It’s Snow Joke!
By Paul Homewood
Just in case you wicked deniers thought a bit snow disproved global warming, grant funded climate scientists at MIT would like to remind you that global warming can lead to more snow as well as less snow. Nothing like an each way bet!
Using models (!) they tell us that winters overall may be less snowy. Which is, of course, the opposite to what has been actually happening.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=namgnld&ui_season=1
But places like Boston may see more extreme snowfalls.
Well, let’s see what has been happening at Amherst, tucked away in the heart of Massachussets, and one of the USHCN stations there. The chart below plots all days with 9 inches of snow or more, of which there have been 62 since 1893.
The distribution in recent years looks very similar to the early part of the record before 1920. I wonder whether they blamed heavy snowfall on global warming then!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
You can do wonders with models. For instance, make them say whatever you want to say.
Yes, under “climate chage” the weather will be exactly the same.
So if the weather is exactly the same, that will prove “climate change”, QED.
Climate Change causes more public funds to be spent guessing future climate changes.
It seems interesting that none of the so-called climate scientists ever realizes that they are definatively proving this is not science. If every single outcome proves climate change, then the idea cannot be falsified in any way (IE, it’s not science). This is exactly how psychics operate—predicitions that are so broad as to be impossible to know. If they somehow trip up and get caught say, speaking to the dead that are not really dead (as in the case of missing children) they just sweep it under the rug by saying it’s hard to know for certain which voice is which in the afterlife. Psychic climate change perveyors just say “may” alot and claim any outcome proves their theory. Not a drop of science anywhere.
If this comes out, it’s the snowfall data from 1960 to present in my town.
Less than 10 metres of snow per winter is easy living. 14 metres plus means hard times. I see no pattern.
html didn’t work. Try this
Far be it from the “journalist” to challenge anything the “scientists” said, of course. That would require thought. Why don’t USA Today dispense with Doyle Rice and just have a link to the press release?… save some money; same with Matt McGrath at the BBC. Their motto seems to be “I’ve read it, so it must be true.” A reasonably literate school leaver, on minimum wage, could do what they do.
“Climate Change” is all-powerful: It can cool or warm the planet, globally or locally. It can stop and come back with a vengeance.
The one thing it will not do is to keep it’s supporters quiet and lie no more.
The paper itself refers to “annual”, not “winter” snowfall declines. And the scope is global, not regional: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7515/full/nature13625.html
Paul’s first chart refers to winter in a particular region and his second chart refers to one location within that region. That doesn’t tell us much about *annual* trends or global distribution.
I can’t find global data, but annual NH snow cover anomalies are available here: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=7 It’s clear that there has indeed been a long term decline in *annual* NH snow cover since 1967.
Absolute values are available here: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=2 From the N. Hemisphere (monthly) data set, I calculate the overall trend to be -0.71 million km^2/dec.
The article states “Boston winters” being less snowy” And as it was aimed at US readers in USA Today, it is relevant to look at the North American picture.
Globally snowfall has been declining in Spring , but it has been increasing in winter.
But that’s different so it must be bad and we must have caused it, right?
(sarc)
Paul,
“Globally snowfall has been declining in Spring , but it has been increasing in winter.”
That’s true. And the long term rate of reduction in Jan-Dec NH snow cover since 1967 is -0.71 million km^2 per decade (irrespective of who or what caused it, Reality check).
‘Since 1967′
WOW! Since the end of the Coldest period of the last century! How ’bout that!
How much would say it had likely declined during the even warmer MWP?
Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
“WOW! Since the end of the Coldest period of the last century! How ’bout that!”
___________________
Indeed, one would expect reduced annual NH snow cover with increasing temperatures. And GISP2 snow accumulation data indicate reduced snowfall in central Greenland during the MWP (950-1250 AD), again as would be expected during a period of temperature increase.
Thanks! Good to know we have a very long way to go, then. Unless we have actually plateaued, and are now on the way down, as indications make it appear.