pick-proof graph would help clarify this morass.

Here is the trend to present for every week since 1966 for each season. 

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture41.png

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:39 am

Matt (10:36:58) : 

Applying an R^2 to a linear fit of an oscillating system also makes no sense whatsoever! 

If you consider the system to be an oscillation riding on a linear trend, then it does make sense to compute R^2 as a measure 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 19 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
of the significance of the trend. In interpreting R^2 you must then take into account the non-zero autocorrelation due to the 

oscillation. There are standard techniques to do all this. One way of looking at this is to average over each cycle and plot the 

cycle averages as a function of time. This makes perfect sense. R^2 will still show how much of the variation is due to the 

trend. Here is a little experiment: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycles-with-Trends.png

I generated 17 perfect sine waves [black curves] and ran a linear regression. The result was y = 0.00 x + 0 with R^2 = 0 as 

expected. No trend. Then I added a linear trend of 0.01 per step in x [red curve], result of linear regression: y = 0.01 x + 0 

with R^2 = 0.1525. Perfectly reasonable as the trend explains 15.25% of the variation. Then I added a trend of 0.02 [green 

curve], result y = 0.02 + 0 with R^2 = 0.4185, i.e. the trend [which is recovered perfectly from the analysis] explains 41.85% 

of the variation, etc.

No problem here whatsoever. No failing of statistics. For the green curve, t is 27.3 and p = 4*10^(-124). The significance is 

enormous for this case [I had 1037 points]. With fewer data points the significance drops dramatically: with 23 points t=7.92 

and p= 0.00063, but then there is no noise, etc. 

R^2 is a good measure of how much of the variation is due to a linear trend, no matter what the data looks like.

JonesII says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:40 am

The global warming debate has until now focused almost entirely on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions

What “global warming debate”? There isn’t any. It has been debunked. It’s over!

wayne says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:40 am

Steve Goddard (10:20:59) :

A better R^2 on your second graph of winter snowfall would be to add every point with preceding point and plot as two-year 

accumulated snowfall. That R^2 should show much better correlation and is still proper statistics if you state the results 

properly. See stat book for proper title, seems would be “The Two Year Accumulated Winter Snowfall”. Could do it for threeyear of more. Might uncover a hidden high-freq component.

vukcevic says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:42 am

JonesII (11:08:36) : 

“Not everything is bad news. Here, an image by NASA, of Andromeda in the infrarred: 

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/427020main_pia12832-c.jpg”

Or you can sun on your I-phone, real indulgence for a SS insomniac. 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/iphone-sun.html

frozenohio says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:48 am

I’m getting a bit tired of shoveling all this high humidity....

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 20 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Brent Hargreaves says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:04 pm

Sorry folks, I’m normally an avid fan of this superb website. But this discussion strand is futile. We sneer at the crazy 

warming gang when they extrapolate a small dataset to the point of absurdity; please let’s not do the same. 

It has snowed a little, so what?. Two swallows do not a summer make.

Ric Werme says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:12 pm

Steve Goddard (10:20:59) :

> R^2 on the winter graph since 1989 is 0.298514013

9 significant figures? Careful – Leif will start teaching you about significant digits and error bars.

UnfrozenCavemanMD says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:12 pm

Even intelligent, educated, and well-meaning people can convince themselves of all kinds of wrong things when analyzing 

large volumes of data from multiple experiments. It takes extraordinary discipline to keep oneself from being led astray by 

phantoms.

What has been demonstrated here is that the northern Winter snow extent has very large year-to-year variability, and can not 

be used to support a warming trend, or a cooling trend, during all or part of the last 40 years. That is itself a useful finding. 

Some of the remarks made here regarding statistics have been mistaken. R-squared, in particular, is perfectly valid as a test 

of the assertion that time is responsible for some of the variation. But for year-on-year variations, it is necessary to annualize 

it first, either with seasonal averages, as above, or some other filter that removes the yearly cycle. Applying it to the raw 

weekly Rutgers snow cover data for the last 40 years makes no sense, but to a Dec-Feb annual average, or a 52-week average, 

makes perfect sense.

buddy says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:13 pm

@ Sordnay (11:05:01) :

I’m trying to figure out how that is representative of reality. On Feb 12 we had one of the largest winter storms in the 

southeast in a long time, and it barely registers on that chart, if at all? I mean heck, you can look here:

http://ge.ssec.wisc.edu/modis-today/index.php?

satellite=t1&product=true_color&date=2010_02_13_044&overlay_sector=false&overlay_state=true&overlay_coastline=true§or

And see snow cover (howbeit shortlasting) all the way to north florida, but somehow that doesn’t even register on the chart. I 

wonder how they calculate ‘added snow cover’ because that chart does not seem indicative of what is on the ground right now 

in many parts of the South East. Does that cover has to remain on the ground for a week for it to register? Doesn’t seem to 

jive with the reality to me, at least.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 21 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
buddy says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:15 pm

Sorry I just noticed green is ‘climatology from 95-09′ so it does make a little more sense on the graph, even if the blue/red 

chart doesn’t

buddy says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:18 pm

@ Brent Hargreaves (12:04:02) : 

It ‘snowed a bit?’ This is the second highest extent in the northern hemisphere on record.

Fred H. Haynie says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:19 pm

Caleb,

Snow is not a perfect reflector. In fact, because of it’s structure, fresh snow acts as a black body. The high energy shortwave 

radiation from the sun rapidly melts the surface which freezes to form an ice crust that is more of a reflector. But even ice is 

transparent like glass and the fraction of the energy reflected back to space depends on the angle of incidence. It does radiate 

low energy longwaves as a function of surface temperature. Much of the outbound longwave radiation from the top of the 

atmosphere measured by satalites is frozen cloud tops.

Oliver K. Manuel says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:21 pm

Quote: Steve Goddard (08:42:01) : 

1. “I am completely at a loss as to what some people are disputing.”

Reply: Someone – skilled in bamboozle propaganda techniques – is purposely directing attention away from undisputed 

facts that would embarrass NASA and/or Hansen. 

2. “We have been told over and over again since Hansen spoke to Congress in 1989, that winter snow is declining and that 

winter storms are moving north.”

Reply: That is exactly what the propaganda artist seeks to hide.

3. “Clearly that is not happening, quite the opposite.”

You are exactly right.

Since that fact can’t be disputed, a talented propaganda artist might direct attention to R^2, 4/3(pi)R^2, PV = nRT, or 

anything else to bamboozle the audience. 

Thanks, Steve Goddard, for this post.

A least one of your critics is more talented in propaganda than in science.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 22 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
With kind regards, 

Oliver K. Manuel

John A says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:21 pm

I’m sorry Steve Goddard, but I think that the conclusion is largely cherry-picked from the time series and the trend is likely to 

be spurious. Yes 2010 appears to be a large extension of winter snowfall, but its one season.

As Leif points out, the low R2 of the points says that most of the apparent trend is scatter and not significant.

I think we have to wait a lot longer to see proof that the decline of NH snow cover since the 1960s has been broken.

JonesII says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:24 pm

vukcevic (11:42:13) :That Iphone-Sun it is undoubtely an “electric sun”, even Prof.Leif will agree.☺

John Galt says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:26 pm

1) The data does not go back that far. Like much of the over-hyped climate and weather records, it’s just no enough data to 

get excited about. 

2) There is no increase in snowcover (predicted by AGW proponents) .

3) There is no decrease in snowcover (also predicted by AGW proponents).

JonesII says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:28 pm

...not to mention that Birkeland current in the Andromeda Nasa picture.

King of Cool says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:29 pm

Question 

Why is the arctic ice extent so low for the time of year despite recent cool weather? Despite cool temperatures over most of 

the Arctic Ocean in January, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below normal. By the end of January, ice extent dropped 

below the extent observed in January 2007 etc, etc?

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100203092427AAzTQYz

Looks like some-one needs to ask Yahoo UK a supplementary question:

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 23 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
If there is global warming why has Arctic Ice Extent risen above that of 2005-6 and 2006-7?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Pascvaks says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:34 pm

Steve Goddard:

Is the Arctic Sea Ice anomaly graph at the following link actually saying the same thing that you’re saying about the snow? -

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

If so, or not, could you help me understand how your graph and the one at this link fit together. TIA

kadaka says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:36 pm

If I was to look at the top chart as plotting amplitude, while a sinusoidal signal was controlling the gain, I would wonder what 

all the distortion at the top of the range is about. Is the amplifier maxed out? Otherwise, as charted, I don’t see either way 

what all the noise is about.

(Pun originally unintended, but I saw it and left it in. If people are willing to let the IPCC get away with it, well then...)

Ed says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:41 pm

Zeke Hausfather (11:30:43) : 

“Perhaps a cherry-pick-proof graph would help clarify this morass.

Here is the trend to present for every week since 1966 for each season. 

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture41”

Great graph. If there is more snow in the Winter and Fall, and less in the Spring and Summer, doesn’t that imply a shifting of 

the seasons, towards earlier Winters?

rbateman says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:44 pm

For an historical last snow remaining on a 7,000′ peak 1902-1981: 

http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SnowOnBally.GIF

The Young family kept this record. It corresponds roughly to the US snow extent minimums where they overlap in time. 

Are there other records of this type in the US? 

A proxy could be built.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 24 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Bruce says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:45 pm

Brent Hargreaves: “It has snowed a little, so what?. ”

The issue is that the Team is claiming it has snowed a lot less. Thats a lie.

Kay says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:46 pm

Total amateur here. The last time I took statistics, we didn’t have Excel to do this for you...hell, we didn’t even have graphing 

calculators. So be gentle. :)

I’m afraid to post this, but I did the entire thing, including the first 10 weeks of 2010, and I got a flat trend line with an r^2 of 

1.0. That’s 43 years of data. 

I didn’t want to, but I averaged the yearly values–all I have is Excel and it won’t let you exceed 255 lines of data, and this has 

almost 2300. And I was in a hurry–I’ll double check it again later. If anyone knows how to increase the number of points 

Excel will let you work with, please let me know.

There are spikes in 1966 (partial year), 1969, and 1971. After that, it drops sharply to 1974, comes up in 1976, and then stays 

relatively flat till this year, but it’s only February so we’ll just have to see how that plays out. The minimum is in 1990.

Jaye says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:47 pm

Karl B. (09:05:32) Tom P is an RC mercenary. I’ve seen him at CA and this site taking pot shots.

RobfromWI says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:49 pm

BrentI agree. This is kind of a joke. Going back to 1989? Give me a graph that goes back 200 years or more and we’ll start to talk. 

I’m 100% anti AGW and man induced warming, but we need more then this. 

We will get another ice age guys, it will happen, just give it time. Anyone who thinks climate will just stay in one state is 

nuts...maybe for a human life time span it may seem that way, but unless you get to live through the “flip” its hard to grasp 

how big the changes can be. For my kid’s future, i hope we blowtoch like no tomorrow and all the ice melts and the temps 

soar :)

I was always under the assumption winter snowcover was good for crops, but i could be wrong. Without snowcover, areas of 

Wisconsin have had frost depths of over 50 inches. With snowcover, my frost depth right now is 8 inches or less and its been 

COLD, especially at night. I know a lot of snow sucks in spring because it retards warming (albedo) and also is the cause of 

flooding, but a lot of that is just stupid people building in areas they shouldn’t. 

Ice ages? I thought the assumption was that if winter was WARMER and summer was COLDER then you could/would build 

an ice sheet. The warmer winter would allow more snowfall and the colder summer would allow less melting, rinse and 

repeat.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 25 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
E.M.Smith says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:51 pm

I’d also point out that with an ever growing percentage of thermometers at Airports (where snow is typically cleared away so 

that the airport can function) there is a bias in the temperature record due to this. While there may not be many take off / 

landing events during snow season, especially at smaller airports, the tarmac never leaves....

So “snow extent” tells you more about where snow has actually stuck to the ground (and implicitly how warm that ground is 

– the melt line of 32 F / 0 C) while the temperatures may just reflect the temperatures of a black asphalt patch in the sun on a 

clear day... with 2 feet of snow in the woods a few miles away...

Put more bluntly: If a fine dusting of soot can melt snow, just think what acres of tarmac in the sun can do to a 

thermometer...

Matt says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:52 pm

Leif,

What equation are you using to calculate R^2 in your example? I have a feeling something is wrong, since the R^2 should be 

very similar in all three of those cases. A good illustration of what R^2 shows can be found here 

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CorrelationCoefficient.html As R^2 -> 1, the points being fit lie closer and closer to the fit 

line. 

It sounds to me like you’re just applying statistical measures with no understanding of their significance or purpose...

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 18, 2010 at 12:57 pm

JonesII (12:28:07) : 

...not to mention that Birkeland current in the Andromeda Nasa picture.

There is no Birkeland current visible in that picture. C.P.Snow was lamenting the schism between ‘the two cultures’. Other 

people have proposed that a ‘third culture’ exists http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/

Your post and others of the same ilk show that there is a fourth culture out there of science illiterates. This is a dangerous 

situation in an age where we depend more and more on science and the scientific approach. This is a new Dark Age arising.

HankHenry says:

February 18, 2010 at 1:04 pm

With snow it seems like you have two things at war. Snow does increase albedo tending to perpetuate cold conditions, but on 

the other hand it also insulates the ground preventing deep penetrating cold. I have to think these kinds of “warring” things 

tend to make climate an inherently unstable weatherlike kind of thing. 

Being a farmer I really do think we could use a little global warming to guarantee our crops against fluky one or two hundred 

year frosts. A frost that might come about if you had an early winter hard freeze with no snow cover followed by a deep 

extensive snow. I can’t, for sure, say that this would translate into a June frost but it certainly would make it more difficult to 

get the crop planted in a timely fashion. By the way, there is still a good deal (maybe 5%) of corn standing unharvested in 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 26 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Northern Illinois due to last years cool summer, difficult fall harvest, and snowy winter conditions. That much corn 

unharvested is UNPRECEDENTED – not to coin a phrase.

