We’ve got quite a bit of snow here in New England, and we’re expecting even more. Of course the denialosphere expects us to believe that a week’s worth of large snowfall over an area less than 2% of the globe somehow negates decades of global warming caused by centuries of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Certainly a lot of people — those who don’t know much about the science and know even less about the difference between long-term trends and short-term fluctuations — will be fooled by the heavy “snow job.”
What does snow cover really tell us about climate change? We’ve looked at this before, but in light of all the hoopla about snowfall, let’s take another look at northern hemisphere snow cover data from Rutgers University Global Snow Lab. By the way, most of the world’s snow cover is in the northern hemisphere because most of the world’s land is in the northern hemisphere.
A graph of snow cover data shows an obvious annual pattern, with more snow in winter and less in summer:
We can remove the average annual pattern to compute snow cover anomaly:
I’ve added a smoothed curve, which indicates that snow cover has decreased over the decades it’s been tracked by satellites. We can confirm the decline by fitting a trend line to the data:
This indicates that on average, for the last four decades snow cover has declined by about 45,000 km^2 per year. In fact the average northern hemisphere snow cover has declined during this time interval by about 2 million km^2. And yes, that decline is statistically significant.
But we can look closer by isolating snow cover during the different seasons of the year. I’ll use the standard climatological definitions of the seasons, Dec-Jan-Feb for winter, Mar-Apr-May for spring, Jun-Jul-Aug for summer, and Sep-Oct-Nov for fall. If we look at winter snow cover, we don’t see any obvious trend, and in fact a regression indicates that there’s no significant change in winter snow cover:
It’s really not a surprise that there’s no trend in winter snow cover. Warmer temperature tends to melt snow, but also causes more water vapor in the air, so there’s more possibility of snow. And as long as it’s still cold enough to snow (which it still is during winter), we shouldn’t be surprised by no change in snow cover.
Springtime snow cover tells a different story:
This time there is a statistically significant trend, snow cover declining at about 68,000 km^2/yr. This is due to higher temperature causing earlier, and greater, springtime snowmelt.
The trend is even stronger in summer:
Average summer snow cover has declined at a whopping 99,000 km^2/yr. Again, higher temperature is the reason. The lowest average summer snow cover yet recorded was for 2008; the 2nd-lowest was 2007.
Autumn shows signs of a decline, but the decrease is not statistically significant:
So, autumn snow cover might be declining, but then again, it might not.
The seasonal pattern of snow cover shows that there’s been no noticeable decline during fall and winter, so we shouldn’t be the least bit surprised by the large snowfall over the U.S. this past week. We can also plainly see that snow cover exhibits extremely large fluctuations, so again last week’s snowfall is no surprise whatever, and no harbinger of any reversal of global warming. But the rapid decline of springtime snow cover over the last four decades, and the even more rapid decline of summer snow cover, show the mark of global warming unambiguously. And despite what some like to shout, the statistically strong trends are what’s important, not the statistically normal noise.
But I don’t expect any of this to reduce the noise we’ll hear from denialist blogs.
102 responses so far ↓
David B. Benson // December 21, 2008 at 12:15 am |
I’d comment, but I have to go out and shovel.
:-)
dhogaza // December 21, 2008 at 12:38 am |
We’ll have to shovel in the morning …
Meanwhile, it snowed slightly in madrid the week before this, and now, here I am in PDX, and we’re getting unusually heavy snow.
While Madrid is now “proving” global warming to be true with unseasonably balmy weather in the 60s!
hengav // December 21, 2008 at 1:12 am |
Wonderful use of linear trend analysis. Now try a sinusoid with a period of 60 years…
[Response: Why would I do that?
The linear fit isn't meant to suggest that the change over time is linear; it's used to establish that there's a trend (there is), and that it's downward (it is). It also provides a very rough estimate of the total decline, a little under 2 million km^2.
A better estimate of the total decline is given by the lowess fit, which indicates a decrease of over 3 million km^2.