Duster says:

February 18, 2010 at 1:18 pm

John A (12:21:26) :

“I’m sorry Steve Goddard, but I think that the conclusion is largely cherry-picked from the time series and the trend is likely 

to be spurious. Yes 2010 appears to be a large extension of winter snowfall, but its one season.

As Leif points out, the low R2 of the points says that most of the apparent trend is scatter and not significant. ...”

davidmhoffer says:

February 18, 2010 at 1:19 pm

I think I have an alternate explanation. Some time ago I offered to co-integrate my lifetime data set series with my WOC 

(woman of choice). The WOC lifetime data set series has now been co-integrated with my own for 30 years. As a direct 

consequence of co-integration, several children (C) were formed. The C elements as stand alone were highly unstable from 

the start, but over time began forming unstable relationships with Others (O) of opposite polarity. These were also unstable 

for the most part with frequent discarding of one O in favour of another. Eventually however some of the CO relationships 

stabilized, producing an additional O with close bonds to both the C and the O. The unit as a whole is referred to as CO2. At 

time of writing, no CO3 has yet emerged.

I graphed Ti (total income) against Te (total expenses) to get Tr (total retained) and determined an inverse correlation with 

Tr to amount of C supported. The trend tailed off after CO stabilization, but with a HUGE downward inflection at WC 

(wedding ceremony). I conclude therefore, that Tr is inversely proportional to frequency of C, but that increases in CO2 

instigate a major negative short term fluctuation with no long term trends following.

However, as to the current snowfall and cold weather, I must advise that my WOC recently requested an analysis regarding 

“dress” and “perception of fat”. My analysis was poorly presented, resulting in outright rejection and a pronounced cooling 

trend in the immediate vicinity. Until reading this post I had no idea the effects were so wide spread. I have ordered large 

quantities of S (sparklies) and F (flowers) and having oberved the cyclical nature of this particular type of cooling trend in the 

past, am predicting a warming trend in the coming weeks for the northern hemisphere at a minimum.

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 18, 2010 at 1:22 pm

Matt (12:52:57) : 

I have a feeling something is wrong, since the R^2 should be very similar in all three of those cases.

Certainly not. Try to do as I did. Generate y = sin(x) + a*x 

and use your favorite formula to calculate R^2.

The one you cite will do fine: 

A good illustration of what R^2 shows can be found here...

It sounds to me like you’re just applying statistical measures with no understanding of their significance or purpose...

Revisit this statement after you have completed the above assignment.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 27 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Mike Lorrey says:

February 18, 2010 at 1:22 pm

An important thing to note is that the US started installing scrubbers in coal plant smokestacks in the early 70′s, and 86 was 

around the time that China started expanding their energy infrastructure significantly, all coal plants with zero scrubbers...

carrot eater says:

February 18, 2010 at 1:23 pm

Has anybody bothered to see what the published literature actually says about snowfall predictions?

I haven’t had time to get into this topic, but the one paper I have on hand is observational, not modeling. Changnon, 

Changnon and Karl, 2006.

They observed maybe an *increase* in snowstorms vs time in the US, over the entire last century, but the data is really really 

noisy. 

Broken down by region, it’s even noisier.

This backs up what Leif is insisting on, when looking for the strength of the correlation. Snowfall data is very noisy, and you 

can fool yourself into seeing a trend where there’s just noise.

In that context, I’m not sure if anything would surprise me, out of a single winter. Snowfall is truly weather.

davidmhoffer says:

February 18, 2010 at 1:24 pm

Tom_R (09:12:23) : 

Hmm, as I write this I realize that the photon changes direction, but doesn’t lose energy since the wavelength doesn’t change. 

How is energy conserved when the air molecule gains kinetic energy but the photon energy remains the same?>

My recollection is that a photon has no mass so can’t transfer any kinetic energy?

David Middleton says:

February 18, 2010 at 1:28 pm

Leif Svalgaard (11:39:31) : 

[...]

R^2 is a good measure of how much of the variation is due to a linear trend, no matter what the data looks 

like.

Wouldn’t that R^2 only be meaningful if you had a long enough time series to cover several complete cycles?

The Rutgers snow extent data only goes back to 1966. If the climate follows a ~60-yr cycle tied to the PDO and/or ENSO, 

1966-2009 wouldn’t even cover one full cycle. Wouldn’t a linear or secular trend derived from such a short time series be 

spurious?

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 28 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
If I draw a linear trend-line through less than one full cycle of a sin wave with no underlying secular trend, I get an R^2 of 

0.88...

Sin Wave 1906-1913

belvedere says:

February 18, 2010 at 3:22 pm

U know what i am afraid of?

That they will push full throtle on the weather machine HAARP and give us hellish high temps in the summer of 2010 on 

some big locations.. 

They use the olympics too for convincing us that global warming is real.. If the olympics cant continue then there must be 

global warming!!

Or is mother Earth more powerfull? Which i hope..

1DandyTroll says:

February 18, 2010 at 3:32 pm

So the logic is that with a slight larger area covered in the summer and more so in the winter is due to soot for the summer 

cover, but only for the summer cover and only back in the day when the summer cover wasn’t as wide as today.

Come again?

belvedere says:

February 18, 2010 at 3:35 pm

There is a total media blackout on the snowfall in America in the Netherlands. 

They mentioned it 2 or 3 times in the news and then went on to the order of the new world.. 

War, theft, murder, lies and cheating.. Thats all we ever get to see on the television.. Since i started to see through the lies of 

commercials and stuff, i seem to want to wake more people up.. Show them that the global warming scare is one big 

conspiracy and helps only 2 goals.. Estabecialing a NWO government and filling in the gap between truth and fiction! Truth: 

CO2 is not dangerous and needed, fiction: CO2 is a polution and very bad for our planet..

But u know what the answer is of most people i speak to? 

I cannot change anyting about it, it doesnt help me if i know, so i just sit here and do nothing.. :-(

They wanna help the planet, but not by believing in “conspiracies”.. The movies told them so...

carrot eater says:

February 18, 2010 at 3:36 pm

Steve Goddard (08:42:01) :

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 29 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
“We have been told over and over again since Hansen spoke to Congress in 1989, that winter snow is declining”

Please provide a link to this statement or publication from Hansen. I’m not familiar with it.

Bruce says:

February 18, 2010 at 3:51 pm

Leif: “This is a new Dark Age arising”

Do you mean the one where most people no longer trust scientists because “Climate Scientists” are no more trustworthy than 

MSM “Journalists”.

Who caused that? Which profession kept their mouths shut? Who were too afraid to speak out because they kept getting 

called deniers?

Peer Review is now just another code word for either: 

1) Cronies slapping you on the back 

or 

2) Enemies delibererately shutting out anyone threatening their flow of cash.

davidmhoffer says:

February 18, 2010 at 4:01 pm

HankHenry; 

Snow does increase albedo tending to perpetuate cold conditions, but on the other hand it also insulates the ground 

preventing deep penetrating cold>

Grew up on the farm Hank and your comment gave me an aha! moment. I remember all those years that there wasn’t much 

snow and so it melted pretty quick and everyone got hopefull for an early planting season. But then it seemed that spring just 

couldn’t quite get started and winter would just hang on by its finger nails for the longest time. I’m thinking your post is why, 

but it would be interesting to see if memory is playing tricks on me and compare snow extent to full seeding to see if the 

correlation is real.

E.M.Smith says:

February 18, 2010 at 4:05 pm

Robert (09:24:32) : But that corrctive action continues to be drastically reducing burning carbon compounds for energy. 

Ah, the smell of agenda driven conclusions.... 

How about we just put soot trap oxidizers on the billions of dollars of power plants and vehicles we use? Fast, fairly easy, and 

much much cheaper... You know, like we’ve already done for Diesels in the USA and Europe? 

So the more accurate conclusion would be:

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 30 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Have the 3rd worlders stop burning down the rain forests, and bring them to modernity so they can use natural gas to cook 

instead of trees (see the travesty in Madagascar and the denuded landscape in Haiti as examples of doing it wrong. See 

“Gobar Gas” in India as an example of how to do it right.) 

Get the “newly developing economies” to put trap oxidizers and precipitators on factory smokestacks instead of running wide 

open.

Problem solved. Everyone living happier, healthier, and more PRODUCTIVE lives with wealth creation and modernity.

The alternative path (energy starvation) ends in economic collapse and subsistence living. That ( again, see Haiti and 

Madagascar – and Sudan and... ) leads to a denuded landscape as the forests are pillaged and burned to survive.

The USA has MORE forest / woodlands cover now than a generation or two ago, not less. We don’t need to burn trees any 

more and we produce more food than we can eat (and sell) on the farm land we do have, so more has been allowed to revert 

to scrub and forest. The direct result of using fossil fuels instead of biomass as done in traditional economies.

So before you run off to cause a global economic collapse, throw away a few $Trillion of total capital stock, condemn a few 

Billion people to death and starvation (NOT an overstatement. Shut down the tractors and trucks and see what happens...) 

and generally force everyone who survives to take an axe to the nearest trees to stay warm and cook: Think about the lowly 

‘trap oxidizer’, the electrostatic precipitator, and the natural gas stove... “KISS” principle, please.

jack morrow says:

February 18, 2010 at 4:07 pm

Steve Goddard

You really stirred up a few folks. 

When I get back from Colorado in September, I’ll be sure to let you know if my 20 plus years of observation of the snow-pack 

Around Monarch Pass fits with your increasing snow in NH in the winter. I really hope you are right. 

What a great site. I’m sure everybody agrees except maybe Tom P.

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 4:09 pm

If I said that it has warmed up since 6 AM, some people would complain that I am cherry picking. “Why didn’t I start my 

measurements at 3 PM yesterday?” 

Winter snow extent (like everything in the climate) is cyclical. Prior to 1989 it was going down, and since 1989 it has been 

going up. It makes no sense to apply linear statistical techniques starting at a date on the other leg of the cycle. If snow extent 

was actually linear with time, we would either have no snow or complete snow cover of the entire planet. Obviously neither of 

those is the case. 

The trend for the last twenty years is obvious. Don’t get confused by charlatans. 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dec-feb_snow_ext.png

Ed Scott says:

February 18, 2010 at 4:22 pm

Dr. Tim Ball was interviewed on the Tom Sullivan Show yesterday (16 Feb 2010) in regard to Tim’s views on global 

warming/climate change.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 31 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Dr. Ball proposed the anology of the red noise of an individual in a large stadium and the roar (white noise) heard outside the 

stadium with the IPCC’s conclusion that the individual (CO2) red noise is responsible for the white noise (global 

warming/climate change). 

————————————————————-

Sunspots and Cosmic Radiation 

Governments Plan for Warming Based On Corrupt IPCC Science 

By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, February 18, 2010 

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20150

Do Nothing Than The Wrong Thing 

The IPCC was deliberately focused on establishing human causes of climate change so it failed to consider major natural 

causes. Chief among these were changes in the Sun. It was also deliberately directed to proving CO2 and especially human 

CO2 was the cause of warming and climate change. This became the basis of all government’s energy and environmental 

policies, which assume warming is the only possibility. A real scientific investigation would establish natural climate 

variability and mechanisms first, which is further proof of the political exploitation of the issue. It is better to do nothing than 

do the wrong thing for the wrong reason.

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 4:27 pm

Someone here suggested that they won’t trust a trend that is less than 200 years. 

If snow extent increased at the current 10 year rate of 200km2/year for 200 years, that would cover all of the currently bare 

ares Asia, Europe and North America. i.e, an ice age.

Climate is cyclical – over the last two hundred years, snow cover has gone through many phases where it has increased and 

many where it has shrunk. People who insist on doing a a linear fit or linear analysis across different legs of a cycle, are just 

not thinking clearly.

davidmhoffer says:

February 18, 2010 at 4:35 pm

Steve Goddard; 

The trend for the last twenty years is obvious. Don’t get confused by charlatans.>

I’m a confirmed skeptic Steve, and I don’t dispute your data for a moment. That said, there is about 10 years of data on 

AMSU-A. Now 20 years is not enough data for a measure of climate, so the last 10 is even worse.... But, that data still shows a 

slight upward temperature trend over the last 10 years at sea surface, near surface, and lower atmosphere while snow extent 

is also rising. How do you reconcile these?

Larry Kirk says:

February 18, 2010 at 4:41 pm

@ Fred H. Haynie (12:19:57) : 

‘Snow is not a perfect reflector. In fact, because of it’s structure, fresh snow acts as a black body. The high energy shortwave 

radiation from the sun rapidly melts the surface which freezes to form an ice crust that is more of a reflector. But even ice is 

transparent like glass and the fraction of the energy reflected back to space depends on the angle of incidence. It does radiate 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 32 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
low energy longwaves as a function of surface temperature. Much of the outbound longwave radiation from the top of the 

atmosphere measured by satalites is frozen cloud tops.’

So there should be two factors working against the equator-ward extension of snow cover: the increasing effective radiation 

intensity (as the angle of incidence of the incoming radiation becomes progressively normal to the ground surface), and the 

increasing absorbtion of that radiation by the fallen snow/ice crust (as reflection decreases with increasing the angle of 

incidence). Though it will be more complex than this of course, due to atmospheric scattering of the incoming radiation.

wayne says:

February 18, 2010 at 4:47 pm

Steven Goddard:

I think your article was great. Maybe a needed a tidbit deeper analysis and style according to some. Here’s a statistical 

curiosity.

Using your weekly global data, just analyze the period from first week of 1989 forward. The linear trend is basically flat. 

Assuming y is in sq.km, the upward slope is a positive 39 sq.km per week over that 21 year period. It is then factual that no 

decrease has occurred since 1988 and all of the decrease in snowfall occurred prior to 1989. During 1967 to 1988 the decrease 

was a negative 620 sq.km per week over that period. Wow.

That’s new news to me anyway, that the decrease in snowfall many tout and tie to AGW stopped long, long ago and has been 

a falsehood for two decades now.

(If you want good R^2 for some, annualize the data first. You get the same trend line, but many magnitudes of better R^2. 

However, I won’t go there, R^2 is meaningless in this context unless the data was supposed to be a dead straight line and you 

want to guage how close the data is to being linear in fact, then it could have meaning.)

Robert says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:00 pm

“The 28 year trend in snow extent derived from visible and passive microwave satellite data indicates an annual decrease of 

approximately 1 to 3 percent per decade with greater deceases of approximately 3 to 5 percent during spring and summer. 

Precipitation in regions of seasonal snow cover appears to be constant or increasing slightly in some locations over the same 

time period, which suggests that diminishing snow cover is the result of increasing temperatures. One region where the snow 

appears to be diminishing rapidly is the Western United States, especially in spring when the duration of snow cover has 

been decreasing by 2-3 days per decade (see blue-colored areas in the Spring Duration figure). This satellite-derived trend 

agrees with direct measurement of snow depth and extent on the ground.”

Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining Mountain Snowpack in Western North America. 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86: 39-49.

Maybe the last four years have changed the trend, but it seems like summer snow continues to decline.

“The alternative path (energy starvation) ends in economic collapse and subsistence living.”

Wrong on two counts: reducing CO2 emissions and other methods to reduce AGW are not an either/or proposition, and 

reducing emissions has never been shown to imply “energy starvation” or any of the other terrible consequences antimitigation alarmists posit without offering evidence.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 33 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Robert says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:02 pm

[img]http://s4.hubimg.com/u/2255951_f520.jpg[/img]

Robert says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:03 pm

Shoot, didn’t work. Summer snow extent through 2008. Significant decline.

It's always Marcia, Marcia says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:06 pm

You are certain it is soot that is causing the change in summer snow?

Robert says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:11 pm

When I go to Rutger’s Global Snow Lab (which is an awesome site, by the way) the graphs it generates for me look very 

different than the ones Mr Goddard is using. Take a look for yourself:

Winter: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1

I don’t see a trend. If it’s there it’s subtle.

Fall: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=4

A lot of variability. No trend I can see.

Spring: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2

Now there’s a trend. Snow extent is way down.

Summer: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=3

Again, dramatically lower. 2008 is a record low; 2009 is the second-lowest.

The overall trend seems to be the reverse of what Mr Goddard is describing.

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:12 pm

davidmhoffer,

My point is that winter snow cover has been extending towards lower latitudes over the last twenty years, which goes against 

the endless claims that snow cover is decreasing and storms are moving north. 

I’m not definitely not trying to predict a long term climatological trend into the future.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 34 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
carrot eater says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:14 pm

Steve Goddard (16:09:58) : 

The point is that since we have a longer data set, we have some idea of what the variability in that data set is. Given that 

knowledge, your trend is not distinct from the variability of the data. If you’re OK with that, then fine.

By the way, from the IPCC report, 

[SCA = snow covered area] 

“From 1915 to 2004, North American SCA increased in November, December and January owing to increases in precipitation 

(Section 3.3.2; Groisman et al., 2004). Decreases in snow cover are mainly confined to the latter half of the 20th century, and 

are most apparent in the spring period over western North America (Groisman et al., 2004). Shifts towards earlier melt by 

about eight days since the mid-1960s were also observed in northern Alaska (Stone et al., 2002).”

So decreases in wintertime snow extent are maybe not expected in North America, after all. You might have checked that 

first.

vigilantfish says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:19 pm

Leif: “This is a new Dark Age arising”:

I am astonished you should come to this conclusion based on the supposed (or even real) ignorance of participants at 

WUWT. Unless people here were 100% science literate, apparently we count as a rising hoard of barbarians. Yet scientists 

themselves display gross ignorance across disciplines – how’s your microbiology and understanding of PCR and the methods 

of genetic modification, for example? One does not expect specialists in one scientific feel to be able to address the esoteric 

and technical aspects of experts in another field. C.P. Snow lived too early – there’s a gulf between scientific disciplines let 

alone between the science community and non-scientists.

And yet here we find a blog which is engaging non-scientists in some of the most pressing questions created by scientists – 

and with good reason. The AGW CO2 theory has needed a good dose of skepticism from everyone, because, as has been well 

documented since Climategate, and was evident even before this — with examples of scientists losing their positions over 

failing to toe the AGW line — the ‘science’ has been dangerously tainted by the political advocacy of some of its most 

influential leaders. They have been allowing their science to be used to justify one of the most egregious attempts at grabbing 

and redistributing wealth from citizens bamboozled by expertise.

I’m not a scientist, I’m a historian of science, and I felt concern when the ‘scientific barbarians’ like Mann decided that they 

could massage a well documented historical phenomenon – the MWP – out of existence by superimposing various scientific 

proxies on top of the written record. Barbarism extends in many different directions, and one manifestation is to forget or 

deliberately obliterate the past for political or propagandistic purposes– and there is no denying that science was used in a 

propagandistic fashion by Mann. No matter how energetically Gavin is currently trying to rewrite the history of AGW 

propaganda on the MWP (and his own past proclamations), the fact remains that for nearly 10 years an important historical 

era and the quiet and professional work of many historians was being ignored and even ridiculed for ‘scientific’ purposes. But 

historians are evidently among the barbarians whose rising you fear, since we do not share all of your professional 

understanding. Insulted? You bet!

Incidentally, I am encouraged by seeing here at WUWT and elsewhere the greatest signs of amateur interest in science 

probably science the end of the era of amateur science at the turn of the last century. And bloggers here are generally justified 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 35 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
in being sceptical in tone due to the arrogance and condescension with which their concerns have been treated by Mann, 

Jones, the IPCC et al in the past. Not a good idea to pour contempt on those you are perhaps trying to impress.

vigilantfish says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:23 pm

Sorry -several mistakes in last post: I meant to say:

Incidentally, I am encouraged by seeing here at WUWT and elsewhere the greatest signs of amateur interest in science 

probably SINCE the end of the era of amateur science at the turn of the last century.

“science” was on my mind!

REPLY: FYI, your last comment ended up in spam and was accidentally deleted with a bunch of viagra, I saw it sail by. 

You’ll have to try again, sorry,m Anthony

Bruce of Newcastle says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:23 pm

Leif Svalgaard (12:57:36) : 

“...This is a new Dark Age arising.”

Leif – you may be more correct than you realise. The Dark Age at around about 450-700AD corresponds to “Bond Event 1′′, 

the last Bond event, when apparently climate related migrations helped cause the fall of the western Roman empire. Bond 

estimates 1470 +/- 500 years between these cycles, which means we’re about due. (ref: Science v278, p1257)

Re the maximum NH snow extent, one possibly interesting correlation is land temperature vs snow extent (can’t be UAH 

series since data range needs to be over at least one PDO cycle). Everyone has been arguing about R^2, it might be 

interesting to see how correlated these variables are. If R^2 is high then we have ourselves a nice little feedback of humidity-

>snow->albedo correcting for increased solar W/m2 etc. 

On the other hand I don’t see how the increasing Antarctic sea ice extent fits with this since sea ice doesn’t equate to snow.

carrot eater says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:24 pm

Steve Goddard (16:27:25) :

“People who insist on doing a a linear fit or linear analysis across different legs of a cycle, are just not thinking clearly.”

You don’t have to draw the line through the entire data set. But if you pick a subsection, then you have to pass a higher 

statistical bar to reach significance. Otherwise, you cannot say your trend is different from the noise.

I could note that it warmed up a lot from 1996 to 1998. It’d definitely be a true statement. But I would not call it a trend.

By the way, I’m still looking for any signs that Hansen or anybody else was proclaiming that winter snow extent was 

decreasing over the US. Still haven’t found it. Do you have anything?

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 36 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
wayne says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:25 pm

Larry Kirk (16:41:29) :

Could you clarify a bit on that thought of snow’s ability to reflect. Does that have to do with the fact that the thinner a surface 

is (low optical path length) the less emissivity it has? Read somewhere that emissivity is always stated for a surface of infinite 

thickness.

Is that the releated factor of snow crystals you speak of or something entirely different?

Eric (skeptic) says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:32 pm

Fred H. Haynie (12:19:57) said “Much of the outbound longwave radiation from the top of the atmosphere measured by 

satalites is frozen cloud tops.”

I agree with everything else you said, but not this. Muchof the longwave measured by the satellites is radiated from low 

(unfrozen) cloud tops and clear sky. The higher and colder the cloud tops, the less longwave that they radiate. That’s why the 

IR satellite picture is in false color (e.g. http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/east/latest_eastir.jpg) showing bright white for cold 

cloud tops and darker colors for low clouds and no clouds. If they used real color, the high clouds of (e.g. thunderstorms and 

hurricanes) would not show up and the warm ground would, and the picture would be useless.

This is another reason why global warming is so heavily dependent on clouds, not snow on the ground, or CO2 in the air (esp 

in cloudy skies). The low clouds from GCR are hypothesized to radiate more IR to space and cause global cooling. Conversely 

high clouds radiate less and cause global warming.

Dermot O'Logical says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:34 pm

Please find below an interesting (to me, if no-one else) breakdown of the growth in snow extent for each week of the year, 

using the full raw data set from the Rutgers snow lab.

This is hugely amateur effort, hacking around with Excel and probably statistically worthless, but it says to me that the eye is 

drawn to peaks in graphs, and not slopes.

I basically pivotted the data to plot the extent as a function of year for each week, giving me 53 series of data. I then used 

Excel’s linear trendline function to give me a gradient for each series (ie each week), and an R^2. The results are below.

What is telling is that there is a positive gradient only for weeks 1, 3, 4, 47, 48, 50, 51 and 52. Negative gradients (suggesting a 

reduction in extent over time) are found for every other week, and significantly steeper than positive gradients. Plot the 

“Increase per year” / “Week” data below to see what I mean.

My “analysis” (worth what you paid for it) is that the snow extent is falling for most weeks of the year. I have zero idea what 

implications that has, but I think it contradicts Steve’s interpretation that extent is increasing.

Anyway, source data, methods and results freely disclosed for peer review – I’d be interested in your comments.

Regards,

Dermot

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 37 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Week,Increase per year,R^2 

1,10840,0.00570 

2,-15046,0.00790 

3,5791.1,0.00140 

4,5937.1,0.00140 

5,-6092.6,0.00220 

6,-37411,0.04000 

7,-24899,0.01590 

8,-24303,0.02450 

9,-35498,0.04950 

10,-72719,0.16240 

11,-84099,0.19790 

12,-66987,0.15870 

13,-50607,0.06910 

14,-56710,0.09580 

15,-53113,0.10290 

16,-79549,0.19180 

17,-60042,0.11990 

18,-75881,0.24170 

19,-75959,0.21560 

20,-48842,0.09170 

21,-87189,0.24530 

22,-77784,0.16670 

23,-119080,0.33880 

24,-106579,0.34560 

25,-94858,0.30870 

26,-86636,0.32810 

27,-100677,0.51870 

28,-75222,0.47350 

29,-68542,0.48230 

30,-61234,0.47860 

31,-52238,0.39010 

32,-35916,0.38450 

33,-33119,0.27900 

34,-27393,0.19950 

35,-24235,0.14650 

36,-9935.9,0.03700 

37,-4007.6,0.00240 

38,-1610,0.00010 

39,-18059,0.00830 

40,-35353,0.02590 

41,-48776,0.03750 

42,-51209,0.02940 

43,-28394,0.00950 

44,-24769,0.00900 

45,-16896,0.00530 

46,-16282,0.00600 

47,25341,0.01990 

48,951.56,0.00002 

49,-2583.7,0.00020 

50,24562,0.01700 

51,39445,0.04160 

52,31345,0.03380

53? hmmm...

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 38 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Robert says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:49 pm

From the Rutgers website . . .

“Annual snow cover extent (SCE) over Northern Hemisphere lands averaged 24.4 million square kilometers in 2008. This is 

1.1 million sq. km less than the 39-year average and ranks 2008 as having the 4th least extensive cover on record...”

Stu says:

February 18, 2010 at 5:56 pm

“over the last two hundred years, snow cover has gone through many phases where it has increased and many where it has 

shrunk. People who insist on doing a a linear fit or linear analysis across different legs of a cycle, are just not thinking 

clearly.”

Does the analysis of this data give us insight into any possible causes for these cycles? That seems to be the truly important 

thing here- I’m sorry if someone has already offered a possible explanation, I must have missed it. 

So yeah, why the big dip between 1967 to 1988, as Wayne describes above for instance? Or from another perspective, by 

looking at the whole data, I can kind of make out a cycle of about a decade in length, a rise for 5 years, then a dip for 5 years. 

I’ve no idea if this is significant of anything or not. Given the limited data, we obviously can’t say much about any larger 

cycles that may be occuring.

As you say, we need to get a handle on these cycles. That would presumably come first- before we start beating each other 

over the head over whether what we are seeing is significant in terms of (A)GW, or not.

Richard says:

February 18, 2010 at 6:19 pm

Lief I really do not see what your point is. And I do not think you understand the meaning of R^2 for the trendline in this 

case. Basically it would mean how well does your trendline fit the data and you can see visually the trendline is flat. Thats 

why you graph because the eye can tell you what is probably correct.