A 60-yr periodic waveform also indicates a decline over the observed time span. But since it's not as good a model as the linear fit (about the same residual variance but with more parameters), and not nearly as good as the lowess fit, there's no justification for using such a model to estimate the decline. Add the fact that there's only 42 years of data, and there's no validity to any claim that it actually models the pattern of change; it's ludicrous to claim that these data support that behavior. It also contradicts the sharp downtrend in the last 13 years; the sinusoidal model turns back upward but the data since 1996 alone show a statistically significant downtrend.
Similar contradictions arise from attempting to fit a 60-yr periodic waveform to the seasonal data. This is especially true for the summer-season data, which have declined by about 4 million km^2.
In short, your suggestion is nonsense. I suspect it's motivated by an attempt to tie snow cover decline to some oceanic oscillation like PDO. The data don't support that idea.]
Horatio Algeranon // December 21, 2008 at 1:49 am |
“But I don’t expect any of this to reduce the noise we’ll hear from denialist blogs.”
Would that be (infer) red noise? Or (take-a) shot noise?
To celebrate the snow (and inevitable snow job), comin’ as it does just a few days before Christmas, Horatio proposes a slight variation of the classic…
I’m dreaming of a Watt Christmas,
just like the ones I used to know
Where the folks go fishin’, forever wishin’
For downward trends in every snow.
I’m dreaming of a Watt Christmas,
with every blogpost that I write
May your data be cherries and whatnot
and may all your Christmases be Watt
PS, Horatio knows it’s “Watts”, but that don’t rhyme with “white” (not even close*), so Horatio has made use of his poetic license** (not the first time and surely not the last).
*Yes, Horatio understands that neither does “Watt”, really, but to pick nits on this would not really be in the Christmas spirit, at any rate.
**Some would undoubtedly argue that Horatio should have his poetic license revoked altogether, but that is a different topic and one that really should be taken up with the proper authorities.
TCOisbanned? // December 21, 2008 at 3:08 am |
a. You’re contesting an argument that hasn’t been made yet.
[Response: No I'm not. I use the "tag surfer" to track wordpress posts about global warming, and there have been a *lot* of posts about how the heavy snowfall shows what a crock global warming is. So many ... that's why I did this post.]
b. You’re probably right that they will.
c. I (of course) agree with the silliness of said behavior.
d. The warmers (or warmer supporters) do it too (cf. pictures of the Gulf with Katrina in it on magazines and TV programs about GW.)
e. Stand by for a vehement (and trivial and boring) argument about who does it more. Cue Dhog in 4-3-2-1!
P.s. I’ll see you one Vincenthaven and raise you two Jae’s.
dhogaza // December 21, 2008 at 4:47 am |
My vehement and trivial and boring observation is that magazines and TV programs don’t pretend to doing science.
While those on your “team” are claiming to be doing über science, so good that it trumps the work of actual scientists.
You probably see no difference.
[edit]
Hank Roberts // December 21, 2008 at 5:25 am |
http://www.noaa.gov
* Fourth Warmest November for Globe
This year is on track to be one of the 10 warmest years on record for the globe, based on the combined worldwide land and ocean surface average temperatures, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
* November Warmer Than Average in U.S.
The November 2008 temperature for the contiguous United States was warmer than the long-term average, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
John Surname // December 21, 2008 at 6:33 am |
This argument is made all the time.
nanny_govt_sucks // December 21, 2008 at 7:40 am |
Hooray! Less snow!
Were you hoping for more snow?
Sekerob // December 21, 2008 at 9:08 am |
I’m missing discussion of Eurasia v NA (minus Greenland). Rutgers data provides segmented monthly data.
Totally agree Tamino. It’s an another total crock going around about there being snow in abundance this moment as a sign of anything and seen enough of them already. In Europe, incl. Russia, there’s still shortfall much shortfall. After a few days have passed Rutgers daily shows a long band, but already a third the size it was over the USA.
Flip between day 345 and 355. The red where it should be:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_daily.php?ui_year=2008&ui_day=345&ui_set=2
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_daily.php?ui_year=2008&ui_day=355&ui_set=2
dhogaza // December 21, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
In western Oregon, we wring our hands in anguish when snow levels are too low.
Because our cities, and towns, and farms get most of their water from in summer from runoff from the snowpack in the Cascade mountains.