I let you off when you made a blunder re black bodies, also about CO2 freezing out of the atmosphere. But you are getting 

insufferable. If you do not have a point keep quiet, just let it go.

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 18, 2010 at 6:29 pm

davidmhoffer (13:24:07) : 

My recollection is that a photon has no mass so can’t transfer any kinetic energy?

A photon has momentum so can give you a kick = increase your kinetic energy.

David Middleton (13:28:38) : 

If I draw a linear trend-line through less than one full cycle of a sin wave with no underlying secular trend, I get an R^2 of 

0.88...

Indeed, and you also get a spurious linear trend. However, if people start out by claiming there is a trend, then they have 

forfeited the wave.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 39 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Bruce (15:51:16) : 

Leif: “This is a new Dark Age arising” 

Do you mean the one where most people no longer trust scientists

No, I do not mean that. I mean that people believe in pseudo-science, which can well be peddled by some scientists [iron 

suns, plasma universes, intelligent design, astrology, young earth, etc]

vigilantfish (17:19:22) : 

Not a good idea to pour contempt on those you are perhaps trying to impress.

This is not about ‘impressing’ anybody. The Dark Age crowd are not trying to learn anything or skeptical, they are pushing 

[hard] an anti-scientific view of the world and are learning-resistant.

Smokey says:

February 18, 2010 at 6:30 pm

When the planet warms, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor. But both specific and relative humidity have been 

steadily declining: click1, click2

R. Gates says:

February 18, 2010 at 6:44 pm

While we’ve seen some record snow this winter, we’ve also seen record tropospheric temperatures. Februrary continues on 

the same track following in the footsteps of a record January. See:

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

For the latest. Note especially sea surface (which is NOT ocean temps) up to 25,000 feet or so. Some of us have pointed out 

that warm temps and more snow go hand in hand in the winter, just as the very cold Antarctic region is also one of the driest 

regions in terms of precip. I maintain that yes...this has been a snowy winter, and the warmer tropospheric and ocean temps 

are to thank.

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 6:46 pm

carrot,

I’m writing up a piece about this study from Columbia University, which predicted major declines in winter snow cover, 

starting in about 1990.

http://www.eee.columbia.edu/research-projects/water_resources/climate-change-snow-cover/index.html

Dude says:

February 18, 2010 at 6:46 pm

I’m arguing with Tamino about these same issues at his blog (and he’s being a little rude to be perfectly honest). 

It is not cherry picking to say that since 1989, snow extent has been increasing. From the graphs at Tamino’s blog, it appears 

snow extent decreased from 1970 to the mid-90′s and then began increasing until the present. Fitting a single line to all the 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 40 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
data does not help anyone understand the variation of snow extent. In fact, centered around the mid-90′s, 15 of 16 snow 

extents were below the forty year trendline. A second-order polynomial fit would likely result in a higher R^2 value.

davidmhoffer says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:25 pm

Leif Svalgaard (18:29:51) : 

davidmhoffer (13:24:07) : 

My recollection is that a photon has no mass so can’t transfer any kinetic energy? 

A photon has momentum so can give you a kick = increase your kinetic energy>

no Leif... you have photons confused withy photon TORPEDOES. They haven’t been invented yet.

Steve Goddard (17:12:30) : 

I’m not definitely not trying to predict a long term climatological trend into the future>

Didn’t mean to imply that you were. Was just wondering what you (or anyone else) thought as to cause/effect re warmer 

temps and snow extent increasing and sliding toward equator.

Richard C says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:34 pm

Fellow thinkers,

We must be careful not to fall into the trap of using inadequate statistics derived from incomplete data, ignoring other 

inadequate statistics derived from incomplete data that may (or may not) have a bearing on the subject, because of 

preconceived ideas.

I quote an apocryphal story, told to me by my father, told to him by his father who got it from his brother who was in the 

B.E.F. 1914/15.

When the British army first started issuing tin hats (all right chromium/molybdenum steel helmets) in 1915 there was 

resistance by the higher authorities on the grounds that “Real soldiers have never worn helmets, in their experience”. This 

ignored the historical evidence and even that some cavalry units (from which many of the senior officers were drawn) wore 

helmets. Shortly afterwards hospital returns showed a large increase in head wounds being treated. This was cited as 

evidence that helmets were not only not needed but were dangerous. It was proposed that steel helmets be withdrawn! 

Further investigation showed that the number of deaths from head wounds had decreased more than the increase in number 

of treated head wounds, and of those treated the head wounds were in general less severe than before the introduction of the 

helmets.

Fortunately for many concerned the steel helmets continued to be issued and saved many lives.

The obtaining off complete evidence, and not partial evidence in isolation, negated possible catastrophic effects. Now where 

have I heard something similar? Perhaps the proposal to destroy the worlds economy for a religious and preconceived idea.

p.s. It was indeed fortunate for me, as my grandfather was invalided home in 1917 with a head wound, finally released from 

hospital in 1919, although much of the time was due to re-constructive and plastic surgery.

Jay says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:34 pm

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 41 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Hi Steve, 

Perhaps I missed something, but you never did get around to explaining why you concentrate on winter snow? I’m at a loss. 

Is increased precipitation telling us something exciting about climate?

Thanks for the Northern Hemisphere annual snow plot. Wow! That’s quite the upward trend you’ve got rocketing away there. 

Woosh. Although to be fair, the sideways trend is rather more evident. Prey tell though: what is the margin of error on that 

thing?

And remind me, why did you pick 1989 is a start point? What was wrong with all the other years? What have you got against 

1992 for example? Or 1985?

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:39 pm

Richard (18:19:39) : 

I let you off when you made a blunder re black bodies, also about CO2 freezing out of the atmosphere.

It is nice that you let me off all my blunders. The one about black bodies I don’t recall. Refresh my memory [use email if 

needed].

But you are getting insufferable. If you do not have a point keep quiet, just let it go.

Well, I think I do have a point, namely that one does not start out a topic by claiming there is a clear trend. when there isn’t. 

R^2 is a perfectly valid method to gauge this as I have tried to demonstrate. Now, I’m willing to ‘let it go’ as it is clear to 

everybody [without my insistence] that there is no significant trend in the first Figure and that by judicious cherry picking 

one can claim a [barely] significant increase.

dick chambers says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:42 pm

[snip - nice try "thefordprefect" - you are no longer welcome here when you do shape shifting, pick a name preferably your 

real one, and stick with it, otherwise bugger off]

Ian says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:43 pm

Steve – Zender did NOT claim that 80% of the soot was due to burning of fossil and biofuels. Read it more carefully

“Applying biomass burning BC emission inventories for a strong (1998) and weak (2001) boreal fire year, we estimate global 

annual mean BC/snow surface radiative forcing from all sources (fossil fuel, biofuel, and biomass burning) of +0.054 (0.007

–0.13) and +0.049 (0.007–0.12) W m−2, respectively. Snow forcing from only fossil fuel + biofuel sources is +0.043 W m−2 

(forcing from only fossil fuels is +0.033 W m−2), suggesting that the anthropogenic contribution to total forcing is at least 

80%.”

If I read this right this is saying that if you could somehow eliminate the soot due to biomass burning (forest fires and the 

like), then the remaining carbon generated by fuel burning would cause 80% of the warming. But that isn’t the same as 

saying that 80% of the soot is due to these sources as the warming effect is non-linear. In other words snow only has to be 

slightly dirty to cause significant warning and making it twice as dirty probably wont double the effect.

The non-linearity makes the way in which the results are stated deceptive. I suspect that if you analysed the warming 

contribution of soot from biomass burning in the same way you would find that it too could be said to be `responsible for 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 42 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
80% of the warming’ – maybe more! If so then that would mean cutting all the soot contribution from fuels would only 

diminish the warming by 20%.

He has presented his results in a rather strange way which I don’t think is very informative. What you would want to know is 

the marginal impact of mans contribution to the underlying situation, and that isn’t the number he’s chosen to give us.

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:46 pm

Dude (18:46:18) : 

It is not cherry picking to say that since 1989, snow extent has been increasing.

It is clear that for a climate trend, one or even two years more or less shouldn’t matter. So what is missing is a sensitivity 

analysis. What difference in R^2 [which is a convenient and valid measure] does it make to start in 1988, 1989, or 1990 and 

to end in 2009, 2008, or 2006. For a robust signal these small changes shouldn’t matter much. Yet no such analysis was 

made. The resistance one feels about this may be telling. Of course, I could make that analysis myself, but it really behooves 

Steve to make it.

carrot eater says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:49 pm

Steve Goddard (18:46:03) : 

Ah, you found something.

So they say the models do a lousy job with snow cover, they don’t show any (model) trend over the 20th C, but a decreasing 

trend over the 21st C.

You should also discuss this one (Brown, 2009), which looks to be a newer and more detailed study. 

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/22/8/pdf/i1520-0442-22-8-2124.pdf

As well as the observations, as discussed in Changnon et al, and whatever all the IPCC AR4 had to say about the topic (both 

observations and projections). 

You wouldn’t want to be accused of cherry-picking by not giving the whole context of the literature, after all.

carrot eater says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:52 pm

Dude (18:46:18) : 

“A second-order polynomial fit would likely result in a higher R^2 value.”

The game is not to increase your R^2 by increasing the order of the polynomial. That’s generally a horrible idea.

rbateman says:

February 18, 2010 at 7:52 pm

Steve Goddard (18:46:03) : 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 43 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Why are all these models unable to show any increase in snow, decrease in temps, increase in rainfall, etc? 

I am wanting to call the computer banks they use Deep Gloom.

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:02 pm

davidmhoffer (19:25:41) : 

“A photon has momentum so can give you a kick = increase your kinetic energy” 

no Leif... you have photons confused withy photon TORPEDOES. They haven’t been invented yet.

The energy and momentum of a photon are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. The 

momentum p points in the direction of the photon’s propagation and has a magnitude of p = h/L, where h is Planck’s 

constant and L is the wave length. So, photons do have momentum and can give you a kick and increase your kinetic energy.

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:24 pm

Richard (18:19:39) : 

And I do not think you understand the meaning of R^2 for the trendline in this case. Basically it would mean how well does 

your trendline fit the data 

No, that is not what R^2 tells you. It tells you how much of the variation of the data can be explained by a [linear] trend. So, if 

R^2 is 0.03, it means that 97% of the variation of the data is not due to the trend. By smoothing the data, you increase R^2, 

but you also decrease the significance as you have fewer independent data points. In the extreme you can form the average of 

the first half of the data and of the last half. R^2 for those two average points is 1, but the significance is 0.

Don Shaw says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:27 pm

Carot Eater and Stephen Goddard,

Please note that this June 2009 report indicates that the North East will experience Less Snow due to global warming. 

It seems to me that we can find any position we want in these junk government reports except Science:

“June 2009 

Members of Congress: 

On behalf of the National Science and Technology Council, the U.S. Global Change Research Program is pleased to 

transmit to the President and the Congress this state of knowledge report: “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States.” This report summarizes the science of climate change and the impacts of climate change on the United States, 

now and in the future.” 

Global Climate Change IMpacts page 107

“Since 1970, the annual average temperature in the Northeast has 

increased by 2°F, with winter temperatures rising twice this much.150 

Warming has resulted in many other climate-related changes, 

including: 

More frequent days with t • emperatures above 90°F 

• A longer growing season 

• Increased heavy precipitation 

• Less winter precipitation falling as snow and more as rain 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 44 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
• Reduced snowpack 

• Earlier breakup of winter ice on lakes and rivers

• Earlier spring snowmelt resulting in earlier peak river flows 

• Rising sea surface temperatures and sea level”

Also this seems to contradict recent claims by the NYT and others who claimed that scientists predicted the increased snow 

in the North East we recently experienced. 

Help!!!

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:40 pm

Jay,

It is fairly obvious from your comments that you didn’t bother to read the article.

Casey says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:43 pm

I fitted the equation to the data provided. 

snow=25,320 + 22,303*SIN[-5.29*2*PHI/(week of year)} 

then looked at residuals. 

If anyone can see a pattern in these residuals, then he or she has been smoking too much pot!

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 8:47 pm

It is quite clear that climate is neither linear nor a second order polynomial, given that the oceans are neither evaporated nor 

frozen after billions of years – which would be the necessary consequence. 

People can argue endlessly about lies, damn lies and statistics, but sometimes they just need to trust their own eyes. 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dec-feb_snow_ext.png

Starting in 2001, 8 out of 10 years are above 45 million km2. Prior to that, 8 out of 11 years were below 45 million km2. The 

current year is the second highest on record. Enough with the statistics games, please.

ET says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:01 pm

I think the point of the topic was the lack of the CLAIMED negative trend no? I see no negative trend. I think I got the point. I 

think we could use more common sense in our scientists, maybe there should be a new collegiate prerequisites for BAs or at 

least PHDs as a minimum. CommonSense Logic101, shortly to be followed by contortionist logic1A, and for the 

undergraduate requirement...the forest through the trees1B!.

carrot eater says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:02 pm

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 45 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Steve Goddard (20:47:37) : 

“just need to trust their own eyes.”

For them to do that, you need to show the entire data set. You can start your trend at 1989 if you really want to, but show the 

entire data set so people can judge the thing in context – are these trends, or just noise? 

Just like with temperature: you could draw a trendline in global temperature up from 1996 to 1998, and then another one 

down from 1998 to 2000. They’d be pretty impressively steep lines, but would it mean anything?

Luke Skywarmer says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:07 pm

Ric Werme (12:12:08) :

Steve Goddard (10:20:59) :

> R^2 on the winter graph since 1989 is 0.298514013

9 significant figures? Careful – Leif will start teaching you about significant digits and error bars.

NO THAT IS MY JOB!

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:07 pm

carrot,

We have been bombarded with disappearing winter snow stories for years, and if you have been paying attention you should 

know that. 

A CU professor predicted the demise of Colorado skiing in the middle of a record snow year two years ago. The Met Office 

predicted the demise of snow in England 10 years ago. RFK predicted the demise of snow in Washington DC two years ago. I 

just pointed you to an article which showed all IPCC GCMs predicting the demise of winter snow.

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:13 pm

carrot,

The upwards trend started in 1989. Prior to that there was a downwards trend. If I am showing a graph of the most recent 

upwards trend, why would I include years that aren’t part of that trend? 

If I said “it warmed up 15 degrees between 6AM and 3PM” is that something you would dispute because I didn’t mention the 

downwards trend prior to 6AM? 

Obviously every upwards trend is preceded by a downwards trend. That is a fundamental principle of nature.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 46 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Casey says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:14 pm

Typo. Apologies to all. Should be: 

snow=25320 + 22303*SIN[-5.29 + 2*PHI*(week of year)/52] 

This is just a curve that symmetrically mimics the earth about the sun. You can get a better fit with extra frequencies, but that 

just makes it hard to understand and nothing meaningful changes. 

I don’t know how to paste the chart of residuals into these comments, but it is easy enough to generate in excel. If you look at 

the entire period from 1966 there is just no visual pattern of structual change. Sometimes the residuals are bigger sometimes 

smaller. On the winter side they are smallest around 1989, and largest around 1977-78 and the last couple of years.

Some years there is more so, some less. The year to year variation is entirely within statistical (and visual) norms.

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:14 pm

ET,

Bingo! The climate models and forecasts were wrong.

carrot eater says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:15 pm

Don Shaw (20:27:13) : 

Good find. Keep digging, people. Context is important here: was everybody saying the same thing? Or are the predictions a 

contradictory and confused mixture? One complication:

“• Increased heavy precipitation 

• Less winter precipitation falling as snow and more as rain”

If you combine these two, you could still on net get more snow... 

I honestly had no idea what the predictions/statements were on this matter, but I can easily imagine its something the 

climate models would have trouble with. It’s known that regional precipitation projections need some improvement.

“Also this seems to contradict recent claims by the NYT and others who claimed that scientists predicted the increased snow 

in the North East we recently experienced.”

First, it’s simply incorrect for anybody to say they used understanding of climate to predict one freak winter. Weather is 

weather, climate is climate. If they said, “x is consistent with expectations”, that’s fine. Did the articles you read cite any 

papers? That could add to the pile. I think the Changnon paper shows some sort of increased snowfall trend for the US 

northeast, though I don’t know if it was significant. 

That’s the other problem here – One freak snow season doesn’t prove or disprove any climate projection. And given the high 

variability in snow data, Goddard’s trend will continue to be questioned.

Willis Eschenbach says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:22 pm

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 47 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Well, because I love numbers, I took a look at the snow area figures. I subtracted the weekly average from weekly data to give 

anomalies. I expressed them as a percentage of NH average snow cover. Here is that graph:

A few comments, in no particular order:

1. As someone mentioned above, the PDO is important in this graph. The PDO went from cool to warm in about 1976, as can 

be seen in the snow area anomaly.

2. From about 1976 to about 1990, snow area was decreasing slightly.

3. Since 1990, it has increased slightly.

4. Changes over the entire period are about ±5%. By eyeball, none of them look statistically significant.

5. We’re about where we were in 1982.

6. There has been basically no change since 1995.

Now, perhaps there is a signal of a dangerously warming earth in there, but I don’t see it. And perhaps there is a signal of 

increasing soot melting the snow in there, but I don’t see it.

The change in albedo due to decreased snow coverage is supposed to be a strong positive feedback in the global thermal 

balance ... I don’t see that either.

My conclusion? Either:

a) The land temperature records are badly corrupted, by some unknown combination of UHI, bad station siting, 

landuse/landcover changes, and nefarious meddling, or

b) Slight changes in temperature don’t change the snow area much. Increasing warmth theoretically increases both snow 

melt and precipitation, so they may basically offset each other, or

c) Both.

w.

vigilantfish says:

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 48 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
February 18, 2010 at 9:31 pm

Yeah Willis! Cutting to the chase as always. Now we have some clarity on the question of the shrinking or swelling winter 

snow extent, no so-called ‘cherry picking’ of dates involved.

Robert says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:32 pm

“People can argue endlessly about lies, damn lies and statistics, but sometimes they just need to trust their own eyes. 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dec-feb_snow_ext.png

Starting in 2001, 8 out of 10 years are above 45 million km2. Prior to that, 8 out of 11 years were below 45 million km2. The 

current year is the second highest on record. Enough with the statistics games, please.”

Steve, the site that is your source for this information directly contradicts some of the things you are taking from their data. 

There is a strong negative trend in both summer and spring snow extent. In 2008, they report, the snow extent was: “1.1 

million sq. km less than the 39-year average and ranks 2008 as having the 4th least extensive cover on record...””

It seems as though you are having trouble taking your own advice, and looking at what it right in front of your eyes.

hotrod ( Larry L ) says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:42 pm

One thing that no one has mentioned would be to compute the area under the curves from minimum to minimum for each 

year. The time x area should give an interesting look at how much the albedo changes. Any trend in peak levels or minimum 

levels strike me as being less valuable than the product of the time and the total snow surface available to reflect light.

A cycle with a tall but relatively sharp peak might have less actual effective change in albedo than a shorter but fatter cycle, as 

the latter would have snow present for a longer period of time.

If you really wanted to get fancy you could compute the days of sunlight for each day of the cycle and also compensate for the 

changing length of days. A given square area of snow during late December would reflect significantly less energy than the 

same area during March or April due to the longer day.

Larry

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:43 pm

Robert,

Do snow extent maximums occur in the summer, or in the winter?

The graph is clearly marked as “Winter Snow Extent.” 

Did you bother to read the article before posting?

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:46 pm

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 49 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
carrot,

Maybe this graphic will make it more clear for you.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?

key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdHY1dGdwZXdCRVBfekVzQ0FZVENPQVE&oid=1&v=1266558324736

Ronaldo says:

February 18, 2010 at 9:52 pm

davidmhoffer (13:24:07) : 

“Tom_R (09:12:23) : 

Hmm, as I write this I realize that the photon changes direction, but doesn’t lose energy since the wavelength doesn’t change. 

How is energy conserved when the air molecule gains kinetic energy but the photon energy remains the same?>

My recollection is that a photon has no mass so can’t transfer any kinetic energy?” 

“Leif Svalgaard (18:29:51)A photon has momentum so can give you a kick = increase your kinetic energy.” 

My understanding is that the CO2 molecule absorbs the photon, thus increasing the molecule’s internal (vibrational?) energy 

and then re-emits a photon of the same energy and thus wavelength but in a random direction. Otherwise we have a 

perpetual motion machine. Have I got this wrong?

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:08 pm

carrot eater (13:23:10) : 

It’s pretty clear the problems with relying only on published works.

Raw data is better.

But you want to distract from that. And true to that form, you used the word maybe. Maybe, could, if, the infamous words of 

a troll.

“you can fool yourself”

I think yes, you could fool yourself more easily than most other people carrot. 

And I see you attacked Steven Goddard. You people never quit.

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:11 pm

carrot eater (15:36:52) :

Steve Goddard (08:42:01) :

“We have been told over and over again since Hansen spoke to Congress in 1989, that winter snow is declining”

Please provide a link to this statement or publication from Hansen. I’m not familiar with it.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 50 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Some schools offer courses in reading comprehension.

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:14 pm

Steve Goddard (16:09:58) : 

A lucid defense.

Good on ya!

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:22 pm

Willis,

Thanks for the analysis. Soot would only affect late spring/summer extent, because it is covered by fresh snow the rest of the 

year. It requires an extended period of time with no snowfall to accumulate. And forest fires occur in the summer.

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:23 pm

carrot eater (17:24:07) : 

By the way, I’m still looking for any signs that Hansen or anybody else was proclaiming that winter snow extent was 

decreasing over the US. Still haven’t found it

Keep looking for that Hansen quote, keep looking. Knock yourself out carrot.

Maybe you could link your search to global warming somehow and get some funding for it: you know, join that party! Or are 

you already in it?

carrot eater says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:32 pm

Steve Goddard (21:46:26) : 

Not really. Still just looks like noise to me. I like Willis’s smooth better.

Steve Goddard (21:43:56) : 

Summer is interesting in that it’s more simple. There’s a more obvious trend, and it’s more obvious why there should be a 

trend, with warming. It isn’t obvious to me which way the winter trend should even go with warming. It’d be complicated, 

with air circulation patterns affecting what you get. At least, that’s how I see it.

Seriously, I hope you gather several sources for a write-up on what is known/predicted about snowfall/snowcover. A couple 

modeling papers, a couple observation papers, the report for the government above, the relevant sections of the IPCC – I 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 51 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
don’t think anybody’s written something comprehensive along these lines recently, so it’d be a helpful contribution if you got 

a nice overview.

Steve Goddard says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:38 pm

carrot eater,

There is nothing simple about summer snow melt. People who have studied the problem (like Hansen) thank that soot is a 

primary factor. Zander says up to 90%.

I flew over Greenland during late summer 2007 (the big melt year) and the snow/ice along the western side was absolutely 

filthy. perhaps from forest fires in Canada.

carrot eater says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:40 pm

Wait a minute.... Is there even warming in the winter months, in this region? Monthly trends can be weird.

Looking at GISS trend maps, for Goddard’s period of 1989-2010, January is getting colder in the eastern half of the US, but 

warmer in the Arctic to the North.

The Dec-Feb winter trend, 1989-2009, is similar, but not as pronounced. The Atlantic ocean offshore is about trendless, with 

some spots either way.

I have no idea what that means for winter snow, but it adds a complication.

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:41 pm

carrot eater (22:32:56) : 

A couple modeling papers

============================================

Why?

wayne says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:43 pm

Stu (17:56:03) : Steven: Leif:

Careful, if the science is correct, the GW factor need not come in to play. Proper science will handle the GW factor itself. Do 

the proper science anyway; what you learn may apply to something a month from now that would directly apply to GW 

factor.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 52 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Time series can be problematic when re-grouped in time periods. Here’s an example. Just as Steven’s top chart’s data, I have 

another set of snowfall data. I graph it. It jumps up and down, down and up in big jumps all over the place. I get the R^2, its 

terrible, 0.03. Now if I allow myself to change the division between the years in fifteen different places no more than one 

week, I now have a perfectly straight line for a graph with an R^2 of one! 

The only thing that happened is I allowed the big snowstorm near year end to fall in this year instead of that year. The big 

storm on Dec 31 was moved to Jan 1 of the following year, not actually; actually the division was moved one week. Another 

year I moved the storm from Jan 2, to Dec 30. That tiny 7/365 (2%) shift in the time dimension took a graph from no 

correlation to perfect correlation. Does that make sense? By a 2% flex in time division placement, data is either laughed as 

meaningless or accepted as if written in granite.

Even Feynman would shout, are you crazy, use you logic, reason, common sense for heavens sake. Statistics never takes the 

front seat. Statistics is a tool for ease and speed and to simplify complex questions but never overrides correct reason. PC’s 

came out, and in some respects, logic went out the window! 

Leif, maybe you are enough of a specialist in statistics to help me here. I hit this type of problem years ago but still have no 

answer of the proper way to handle this. This sometimes applies to temperature series of course. 

The bottom line, this type of time series can be very sensitive in the time dimension. See my point? How do you handle that 

proper in science and statistics? (My stat book seems to say nothing on it)

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:43 pm

carrot eater (22:32:56) : 

the relevant sections of the IPCC

================================================

Have you heard about the problems with the IPCC report?

Surely you must have.

carrot eater says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:50 pm

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES (22:41:12) : 

It appears that Goddard is writing an article to the effect of “what was/is the conventional wisdom about winter snow trends, 

past/present/future”. To that end, one would have to see what the different models say, whether the models agree with each 

other and with past observation, and also whether the authors or IPCC authors express any confidence in those model 

projections.

carrot eater says:

February 18, 2010 at 10:56 pm

Steve Goddard (22:38:19) : 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 53 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Whether it’s more soot or more warmth, one would expect less snow either way. At least until soot decreases. To me, that 

makes it easier to figure out than winter, where I can’t reason which way the trend would be. That there isn’t uniform 

warming spatially in the winter just adds to that mess.

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:02 pm

why would it matter what the IPCC thinks?

Have you been reading about the IPCC over the past few months?

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:13 pm

carrot, why don’t you try to write you own paper. Your line of what is expected is your own. You don’t seem to be following 

what Steve Goddard is saying. I don’t know if it is intentional, unintentional, or what. 

There may be other places for you to find people who you don’t have to try to steer toward what you want them to be like.

Robert says:

February 18, 2010 at 11:55 pm

“Maybe, could, if, the infamous words of a troll.”

I don’t think you understand what a “troll” is. Somebody who despises words like “maybe” and “if” is a lot closer to trolldom 

then one who has mastered the use of those words.

Robert says:

February 19, 2010 at 12:09 am

” Steve Goddard (21:43:56) :

Robert,

Do snow extent maximums occur in the summer, or in the winter?

The graph is clearly marked as “Winter Snow Extent.”

Did you bother to read the article before posting?”

Steve, did you forget that you claimed: “Summer snow cover declined significantly (from the 1970s ice age scare) during the 

1980s, but minimums have not changed much since then. As you can see in the graph below, the overall annual trend since 

1989 has been slightly upwards.”

Maybe you should read the article you wrote.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 54 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Robert says:

February 19, 2010 at 12:11 am

” aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES (23:13:29) :

carrot, why don’t you try to write you own paper.”