S2 // December 21, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
I’m actually quite surprised at the lack of winter and autumn trends.
In Northern Scotland we’ve seen a 25% reduction in the number of winter days of snow cover (from 1961 to 2004), despite a 69% increase in total precipitation.
The autumn decline is an even more dramatic 70%.
But then Scotland is a very small part of the hemisphere.
Figures from
A handbook of climate trends across Scotland
Steven Earl Salmony // December 21, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
Yes, definitely yes, some of the darkest of dark days are passing into history……finally. The future is about to begin…….mercifully.
An unnecessary and unjustifiable war at a cost of three trillion dollars; a crashing economy at a cost of trillions more; a degraded environment, a dissipated Earth…….priceless.
And people responsible for these nightmares want their 2008 bonuses……predictable.
Wayne // December 21, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
Actually, the post isn’t about snow, it’s about snow cover. That’s the area of land covered by snow. One posible reason for the springtime decline is that there’s less snow. Another is that the temperatures are higher, so the same amount of snow melts sooner or quicker in the spring. It’s complex. Reducing it to a whine that snow is a pain to shovel, so we should all want less, is short-sighted. Understanding the issues and the science is hard and takes time, but it’s necessary to manage our impact on the climate.
John // December 21, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
You just prove the point that everything causes global warming and global warming causes everything. It’s getting boring and ridiculous. The world is warming because it is supposed to. It’s happened before and it will again after the period of cooling we’re currently experiencing. Adapt and live your life.
dhogaza // December 21, 2008 at 6:08 pm |
Huh, I simply see a statistical analysis of snow cover that says it’s declining significantly.
Exactly how is this ridiculous?
It’s supposed to? God’s will? Fate?
Or because science tells us that adding GHGs to the atmosphere will cause warming?
elspi // December 21, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
Tamio
Please ban the troll-john. He isn’t even snark-worthy.
Ray Ladbury // December 21, 2008 at 7:52 pm |
Little Johnny is only 14 years old. He makes one understand the W. C. Fields school of child rearing.
Holly Stick // December 21, 2008 at 10:51 pm |
I certainly recall how, 40 years ago, spring melting could go on for weeks in the farming area northeast of Calgary, with flooded ditches and sometimes flooded roads and the sound of running water everywhere. Now what snow there is seems to disappear overnight without a sound.
I presume the winter snow levels in the northern hemisphere haven’t changed because even if it’s warmer in winter, it’s still not warm enough for long enough to melt the snow.
TCOisbanned? // December 21, 2008 at 11:07 pm |
aenocdotal evidence shows nothing.
Holly Stick // December 22, 2008 at 2:38 am |
This anecdotal evidence appears to be supported by the data as presented and analyzed; and it appears to corroborate the analysis. Is there anything wrong with that?
TCOisbanned? // December 22, 2008 at 3:26 am |
Yup. The data with appropriate numbers and statistics and such is the relavent thing. The anecdote tells nothing and can be (and often is) countered by denier anecdotes.
Richard Steckis // December 22, 2008 at 4:40 am |
Hank Roberts: “November Warmer Than Average in U.S.”
November much cooler than average in Western Australia and December looking to go the same way.
Weather, weather, weather.
nanny_govt_sucks // December 22, 2008 at 7:04 am |
Then you should be happy to hear that there is virtually no winter trend.
nanny_govt_sucks // December 22, 2008 at 7:10 am |
Seriously, reduced snow cover in spring (while winter snow cover shows no trend) is a bad thing?
Seems like you get your usual winter snow but plants have more time and space to grow come spring. I don’t see the downside.
ozydingo // December 22, 2008 at 7:15 am |
I’m curious about some of the details on the statistical analysis, primarily for my own education on other statistical methods (I’m really just getting to learn the details of some of this stuff). Your typical plug-and-play regression, if I’m not mistaken, requires samples to be independent for computing the probability of false rejection (i.e. declaring statistical significance.) Surely snow-coverage samples within the same year are not necessarily independent samples of the process? It certainly wouldn’t surprise me that there might be also more elaborate probabilistic models that can go into the analysis that makes reasonable assumptions about yearly weather to attempt to take this into account. Can you comment to this effect, on what may have been done in the presented analysis and/or more general methods / pointers thereto?