Skeptics who question assertions are just so frustrating, aren’t they?

carrot eater says:

February 19, 2010 at 1:04 am

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES (23:13:29) : 

Of course, Goddard will write whatever he wants. I’m only suggesting a wide scope, as I think it’d be filling a need. He can 

ignore my opinion. But you might note that he said he was starting with a modeling paper, so I don’t think we differ that 

much on the idea of whether to look at a modeling paper....

“why would it matter what the IPCC thinks?”

When a lot of people have been saying “it’s snowing a lot this winter, so therefore the IPCC and all the warmists must be 

wrong”, you don’t think it worthwhile to actually see what the report or the literature says on the matter? Myself, I don’t 

think a single winter is meaningful either which way; weather is weather, and one year is not a trend, but Goddard sees a 

trend since 1989. So let’s see what comes of it.

Jay says:

February 19, 2010 at 2:51 am

Steve, 

Thanks for the response. I read the article, but it only consists of a few sentences and a couple of plots. Perhaps it’s because 

I’m new here, but I’m not sure what you’re trying to tell readers.

Simple (pertinent, I think) questions. 

What do you think snow cover tells us about climate? 

What’s the margin of error on the Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Plot? How confident are you that you’ve got an upwards 

trend? 

Why do you think starting a plot from a minimum in the data is a good way to tell us something useful about trends?

Dude says:

February 19, 2010 at 4:03 am

Carrot Eater said:

“A second-order polynomial fit would likely result in a higher R^2 value.”

The game is not to increase your R^2 by increasing the order of the polynomial. That’s generally a horrible idea. 

— 

Here’s what I’m trying to say...you fit linear regessions to data you think is linear. Looking at winter snow extent, it’s pretty 

clear to me, it’s not linear...it’s got a cuve to it. Therefore, fitting a single line to all the data doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 55 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Jody says:

February 19, 2010 at 4:04 am

Does anyone think there might be a problem with choosing your starting point because that’s where the trend started?

phlogiston says:

February 19, 2010 at 4:29 am

Steve

Your last sentence:

“Earlier changes in summer snow extent were likely due primarily to soot – not CO2.”

Is this Hansen’s statement or yours? It goes unquestioned. We dont need to be hypnotised by AGW bluster from Hansen or 

anyone else – ascribing snow trends or anything else in as complex a system as climate, to a single factor, e.g. soot, is certain 

to be false. Soot in particular is an irrelevant red herring, AGWers are grasping at straws.

Paul Coppin says:

February 19, 2010 at 5:04 am

This conversation seems to have wandered all over the place, pretty aimlessly.

I’m sitting here looking at a map of air mass movement from a 1983 textbook on maritime weather, and I see an intersection 

point over about Asheville NC, of the maritime polar(mP) air mass, the continental polar (cP) air mass, and the maritime 

tropical (mT) airmass, with a potential contribution from an arctic (A) air mass from the north. The intersection point is right 

where the Washington weather bomb got up a head of steam and charged forward, and the relevant air masses have all the 

necessary ingredients. The historic path of both the mT and cP air masses is right out over Delaware (don’t have a chart for 

eurasia, but would be surprised if there aren’t similar confluences).

Now, it seems likely that the confluential interaction of these air masses was just so this season, producing the weather

experienced this winter. 

Since there are previous records for similar events (of equal magnitude – I’ll re-iterate what I said earlier – a 1/2′′ difference 

does not a “new” record make), it is reasonable, and probably even likely, that the snow extent is chaotically cyclic (chaotic, 

only because we haven’t yet ascertained what the respective periodicities are), and we are seeing a normal event that occurs 

whenever certain planetary drivers coincide (ie, el ninos, pdos, enso, solar etc.). Forget soot, CO2 and the IPCC and look to 

the macro events before you blow your minds on the micro political drivers.

Phil M. says:

February 19, 2010 at 5:44 am

Another masterful analysis by Steve “Pixel Counter” Goddard. Using Excel and 21 years worth of data to contradict 100 years 

of science – and in 500 words or less....impressive!

The “skeptic” community has made many valid observations and critiques of climate science, but allowing folks like Steve 

Goddard to speak for the community at large illegitimizes potentially useful insights contributed by others.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 56 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
My advice to everyone here: do not visit this website for science. Peer-reviewed literature is where this debate should be 

happening, not the blogosphere.

Tom_R says:

February 19, 2010 at 6:19 am

>> Leif Svalgaard (20:02:12) : 

The energy and momentum of a photon are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. The 

momentum p points in the direction of the photon’s propagation and has a magnitude of p = h/L, where h is Planck’s 

constant and L is the wave length. So, photons do have momentum and can give you a kick and increase your kinetic energy. 

<<

This is as I remember it from my basic physics. What I don't remember is what happens to the photon. If an air molecule 

gains kinetic energy from a collision, the photon must lose energy in the collision. Does the photon come off of the collision 

with a longer wavelength?

Starting with a molecule at rest, and a photon scattered directly backwards, the transfer of momentum (dp) would be:

dp = 2 * E/c [E = photon energy, c = speed of light]

the final velocity of the molecule would be:

v = 2 * E / mc [m = mass of air molecule]

and the kinetic energy (dE) would be:

dE = 2 * E * E / (mc2) [c2 = speed of light squared]

A quick run through the physics tables gives a ballpark value for E/mc2 of about 10 to the -10, so the change in photon energy 

would be barely noticible.

Pascvaks says:

February 19, 2010 at 6:51 am

“Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting?” 

Guest post by Steven Goddard

Well it seems we have several answers to the question and many questions about the answers and many questions that never 

got answers. I never knew that there was so much interest in winter snow extent graphs.

I’m just a little confused though. It sure seemed that more are more interested in the math of the graphs and not the extent of 

the snow.

Perhaps those who know about snow and ice and R2 (whatever it is) will put together another article someday that addresses 

the connection between annual snow and ice extents so the minutia mob stay in the closet.

Somehow I doubt that Plato put up with “R2′′ minutia and bickering. Wonder how he kept the conversation from such 

diversions and actually came up with a meaningful discussion and reasonable answer(s) to the question(s).

Paul Coppin says:

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 57 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
February 19, 2010 at 7:02 am

Phil M. (05:44:51) : 

[..] 

My advice to everyone here: do not visit this website for science. Peer-reviewed literature is where this debate should be 

happening, not the blogosphere. 

Apparently you missed the “memo(s)”. There is no debate in “peer-reviewed” literature...

Steve Goddard says:

February 19, 2010 at 7:02 am

Phil M,

If you have a specific objection to anything in the article, please state it. 

Otherwise, don’t waste other people’s time with your pointless diatribe.

Steve Goddard says:

February 19, 2010 at 7:04 am

Jay,

You asked what I think winter snow cover tells us about climate. Simple, the climate models and forecasts don’t seem to be 

working. Winter snow cover is supposed to be decreasing, not increasing. 

http://www.eee.columbia.edu/research-projects/water_resources/climate-change-snow-cover/index.html

davidmhoffer says:

February 19, 2010 at 7:07 am

Ronaldo (21:52:24) : 

My understanding is that the CO2 molecule absorbs the photon, thus increasing the molecule’s internal (vibrational?) energy 

and then re-emits a photon of the same energy and thus wavelength but in a random direction. Otherwise we have a 

perpetual motion machine. Have I got this wrong?>

I bow to Leif and others on this issue who have posted various explanations. I can only advise that the explanations may not 

be complete as they do not support a practical method to build a photon torpedo. I’ve been told that photon torpedos are 

science fiction, to which I respond that there is just as much evidence for them as there is for perpetual motion. And AGW.

Steve Goddard says:

February 19, 2010 at 7:08 am

BTW Phil M,

NSIDC teaches pixel counting to their students at CU as a technique to measure Arctic ice. If you find that offensive to your 

sensitive disposition, please contact them with your complaint.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 58 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Oliver K. Manuel says:

February 19, 2010 at 7:10 am

Quote : Phil M. (05:44:51) :

“My advice to everyone here: do not visit this website for science. Peer-reviewed literature is where this debate should be 

happening, not the blogosphere.”

Like the IPCC?

Steve Goddard says:

February 19, 2010 at 7:12 am

phlogiston ,

The soot remark is my statement, not Hansen’s. I’m just back from driving on snow being melted by intentionally placed dark 

material. It is a very effective way to melt snow – orders of magnitude faster than it would have otherwise.

vigilantfish says:

February 19, 2010 at 7:17 am

A late response to Leif – posted last night but it went missing due to my own error:

Leif:

I went back over previous e-mails and realized belatedly that you were responding to a strain of ’strange’ science in some of 

the comments that I had not followed closely enough.

However, if you care to look at various episodes in the history of science, such as the belief in phrenology, or the electricity of 

the body, or the inventor Tesla’s belief in the future of transmitting electrical power through the air or his determination to 

invent a perpetual motion machine, you will realize that this is nothing new. William Harvey, so famous for determining 

experimentally the circulation of the blood in the 17th century, also determined experimentally that females of the human 

and ovine species could become pregnant by gazing lustfully at the males of the species (or in the case of women, portraits of 

handsome men): no contact required. Harvey in fact was ignoring millenia of scientific wisdom. Aristotle and the Greeks 

realized that a “mingling of the fluids” was needed for conception to occur. 

There is no dark age of science or civilization arising from the eccentrics amongst us: a dark age may arise, however, from the 

willful distortion of the scientific process for monetary and political ends. This happened under the Nazi regime. 

Unfortunately the lessons of history are being forgotten, as evidently the IPCC and other bodies believe the ends justifies the 

means – and the ends cannot be achieved without packaging propaganda as science.

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 19, 2010 at 7:59 am

vigilantfish (07:17:49) : 

a dark age may arise, however, from the willful distortion of the scientific process for monetary and political ends. 

Such distortion would not be successful if the citizenry were scientific literate. Now, some of the illiterati are willfully 

illiterate, i.e. not willing to learn for various reasons, e.g. religious. 

There is another underlying problem, namely that modern science may be intellectually overwhelming and some people are 

drawn to simpler pictures that they can ‘understand’ [it is easier to 'understand' that angels push the planets around than 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 59 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
some mathematical equations; or that 'thunderbolts' from the heavens are powering the Sun rather than complicated nuclear 

processes]. As has been said so often, half of Americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Right there, one loses that 

segment of the population. 

Regarding the IPCC and ‘other bodies’ there are people that oppose these on economic grounds rather on scientific grounds. I 

guess than there actually are more economic/political resistance than purely scientific. Getting the science right is a longterm project that may take centuries.

Phil. says:

February 19, 2010 at 8:48 am

Tom_R (06:19:36) : 

>> Leif Svalgaard (20:02:12) : 

The energy and momentum of a photon are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. The 

momentum p points in the direction of the photon’s propagation and has a magnitude of p = h/L, where h is Planck’s 

constant and L is the wave length. So, photons do have momentum and can give you a kick and increase your kinetic 

energy. <<

This is as I remember it from my basic physics. What I don't remember is what happens to the photon. If an air molecule 

gains kinetic energy from a collision, the photon must lose energy in the collision. Does the photon come off of the collision 

with a longer wavelength?

No the photon is absorbed it does not emerge from the collision at all.

James Chamberlain says:

February 19, 2010 at 9:10 am

Let there be NO elitists or kings, whether on our side or another!

phlogiston says:

February 19, 2010 at 9:17 am

Phil M. (05:44:51)

“My advice to everyone here: do not visit this website for science. Peer-reviewed literature is where this debate should be 

happening, not the blogosphere.”

This thread by Steve Goddard has attracted a lot of criticism from (apparently) AGWers for stating a rather simple fact: snow 

extent is increasing, in direct contradiction of general circulation models which predict global warming. The very simplicity 

of the statement appears to be offensive to some who perhaps need their science to be more complex and opaque.

It has exposed a raw nerve for a clear reason: the global climate is cooling. There are a number of stark and inescapable 

implications of this:

1) The AGW body of theory is a total failure; 

2) Every “scientist”, however many peers they may be able to lay claim to, who has embraced AGW, is a failed scientist: their 

instincts and methodology have proved wrong. 

3) Every scientist who, having looked at the evidence, has instinctively decided that global warming is false and un-grounded, 

for whatever combination of reasons, has been vindicated as a true scientist. This includes a fair proportion of regular posters 

on this site, several of whom are climate scientists who have been removed from research positions unfairly by the AGW 

inquisition exposed in the CRU emails.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 60 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
It is one thing to be a technician; it is another to be a scientist. If you are a technician, you can have a powerful grasp of the 

workings of a scientific methodology and body of theory in a particular discipline. You might be a capable mathematician or 

programmer, but your world is essentially one of methodology. A scientist by contrast goes a little further than methodology, 

and thinks beyond one particular corner of a discipline or subject. Shocking as it might sound, a scientist requires an accurate 

intuition, an ability to “sense” the likely relative significance of a range of factors in a complex system for example. (Sound 

methodology is necessary for good science but not sufficient for good science.)

As the climate continues to cool, the peer-reviewed literature on AGW will be shown for what it is – the self-interested output 

of professional politicians dressed up as scientists, weaving technical language to construct inductive arguments supporting a 

pre-decided outcome – indefinite global warming. Such theories have their own internal logic and sense of rightness, but 

being inductive, are held up by a series of assumptions that represent a fragile and flimsy foundation. Holding such views 

shows ignorance and contempt for the totatity of climate record extending all the way back to the Cambrian era, with 

narrative confined to only climate history in the last 1 or 2 centuries or decades.

Peer reviewed literature is where the politics is happening. Climate science that reflects reality is more likely to be found here.

Tom_R says:

February 19, 2010 at 9:38 am

>> Phil. (08:48:21) : 

No the photon is absorbed it does not emerge from the collision at all. <<

Then why is the sky blue?

Pascvaks says:

February 19, 2010 at 9:45 am

Ref – vigilantfish (07:17:49) : 

“...a dark age may arise, however, from the willful distortion of the scientific process for monetary and political ends.” 

_________________________ 

Yes we all have to pinch ourselves every so often and remember we’re dealing with “people”.

Ref – Leif Svalgaard (07:59:30) : 

“There is another underlying problem, namely that modern science may be intellectually overwhelming and some people are 

drawn to simpler pictures that they can ‘understand’ [it is easier to 'understand' that angels push the planets around than 

some mathematical equations; or that 'thunderbolts' from the heavens are powering the Sun rather than complicated nuclear 

processes]. As has been said so often, half of Americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Right there, one loses that 

segment of the population.” 

________________________ 

One of the first laws of Human Nature has the acronym KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid!). Einstein was brilliant at it; what a 

guy, who else could have said more with less? (E=mc^2) I fear that many “intellectuals” underestimate the intelligence of Joe 

& Jo the Plumbers. If nothing else, they & their kids are survivors. They can take anything the gods throw at them and in 

their magnanimity they support and pander to the stunted, crippled, sick among them who only know how to think well 

about one thing at a time. Life’s a beach, Leif! Don’t assume IQ tests have anything to do with wisdom or intelligence.

kadaka says:

February 19, 2010 at 9:58 am

Leif Svalgaard (07:59:30) :

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 61 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
(...) As has been said so often, half of Americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Right there, one loses that segment of 

the population.(...)

And the MSM also says there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is occurring, man is responsible, 

there is no debate, the science is settled, yada yada.

Half of Americans (or more) believing in God and that God created the world? Credible. Half of Americans believing the 

Earth is 6000 years old? Not credible, as seen here “in the field.”

The “elite” as found in the MSM and academia wanting to paint average Americans as ignorant unscientific hicks who 

obviously need to be led by “smarter” people, such as themselves, thus believing God created the world is labeled Creationism 

thus proof that half of Americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old? Credible.

Why do “smart” people continue to imply, when they don’t outright state, that belief in God precludes one from 

understanding nuclear fusion in the Sun, and means they think angels push the planets around? When scientists violate 

scientific principles and insist there is no God without supplying proof, then these “scientists” find that people must 

obviously be unscientific because they continue to believe in God. Last I checked, even the most devoutly religious people in 

America believe lights come on when you turn on a light switch because of electrons moving in wires, not because moving the 

switch signals the angels in the bulbs to start glowing. Nor do they petition their electric company to stop charging them for 

power since the angels are doing the work. So why are “smart” people insisting that half of Americans are a permanently 

scientific-illiterate “lost cause”?

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 19, 2010 at 10:06 am

Pascvaks (09:45:54) : 

One of the first laws of Human Nature has the acronym KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid!). Einstein was brilliant at it;

Einstein once said: “keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler“.

Don’t assume IQ tests have anything to do with wisdom or intelligence.

Science has nothing to do with IQ-test, nor with wisdom, nor with intelligence.

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 19, 2010 at 10:31 am

kadaka (09:58:37) : 

Half of Americans believing the Earth is 6000 years old? Not credible

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401262.html

UnfrozenCavemanMD says:

February 19, 2010 at 10:35 am

> Steve Goddard (21:13:04) : 

> The upwards trend started in 1989. Prior to that 

> there was a downwards trend. If I am showing a graph 

> of the most recent upwards trend, why would I include 

> years that aren’t part of that trend?

If you want to assert that there was some kind of climatological regime change in 1989, there are statistical tests for 

distinguishing that from random noise, and it would help to have an explanation that comes from outside the snow data as to 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 62 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
why 1989 should be a transition point. Monckton has rightly made great public sport of those who display selected subsets of 

noisy data in order to assert the existence of a trend.

If you are showing a graph of the most recent upwards trend, you would include years that aren’t part of that trend in order 

to communicate honesty with the data.

I have sliced and diced the snow cover data in all of the ways described by our colleagues above, including seasonally 

averaged variations from weekly-normalized means, with various appropriate smoothings. What emerges, as others 

including you have stated, is that maximum Winter snow cover has not changed much, while Spring and Summer has clearly 

decreased. 

UnfrozenCavemanMD says:

February 19, 2010 at 10:36 am

Here are some pretty figures: 

http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6szLeIoC6RBZjI0YjhhMTctMTk2NC00MGMwLWJiMTktODkzYjM0OTg5YTdm&hl=en

http://docs.google.com/leaf?

id=0B6szLeIoC6RBOGU1ZjBlNDUtYzgzMi00MDE0LTg2NGQtN2U3ODJmNDU0YWFj&hl=en

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 19, 2010 at 10:43 am

kadaka (09:58:37) : 

Last I checked, even the most devoutly religious people in America believe lights come on when you turn on a light switch 

because of electrons moving in wires, not because moving the switch signals the angels in the bulbs to start glowing. 

How many did you interview? 

How were they selected? [how do you measure devoutness?] 

What was the exact question? Sometimes the wording can have an influence on the answer 

What is the error bar? i.e. how many agreed vs. not agreed? 

Do you plan to submit your finding to a peer-reviewed journal?

Jay says:

February 19, 2010 at 10:53 am

Hi Steve, 

Thanks for getting back to me. It wasn’t clear in your article that was what you were trying to show. (I hadn’t read read your 

previous article I’m afraid and you didn’t point to it here.)

I had a few other questions too, which I think are still relevant.

I wondered if the trend in the Northern Hemisphere Annual Snow Cover Plot was sufficient to give you confidence that there 

was a trend – only it looks very slight, to tell the truth, and you don’t say what the error margin is.

And I also wondered why you thought it might be useful to begin your plot from a minimum in the data. By picking unusual 

data don’t you think you might get unusual results?

Pascvaks says:

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 63 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
February 19, 2010 at 12:23 pm

Ref – Leif Svalgaard (10:06:20) : 

Pascvaks (09:45:54) : 

P. – “One of the first laws of Human Nature has the acronym KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid!). Einstein was brilliant at it;..” 

L.S. – Einstein once said: “keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler“. 

_________________________ 

My guess he was talking to a PhD; warning him not to underestimate “people”.

P – “Don’t assume IQ tests have anything to do with wisdom or intelligence.” 

L.S. – “Science has nothing to do with IQ-test, nor with wisdom, nor with intelligence.” 

___________________ 

I’m sorry, what planet did you say you were from?

PS: Ref your ref to WP article to Kadaka – :-) 

PPS: Exchanges like this are a waste of brain cells. I don’t have any I can afford to spare and you would be better occupied 

discovering something new for the rest of the tribe. God bless!:-)

kadaka says:

February 19, 2010 at 1:21 pm

Leif Svalgaard (10:31:11) :

kadaka (09:58:37) : 

Half of Americans believing the Earth is 6000 years old? Not credible

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401262.html

Wow. I question the MSM presentation, and you rebut with an MSM article. Is this like when we “climate skeptics” question 

what the IPCC does with the research, and we get rebutted by references to the IPCC?

Beginning analysis of spin...

In the early 20th century, many creationist thinkers viewed Genesis as metaphorical, accepting that Earth 

formed over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years. But as society became more secular, and science 

offered an implicit challenge to fundamentalist beliefs, creationist leaders took a more literal line.

Science was co-opted to promote atheism with the insistence that accepting science meant rejecting a belief in God, and 

believers pushed back against said “science.” Is that supposed to be surprising?

Polls taken last year showed that 45 percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present 

form 10,000 years ago (or less) and that man shares no common ancestor with the ape.

As polls go, it helps in understanding the results to know who asked the questions, what groups were polled, and it is 

especially important to know the exact wording of the questions.

As it stands, 10 thousand years is about the length of “recorded human history” thus is solid evidence of humans existing “in 

their present form.” If you take Genesis as metaphor, accept evolution and the actual science, with the caveat that God 

“tweaked” an existing pre-human primate to bring about humans, then yes, you could very well agree on a poll that “God 

created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago (or less)” and still not be a Young Earth Creationist.

To recap, you are trying to affirm “...half of Americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old.” What have you provided? 10,000 

years ago, not 6000, humans were created in their present form, not that the Earth is only that old.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 64 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Plus, evolution as presented has changed over the years. My mother well remembers in school being explicity taught that 

man descended from the apes. A common ancestor for the seperate lines of humans and other large primates was a change in 

theory that came later. Thus, as originally taught, one may say that “man shares no common ancestor with the ape,” not be a 

Creationist, and only be faulted for considering a straight line yielded “no common ancestor.”

One of the first things that science teaches us, is that the “reality” we experience with our senses isn’t even half of what really 

exists. Factor in current theory involving dark matter and energy, we don’t even realize a tenth of what is out there. Science 

needs to acknowledge its own limitations. At best it can state “we have found no evidence that a ‘higher power’ was involved 

at this time” and leave it at that.

Instead we have “scientists” insisting science says there is no God, and that science and religion cannot coexist. We have this 

article, which takes poll results showing one thing, juxtaposes it with Young Earth Creationism, that ends up being cited as 

affirming that half of Americans believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, thus half of Americans are permanently 

scientifically illiterate.

Let’s pull another fact from the article.

Only 26 percent believe in the central tenet of evolution, that all life descended from a single ancestor.

How is that unscientific? We haven’t even identified all the life on this planet, we are still discovering new life forms in 

extreme environments, and even ones overlooked where we had searched before. To say that all life must have evolved from 

the same microrganism ages ago is actually the unscientific position, as the same conditions that the one came from could 

have yielded others, and all life has yet to be identified thus we cannot draw such a conclusion about all life.

And another...

Another poll showed that 65 percent of Americans want creationism taught alongside evolution.

So what is wrong with that? Open debate, presenting alternate theories, letting the research stand on its own... Isn’t that what 

we “climate skeptics” argue for in the presenting of climate science? If the scientific robustness is so obvious, then let it be 

obvious, toss it all out there and let people make up their own minds.

Instead we get loud insistence that the science says this and only this, dissent is squashed as unscientific, demands that even 

the most basic of claims be backed with research, that should very well be peer-reviewed to count...

Which brings us to Leif Svalgaard (10:43:13)...

Tom_R says:

February 19, 2010 at 1:41 pm

>> Leif Svalgaard (10:31:11) : 

kadaka (09:58:37) : 

Half of Americans believing the Earth is 6000 years old? Not credible 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401262.html <<

Are you referring to this statement?

"Polls taken last year showed that 45 percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 

years ago (or less) and that man shares no common ancestor with the ape."

Besides being 45% and not 50%, the question referred to how long humans have been around, and not the Earth itself. I have 

met people who stated they believed the Earth was only ~6000 years old (including a particle physicist, amazingly enough), 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 65 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
but nowhere near 45%. My sample includes numerous co-workers at a can factory (summer job) who were happy to talk 

about the big bang when they found out I was an astronomy major, so I don't think it's just a selection effect.

charles the moderator says:

February 19, 2010 at 1:55 pm

Ok, this has devolved into a science vs. religion discussion with Evolution and Creationism mixed in. This includes you Leif.

Other moderators–why are you letting this through? 

This stops now. 

I mean it. 

Don’t make me go back and go through dozens of comments with with a scythe.

David Reese says:

February 19, 2010 at 2:21 pm

Frequency Components of Rutgers University Global Snow Lab

I removed an annual signal by working with the winter months of weeks 49 through 9, averageing the snow cover data. I 

subtracted the average value to work with the difference. The difference function initially declined and then inclined. A fit of 

a line through the data gave an R^2 of .000428 (very noisy data). Matching the difference function with a cosine curve with a 

period of 60 years and a 7.2 year shift gaive an R^2 of .0809, about 326 times higher than a straight line. I believe the NAO 

time period is on the order of 60 years.

kadaka says:

February 19, 2010 at 2:42 pm

Re: charles the moderator (13:55:00)

Charles, 

I am no fan of Creationism, especially Young Earth Creationism. I am not arguing science vs religion, from my perspective.

I am complaining about science being used for an agenda, as we do with climate science specifically. I am upset by what I saw 

as half of my countrymen being declared as unable to understand science solely because of their religious views.

That is all.

HB says:

February 19, 2010 at 3:58 pm

Thank you ctm!

Roger Knights says:

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 66 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
February 19, 2010 at 4:55 pm

Leif Svalgaard (07:59:30) :

vigilantfish (07:17:49) : 

a dark age may arise, however, from the willful distortion of the scientific process for monetary 

and political ends. 

Such distortion would not be successful if the citizenry were scientific literate. 

Like in Germany?

Steve Goddard says:

February 19, 2010 at 5:02 pm

Jay,

If you were measuring the height of a mountain, would you start the measurement at the bottom and end it at the top? 

Hopefully. You started the measurement at the bottom because that is the sensible place to do it.

What if someone told you that you should have started your measurement on a neighboring peak of identical height, and that 

statistically speaking the topography is flat? Would you take them seriously?

F. Ross says:

February 19, 2010 at 7:13 pm

Phil M. (05:44:51) : 

... 

My advice to everyone here: do not visit this website for science. 

... 

Disregarding your obviously keen perception and acumen, I will continue to visit here; additionally, I may even see some 

valid science discussed. 

Perhaps, though, few would mind if you follow your own advice.

Jay says:

February 19, 2010 at 9:36 pm

Hi Steve, 

That’s an interesting response. If I wanted to measure the height of a mountain, then yes, I suppose I would start at the 

bottom and end at the top. What I wouldn’t do though, is suppose that I had discovered a meaningful trend and expect the 

mountain to keep on getting higher beyond the top. If you see what I mean.