[Response: There are a number of posts on the topic, including here, here, and here.]
Paolo Morelli // December 22, 2008 at 8:07 am |
We experienced exceptionally heavy and early snowfall here in northern Italy this autumn and, off course, we did also have a lot of those absurd claims about the end of global warming in the blogosfere and on mainstream media. We are in desperate need of a local Tamino…
Armchair Climate Expert // December 22, 2008 at 9:30 am |
Global warming? Here in Brisbane Australia we have five times as much snow as normal for this time of year. And its summer.
:D
less // December 22, 2008 at 12:05 pm |
S2, indeed, Scotland is but a small part of the globe – one that’s strongly affected by the North Atlantic Oscillation. The NAO was at its most negative values in the early sixties and has generally been on the upswing since then, so the trends in winter precipitation that you’re describing are probably a result of that. Positive NAO = Warmer, wetter winters for Europe.
lowlander // December 22, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
Less:
I think you may have not read the document linked by S2 with due attention. Period of analisis covers almost 100 years of records in Scotland since 1914.
In summary:
An increase in the average temperature of 2 Celsius
A increase in average precipitation of 200 mm/year
There is significant east/west difference of the country on how these variables are behaving.
The baseline comparison is a standard climatic period of 30 years designed precicely to smooth the statistical noise out of the climatic data such as NAO.
The question posed by S2 is actually quite interesting considering the analysis presented by Tamino.
The report mentions with little surprise that average amount of snow cover days has decreased over Scotland but it mentions as well that most of the difference is Spring AND Autumn.
I think that in the case of Scotland one must bear in mind that there are no glaciers. Snow cover is a seasonal event as Scotland is a peri-arctic nation with a strong influence from the Gulf current in it’s climate, which means that in terms of type of precipitation, Scotland is a border region.
The winter process of maintenance of snow cover that Tamino describes (i.e. increased precipitation in the form of snow during the winter due to increased water vapour in the air) can only occur in regions where the increase in ambient temperature does not cause the fusion/freezing temperature range to be crossed during the Winter time as this is a physical tipping point for the type of precipitation that you will observe.
I would venture to guess therefore that probably, regions such as Scotland are not covered by Tamino’s analysis. He may have something to add here.
Hank Roberts // December 22, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
It’s the presence of snow cover in the spring that provides slow, steady, meltwater that soaks in, rather than springtime floods. Lookumup.
Some agricultural areas depend on an accumulation of snow during winter that will melt gradually in spring, providing water for crop growth. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow
Observed change in spring snow-cover duration 1970–2004
http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewmap.asp?id=3707
ozydingo // December 22, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
Thanks for the replies above! The Hurst parameter post is exactly what I was looking for.
dhogaza // December 22, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
Ignoring the fact that the fact that there’s no overall trend in winter snow cover doesn’t imply that there’s no downward trend in places like western oregon (you’d be mistaken to place faith in that assumption of yours) …
Timing as well as amount of snow cover is extremely important in areas that depend on mountain snowpack for water. Decreased spring snowpack while winter snowpack is the same would, if true (and again, don’t hold your breath for western Oregon) imply a lot of late winter/early spring melt.
At a time when we’re getting a lot of rain.
Which means reservoir storage capacity gets totally used up earlier in the year than we want. The reservoir systems are planned with knowledge of the timing and amounts of spring rains, winter snowpack, spring melt and runoff, etc.
You can change the timing of all that and simply pull a statement out of your ass proclaiming “I can’t see any downside!”
cletus // December 22, 2008 at 6:10 pm |
NGS–the downside is that for climates in the Western US, the snow is most of the water for the year so an early spring melt means increased drought stress in the fall. Also as far as farming goes, an earlier spring melt can mean challenges for irrigation…i.e., if the water flows down the stream in april rather than june, it’s not in the stream when you need it.
Pooh-pooh it if you want, but it’s not trivial to have less snow in the spring.
Harold Brooks // December 22, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
Seriously, reduced snow cover in spring (while winter snow cover shows no trend) is a bad thing?
Seems like you get your usual winter snow but plants have more time and space to grow come spring. I don’t see the downside.
Much of the western US depends on snowpack for water supplies. Earlier snowmelt (or less available to melt) means less water available in the spring and summer.
Jim Eager // December 22, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
nanny imagines, incorrectly, that “cover” = “volume.”
nanny also ignores the fact that faster melt = less absorption and replenishment of ground water.
nanny imagines and ignores much.
Ian Forrester // December 22, 2008 at 8:09 pm |
NGS, do you ever get out and about and look at the world around you?
Perhaps, along with the elementary subjects I suggested you upgrade on another thread, you may take time and drive around a bit and observe what happens under differing climate conditions.
As well as providing soil moisture snow cover prevents the loss of soil by wind erosion, especially on the prairies.
Dry winter winds soon remove snow and expose the underlying soil to wind erosion if the cover is too light.
Dave A // December 22, 2008 at 10:23 pm |
Just a question. How does the Rutgers Global Snow Lab collect its information and how accurate is it?
From a couple of the comments here about Scotland it does not seem to offer comprehensive coverage.
[Response: From their website:
]
luminous beauty // December 22, 2008 at 10:41 pm |
Nags,
<a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_2008_California_wildfires” ¡Ya Basta!
luminous beauty // December 22, 2008 at 10:44 pm |
¡Ay, Caramba!
David B. Benson // December 22, 2008 at 11:07 pm |
Here the farmers want snow to cover the soft white winter wheat to lessen frost damage.
And incidently, the only month in which snow has not fallen here some year in the past 38 years is July. Last June was unusual in having about 3 cm of wet, heavy snow one day.
Dana // December 23, 2008 at 12:12 am |
“a. You’re contesting an argument that hasn’t been made yet.”
Tamino is correct here. After the Las Vegas snow event there was a period of several days during which up to 50% of the questions in the Yahoo Answers Global Warming section suggested that because of this weather event, global warming is a myth.
The argument has been made many times since late fall.
This entry was a really interesting analysis of the snowcover trends. Nice job as always, Tamino.
TCOisbanned? // December 23, 2008 at 3:33 am |
I didn’t see Tammy citing or linking to the complainers. He also used future tense in his last sentence. I had the impression he was making the argument in advance.
Richard Steckis // December 23, 2008 at 3:37 am |
Given that the snow cover seems to important for agriculture in the western US, it would be pertinent to see if such declines in the spring and summer snow area has led to a concomitant decline in agricultural yield.
Also a comparison with stream flows would be interesting.
nanny_govt_sucks // December 23, 2008 at 3:43 am |
And do these planners not have access to the data Tamino used above?
… but also an earlier start to irrigating in the spring, I imagine. And aren’t increased CO2 concentrations and precipitation supposed to help ameliorate drought stress to a certain degree?
And so far the reactions to my post seem to be about crops, not about the ecosystem as a whole. I’ve read studies showing that the planet is greening and that the growing season is longer, coinciding with recent warming. So something is going right.
Richard Steckis // December 23, 2008 at 4:00 am |
Armchair. Snow in Brisbane? In summer?
Methinks you jest!
nanny_govt_sucks // December 23, 2008 at 7:40 am |
Well, if you are getting more rain, then doesn’t that mean that there’s less need to pull water (for crops anyway) out of the reservoir? So maybe the reservoir water will last a bit longer into the fall and ameliorate potential late season drought.
sod // December 23, 2008 at 7:51 am |
… but also an earlier start to irrigating in the spring, I imagine. And aren’t increased CO2 concentrations and precipitation supposed to help ameliorate drought stress to a certain degree?
i ll keep it simple:
very fast and early melt: problematic. causing floods early and drought later in the year. not good news.
slow melting: good. less floods, more water later when needed.
more precipitation might help, or might not. this depends on timing. the extra rain might actually be more winter snow, melting early. this would simply INCREASE THE PROBLEMS, that outlined above.
or it might fall as rain in autumn, too late for farmers.
And so far the reactions to my post seem to be about crops, not about the ecosystem as a whole. I’ve read studies showing that the planet is greening and that the growing season is longer, coinciding with recent warming. So something is going right.
the planet will survive. the question is, how will mankind (and some wildlife) hang on.