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 19, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 67 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Roger Knights (16:55:55) : 

“willful distortion of the scientific process for monetary and political ends. 

Such distortion would not be successful if the citizenry were scientific literate.” 

Like in Germany?

I didn’t know that Germans were distorting the scientific process any more than the US immigration rules against the feebleminded...

steven mosher says:

February 20, 2010 at 1:08 am

Phil M. (05:44:51) :

actually i think the internet has done a pretty good job exposing the limitations and assumptions of the post. In short order. 

Now if the article had been in a journal, it would hang around as long as mann’s bogus de centering

phlogiston says:

February 20, 2010 at 2:14 am

Charles the moderator

Of course anti-religious intolerance and on the other hand religious bigotry should be excluded. However the creationism 

issue has been pushed into the political mainstream actively by a part of the Church. So it is fair game, surely?

And using “religion” as a metaphor for (for instance) a political agenda and a new morality behind AGW, with historic 

parallels, need not be censored I would have thought.

Reply: I didn’t want to go into specifics. This is not a site to debate religion vs. science. It is also not appropriate to lump 

religion as anti-science as I would concur this is bigotry. I personally know very religious medical researchers. ~ ctm.

phlogiston says:

February 20, 2010 at 2:25 am

Phil M.

An alternative to cherry-picking your start date, e.g. 1989 start for snow data, is the much more ambitious approach taken by 

the AGW movement – to change the historic record Stalin-air-brush style, to edit flat with a virtual iron the temperature 

record before the 1970s – much reduced 1930-40s warmth, no more MWP etc. Do you think this is preferable?

Is it permissable to look at the evolution of any parameter with time? If so, then it is arguable that any start point after the 

beginning of the universe 13 odd billion years ago is “cherry-picking”. The accusation becomes meaningless.

Since 1989 snow extent has increased. (Contrary to climate model predictions.) In its own terms a simple and valid 

statement. Live with it.

Caleb says:

February 20, 2010 at 2:50 am

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 68 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
DirkH (08:15:05) : 

Thank you very much for answering my questions. Of course I immediately have ten more questions.

When I wondered:

“Are Oxygen and Nitrogen warmed at all, when sunlight passes through them?”

You responded:

“No interaction between visible light and O2 or N2, otherwise air wouldn’t be transparent for visible light. So visible light that 

is reflected e.g. by snow will go outwards. There might be refraction by water droplets, so clouds will diffuse visible light. In 

the absence of clouds, the light reflected by snow (or white roofs, or any part of the surface) will just radiate into space 

without warming anything significantly.”

However then I read, at the start of Roy Spencer’s UAH site:

“Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from 

oxygen in the atmosphere.” 

I assume the oxygen must be able to hold heat, for them to be able to measure the heat it emits. This suggests that, while 

oxygen may not absorb heat directly from visible light, it does absorb heat through an indirect process, involving several 

steps. 

My question remains, is the atmosphere heated at all by visible light passing through it, and does the albedo-effect heat it 

twice, by bouncing descending long wave radiation back through it a second time?

The place to test this would be just north of the Arctic Circle during the winter solstice. Although the sunlight never strikes 

the ground, just north of the Arctic Circle during the winter solstice, it passes very close to earth. In fact, (in theory,) if you 

stepped one step north of the Arctic Circle, an ant by your feet might be in shadow all day, but your face, an altitude of six 

feet, would briefly be bathed in sunshine at noon.

Such sunshine passes through the atmosphere without ever touching the ground. It therefore would not be turned into 

infrared radiation by striking a physical surface. Would that air show any warming, during the period of time the sunshine 

passed through it?

If it did, then the albedo-effect could be expected to doubly-warm the troposphere, for as long as the expanded snow-cover 

lasted. It then would create a sort of false-warming, for the atmosphere would appear to warm even as a great deal of heat 

was lost to outer space.

To me, this is one answer to this post’s title, “Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting?” I don’t care so much about trend 

lines, as I care about the immediate effect of the snow cover.

Another interesting thing to contemplate is how much heat will be sucked up (becoming latent heat) just melting all the 

snow.

Roger Knights says:

February 20, 2010 at 5:30 am

Leif Svalgaard (22:12:10) : 

“willful distortion of the scientific process for monetary and political ends. 

Such distortion would not be successful if the citizenry were scientific literate.”

Roger Knights (16:55:55) :Like in Germany? 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 69 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
I didn’t know that Germans were distorting the scientific process any more than the US immigration rules 

against the feeble-minded... 

In the 1st half of the 20th century Germany was the most scientifically literate country around, but it distorted the scientific 

process in, for instance, rejecting relativity, stacking scientific positions in universities with stooges, and indulging itself in 

some fairly crackpot anthropology, archaeology, etc. 

I think that “scientific literacy” has had the effect, in the modern Western world, of making its educated and informed elites 

more gullible than the scientifically benighted about the pronunciomentos of consensus science on things like catastrophic 

global warming (and certain other eviro-alarms like all in-place asbestos being a threat). 

“Man is so necessarily mad that not to be mad is but another form or madness.” (Pascal) 

“Man is a reasoning, not a reasonable, animal.” (Alexander Hamilton)

What’s needed to avoid catastrophe (such as enviro-alarmism and hyper-precautionism would entail) is reasonableness, not 

mere reasoning (science). What’s needed also is an awareness of the basic madness of individuals and groups, including 

scientific consensuses. 

What’s dangerous is the scientistic insinuation of people like Bill Nye the Science Guy that the modern world has discovered, 

in the scientific method, a reliable (self-correcting-in-the-long-run) truth detector. The global warming episode shows that it 

takes outsiders to perform that correction — ironically including flat-earthers and creationists. Such persons, who aren’t 

intimidated by the parvenu authority of science, find it easier to razz the emperor. This is why the benighted, backward US 

(personified in Senator Inhofe), and not enlightened Europe, has resisted warmist doctrine and legislation, and thereby saved 

the world from a catastrophe greater than any inflicted to date by unscientific forces.

Science is the institution that has risen to the top of the heap as social arbiter of reality and trustworthiness. That has 

provided “Satan” with a wonderful disguise to pull another fast one on humanity. “It’s always the one you least suspect” that 

is Satan’s Slave. Science has become too full of itself, too prideful, too powerful, too inbred, too narrow and unreflective. This 

has provided its practitioners and acolytes, perverse and base as they are — being human and wanting to make a name for 

themselves and throw their weight around — with a temptation to do “Satan’s work”: inflicting madness and suffering on 

humanity. 

But that attempt was a minor stain on science in comparison with the explicit endorsement of Hansenism by official science. 

Therefore, sweeping changes are needed in science’s funding, institutional set-up, procedures, and incentives — including 

second-thinking about the commonplace that scientifically absurd ideas can have only a malign social effect. That’s too 

superficially plausible to actually be true. We seem to need such absurdities as a safety valve for our basic nuttiness; lacking 

them, we’re in danger of becoming stark staring sane and going on a “scientific” rampage.

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 20, 2010 at 6:23 am

Leif Svalgaard (07:59:30) : 

(...) As has been said so often, half of Americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Right there, one loses that segment of 

the population.(...)

Reply: I didn’t want to go into specifics. This is not a site to debate religion vs. science. – ctm

Nowhere did I mention religion. I simply referred to the fact (and WP seems credible enough on this point – surely the 

builders of the museum referred to would not contest that number or would rather see it increase) that half of all Americans 

believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. In this connection it is irrelevant if the actual percentage is 45% or 50% or 44.6783% 

or if the 6000 is 10,000 or whatever. On the other side of the coin, there are more people in India than the above number of 

Americans who believe the Universe is 311 trillion years old. Both numbers are indications of science illiteracy, and that is my 

point and has nothing to do with religion as such.

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 70 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Steve Goddard says:

February 20, 2010 at 6:28 am

Jay,

Nowhere in the article did I make any predictions of future trends. All I did was locate the mountain and measure it’s average 

slope. Tamino tried to use creative statistics to make the mountain disappear. Which one of us is being more honest?

Leif Svalgaard says:

February 20, 2010 at 6:59 am

Roger Knights (05:30:37) : 

In the 1st half of the 20th century Germany was the most scientifically literate country around, but it distorted the scientific 

process in, for instance, rejecting relativity, stacking scientific positions in universities with stooges, and indulging itself in 

some fairly crackpot anthropology, archaeology, etc.

Relativity was not universally accepted back then. Einstein didn’t get his Nobel Prize for relativity. And, BTW most 

Americans reject the consequences of GR even now.

What’s needed also is an awareness of the basic madness of individuals and groups, including scientific consensuses.

I think it is politicians that claim there is a scientific consensus. It is only in a situation where a people is illiterate that their 

leaders can lead them down the garden path. Your notion that it is the absurd crackpots that are now saving the world is in 

itself absurd.

Robin Edwards says:

February 20, 2010 at 7:56 am

In this thread climate (as described by time series) is awash with quotes of RSquared (R^2, R2) computed in virtually every 

case by performing a simple (linear) regression of supposedly homogeneous observations on date or time. It also seems to me 

that some posters may not be familiar with the background to RSquared and its relationship to “the real world”. It’s worth 

remembering that although RSquared is a genuine and useful statistical measure of “goodness of fit” of a model (any model) 

to the data, it is not at all informative about the value of the model, simply because in order to convert it to /useful/ 

inferential statistics you must also provide further information, to wit the quantity of information on which it is based. 

Statistical tables exist for this purpose, but there are various methods in the maths of regression analysis to do the same 

thing. If there’s not very much – say a few tens of observations – there’s a further complication because the data are a time 

series, with almost inevitably considerable serial correlation, so there has to be an adjustment to the quantity that describes 

the amount of information by methods that have been extensively discussed in Climate Audit. For large data sets, these 

adjustments, which affect the probability statements that can be made about the data, are I think unlikely to affect the 

outcome seriously. However, this does not, in my opinion, throw much further light on the scene.

What would be more informative for most readers, I venture, is a simple statement of the estimated coefficient of interest 

(typically the increase/decrease of some parameter over a given time interval) together with its confidence intervals at a 

specified probability level, say 90% or 95%. This information provides an instant, simple and unmistakable message about 

the analysis. If the confidence interval includes zero, the estimated slope cannot be significant at levels greater than the one 

on which the interval is based.

Something else that I always hope to see is a graphic that shows the the fitted (usually least squares) line together with the 

two hyperbolae that describe the confidence interval for the line, and the other hyperbolae that describe the interval within 

which a future observation from the same population can be expected to fall at the chosen confidence level. The software I 

use does this, and I remain surprised that nobody else presents such information. I don’t know how to post graphics to this 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 71 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
thread, so can’t illustrate what I mean. For those of you who like to think of fitting higher order model to data, such plots can 

be most enlightening. The confidence intervals for extrapolations of a cubic fit can really be quite alarming.

Now you can legitimately choose whatever confidence level you fancy. There’s absolutely nothing sacrosanct about 95% or 

90%. These merely express the betting odds at which you are prepared to make a quantitative statement about the outcome 

of the analysis. You might well decide that 30% was adequate, because it provides narrow confidence bands and would 

apparently support your hypothesis despite rather nonedescript data. In the days when I was an industrial scientist involved 

with trying to persuade engineers, chemists and physicists to adopt statistical design of experiments to improve their 

productivity, I reached the conclusion that in their scouting experiments they instinctively tended to use an approximate 70% 

level on which to base their further actions. Who can blame them, if these actions were not potentially very expensive if they 

finally proved to be misguided. However, the roughly 2:1 chance of being right was sufficient to persuade them that they were 

“doing the right thing”.

In earth-shaking climate science the choice of confidence levels in assessing the import of noisy data is something that I feel 

should be carefully and pro-actively contemplated by all those involved, included those influential non-scientist and nonstatistician outsiders who take world-affecting decisions based on data that are not always what they seem.

I hope that this makes sense to everyone!

Steve Goddard says:

February 20, 2010 at 9:20 am

Robin Edwards,

I used a stock market program which backfitted stock data with extremely precise fits using multiple order polynomials. 

Unfortunately, the equations were completely worthless at predicting future behaviour of the stocks.

“with four parameters I can fit an elephant and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk” 

Johnny Von Neumann

Robin Edwards says:

February 20, 2010 at 9:56 am

Steve Goddard.

Of course, Steve! Did the software also produce the confidence interval plot? This is almost always a nasty surprise to 

aficionados of polynomials.

I’d guess that with five parameters even Von Neumann would have had some problems with elephants, but it’s certainly a 

quote worth remembering.

Robin

Phil. says:

February 20, 2010 at 11:06 am

Tom_R (09:38:24) : 

>> Phil. (08:48:21) :

No the photon is absorbed it does not emerge from the collision at all. <<

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 72 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010
Watts Up With That? 

Then why is the sky blue?

Rayleigh scattering.

kadaka says:

February 20, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Moderators, 

In kadaka (12:43:24) : (awaiting moderation), “...state that, that it does say that...” should be “state that, that is does not say 

that...” 

Can you please correct that? 

Thanks!

kadaka says:

February 22, 2010 at 6:45 am

Been two days now.

So are no further comments being accepted for this thread? Perhaps that should be noted.

Oh, and if kadaka (12:43:24) (Feb 20) has been lost, can you delete kadaka (12:48:02)? It looks silly just hanging there.

Thanks!

Ronnie says:

March 11, 2010 at 3:49 am

Great stuff. wattsupwiththat.com deserves an oscar.

Hollie says:

March 11, 2010 at 4:53 am

wattsupwiththat.com, how do you do it?

Blog at Wordpress.com. 

Why Is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? | Watts Up With That? Page 73 of 73

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extent-interesting/ 7/19/2010