Lee // December 23, 2008 at 9:09 am |
nanny – Out here in the west, we don’t need to irrigate in the spring. It rains here in the the winter and spring.
California agriculture is dependent on summer and fall irrigation. The rainfall between end of april and late october or november, is effectively zero inches for most of the relevant parts of the state. That is also the period when temperatures are high enough to grow stuff. Increased early melt and early runoff simply means that there is less snow in the mountains and less water in the streams in the summer and fall, when we need it most.
We capture a lot – but far from all – of that water in reservoirs, which ameliorates the problem to an extent. But if the reservoirs fill up early in spring with melt, and then replenishing flows are reduced in the summer, that means that stream flow releases have to come from the storage pools for more of the year, meaning also less water available in summer and fall. Early melt means that more storage is necessary to meet teh same water needs – and out here in the west, that means more reservoirs – but we’ve used up all the good spots – or expanded pools in existing reservoirs, by rebuilding them and raising the pool elevation, none of which comes cheap in either money or environmental impacts.
This is all exacerbated, in California, by a significant trend of decreased winter snowpack – not necessarily coverage area, but less water falling and being stored as snow, period.
Western water planners are very, very worried by all this – and they know a hell of a lot more about the melt timing issues and impacts than you do, nags.
Lee // December 23, 2008 at 9:14 am |
“so far the reactions to my post seem to be about crops, not about the ecosystem as a whole.”
Trees/forests/plant communities throughout the west are being increasingly water stressed by this. If snowpack at a given location melts off earlier, and doesn’t last as long into the summer then the water supply goes away earlier than it used to do – leaving a longer period of no water. Plants do not like this.
Ray Ladbury // December 23, 2008 at 1:26 pm |
Nanny reveals the key to all his thinking on climate science:
“…I imagine…”
Nanny, science isn’t about imagining. It’s about gathering information and seeing how it fits together. It’s not about looking around for studies that support your rosy view. It’s about looking at all the data and making a realistic assessment. Can ya try and do that for us? Please?
dhogaza // December 23, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
Forests throughout the west are drought-stressed and fire seasons have been growing longer with hotter weather. Pine bark beetles are expanding their range north, the trees they infect are especially vulnerable to fire.
Past fire suppression efforts make fires burn hotter and more thoroughly, however the past is NOT responsible for the hotter and drier fire seasons we’re seeing. Climate change is the major driver.
Ray’s got it right. Your thinking boils down to “…I imagine…”. Furthermore, your imaginative thinking is driven by one thing, and one thing only … the attitude towards government so accurately described by your handle.
Sorry, your political beliefs are not going to change the physical reality of what’s happening out there in the hard, often cruel, world.
However, I know that your inability to accept facts that run counter to your political beliefs is boundless. You’re another denialist who clearly falls into the bin labeled “uneducatable”.
Dano // December 23, 2008 at 4:58 pm |
And so far the reactions to my post seem to be about crops, not about the ecosystem as a whole. I’ve read studies showing that the planet is greening and that the growing season is longer, coinciding with recent warming. So something is going right.
This logic presumes that the premise of ‘greening is good’ is correct, or that short time scales equal longer scales.
Read further into these studies and see whether perennial woody plants are happy.
That is: does the longer period of metabolism translate to more plant health? The early indications are that there is less OM and nutrients falling out of the tree (via leaves) and into the soil.
IOW: so what. A little wisdom goes a long way, NaGS. The Google doesn’t have a wisdom button.
Best,
D
mauri pelto // December 23, 2008 at 6:27 pm |
In mountain regions of the Pacific Northwest in particular a key factor in changes in snowpack is the ratio of snow to rain. This has been called the snowpack-precipitation ration by Knowles, Dettinger and Cayan (2005) and Pelto (2006 and 2008) and snowpack storage efficiency by Mote et al. (2008). It is evident that this ratio is declining regardless of time interval observed. The amount of ppt require to yield the same snowpack must increase. Fortunately for the Pacific Northwest this has been a wet decade from 1999-2008, making up for the declining ratio. http://www.nichols.edu/departments/Glacier/snowpack_variations_in_the_north.htm
David B. Benson // December 23, 2008 at 8:02 pm |
sod // December 23, 2008 at 7:51 am — Actually, rain in the autumn is good for soil moisture for next year’s crops. Around here the only time rain is (most) unwelcome is during harvest, August into September.
dhogaza // December 23, 2008 at 8:47 pm |
So, how does Mauri, living in MA, end up spending more time in the North Cascades than I do, living here in PDX :)
NGS – Mauri Peltois is an expert in the subject matter addressed in his post. Pay attention to what he says …
JCH // December 23, 2008 at 11:33 pm |
“Given that the snow cover seems to important for agriculture in the western US, it would be pertinent to see if such declines in the spring and summer snow area has led to a concomitant decline in agricultural yield. …”
For whatever reason, where we farmed and ranched, when it was too warm to snow, it would rain.
P. Lewis // December 24, 2008 at 12:35 am |
I’m not sure that appeals to authority work … more especially to the ineducable.
Hank Roberts // December 24, 2008 at 2:15 am |
http://www.cig.ensmp.fr/~iahs/hsj/360/hysj_36_06_0611.pdf
Hydrological Sciences – Journal – des Sciences Hydrologiques, 36,6, 12/1991
Rain-induced outflow from deep snowpacks
in the central Sierra Nevada, California
…
Abstract In many mountainous areas of the Pacific coast of North America, rainfall onto snowpacks causes massive floods….
nanny_govt_sucks // December 24, 2008 at 4:01 am |
Gotta go away for the rest of the week. Some quick comments. Floods aren’t bad news for topsoil. And fish. Western watter planners = government. Centralized government at that – I’d be worried regardless of snowfall amounts. A flexible, dynamic free society water distribution system would better meet the needs of farmers. Green IS good Dano. no matter how you try to twist it.
dhogaza // December 24, 2008 at 6:03 am |
Well, sure, that’s sort of inherent in wide-spectrum science denialism.
NGS reinforces our understanding with this:
See? Any problem with water is due to government.
The Sahara would be a garden of Eden if it weren’t for the overly restrictive government agencies that refuse to let it rain there.
Western water law was instituted because your “free society water distribution system” FAILED.
This is called history, which of course I’m sure you reject as vehemently as you reject science (and sociology, and political science, and everything else ever written by other than Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein).
In other words, science is bogus, because NGS says so,.
I shoulda dropped out of school at age 4, would’ve saved me a shitload of work, and I’d be just as informed and smart as NGS if I’d done so…
dhogaza // December 24, 2008 at 6:04 am |
This one is especially lovely :)
malcolm // December 24, 2008 at 7:51 am |
Tamino – didn’t you previously claim that the mid-1970s were a turning point for global temperatures? Your graphs above seem inconsistent with this. Care to comment?
storak // December 24, 2008 at 11:39 am |
Floods aren’t bad news for topsoil.
i doubt that massive floods benefit farmers. this is a british report tackling “autumn floods”:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmagric/172/17203.htm
mankind is having a huge impact on water. apart from the climate change, we are sealing the ground, cutting woods and change rivers.
and we use more and more surface area, increasing our vulnerability.
Centralized government at that – I’d be worried regardless of snowfall amounts. A flexible, dynamic free society water distribution system would better meet the needs of farmers.
this is total nonsense. this problems are typically handled at exactly the right level of “centralization”.
it is completely impossible to solve a problem like this (water distribution along a river, for example) without some “centralization”.
Green IS good Dano. no matter how you try to twist it.
false again.
look at the algae, plaguing the Mediterranean.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE5DE1539F935A2575BC0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
caused by human waste, spilled into the sea, it is killing a lot of other life. (the color is rather brown, btw..)
Ray Ladbury // December 24, 2008 at 12:44 pm |
NGS says “Green IS good Dano. no matter how you try to twist it.”
Nanny, I’ve got a loaf of bread that’s “good”. Wanna buy it?
Elery Fudge // December 24, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
Fall and winter snow cover has not changed much.
Spring and summer snow cover has decreased.
Rain precipitation has increased.
What are the concrete, observed, adverse results?
What are ideal conditions and when were they last observed?
Elery
dhogaza // December 24, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
They were last observed in the Garden of Eden…
(sorry, but some questions just can’t be taken seriously)
Lee // December 24, 2008 at 6:33 pm |
I am astounded at how little nanny knows, and how authoritatively he nonetheless pronounces his claims of knowledge.
“Western watter planners = government. Centralized government at that”
This is complete crap. My father was a planning engineer for the California Department of Water Resources, involved over the last decades of his career in several sets of allocation and storage negotiations. A typical negotiation involved dozens of entities, including several state departments (fish and game, water, budget, environmental), federal entities (reclamation, corp of engineers, EPA, forestry), each county affected, each city affected, private and quasi-public irrigation districts and ditch districts, private irrigator interests, public environmental and sportsman groups. No single agency had authorization authority – multiple agencies had veto power, and it was all subject to judicial oversight under the water laws and subject to superrceding public and private water rights.
To claim, as nags does, that this is “centralized government” is to betray utter ignorance of the water planning processes that he is claiming to understand.
P. Lewis // December 24, 2008 at 7:47 pm |
n_g_s said:
Just the rest of the week? Shame about that.
David B. Benson // December 24, 2008 at 8:33 pm |
P. Lewis // December 24, 2008 at 7:47 pm — What you just wrote.
guthrie // December 24, 2008 at 8:42 pm |
I read “The western Paradox”, a book of essays and such by Bernard de Voto. In it he makes it very clear how the “west” was ruined ecologically and socially by cattle barons and miners and loggers, and it wasn’t until the gvt intervened that things began to get better. All this happened back in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. NGS clearly hasn’t a clue about the history of the area.
dhogaza // December 24, 2008 at 10:01 pm |
This is what life on the open range was like before the state and federal governments stepped in:
In addition to the above, there was at least one murder of an opponent to the Sheep-Shooting Associations. There’s another in Oregon’s Great Basin country that’s not been definitely pinned down to the cattle ranchers.
I’ll take government, thank you.
David B. Benson // December 24, 2008 at 10:48 pm |
Elery Fudge // December 24, 2008 at 3:45 pm — I’ve posted again and again on actual adverse results of AGw, which has just barely started. On DotEarth.
Do go read Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees”.
Rattus Norvegicus // December 25, 2008 at 1:26 am |
As they say out here in the West: “Whiskey’s for drinkin’, water’s for fightin’”
Charles // December 25, 2008 at 1:40 am |
“Floods aren’t bad news for topsoil. And fish.”
I concur: that was especially brilliant. NGS, that was one of the funniest lines of the year. Top marks! And you have worked with soils or river fisheries or water management for how many years?
Richard Steckis // December 25, 2008 at 12:11 pm |
Charles.
Here in Australia, we have species of fish that rely on river flooding for their reproductive cycle. With the “taming” of the Murray Darling river system, we have a situation where the survival of a number of species is threatened by the lack of flooding in recent decades due to irrigation and agriculture preventing flooding of the river into the flood plains.
The Nile River’s fertile agricultural soils are there because of flood-borne sediments. It doesn’t only apply to the Nile either.
dhogaza // December 25, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
Poor Richard …
NGS said that flooding is NEVER bad news for topsoil.
I’m sure we’re all aware that the Nile, the Mississippi Delta, etc shows that SOME flooding builds top soil by redistributing mineral-rich upstream sediments.
This doesn’t make NGS’s statement any less stupid.
Richard Steckis // December 26, 2008 at 5:56 am |
Dhogaza.
I was addressing Charles’ post. I did not read NGS’s post but having done so now it does sound a little erratic. However, that being said, river regulation has profound ecological impacts.
dhogaza // December 26, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
I agree. So you’ve learned something about your field of work, cool. Now why can’t you admit that climate scientists are experts in *their* field of work?
Dave A // December 26, 2008 at 8:42 pm |
DBB,
Do go read Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees”.
Come on David, I can understand your exhortations to read Spenser Weart but even you must recognise that Lynas is ‘extreme’.
Dave A // December 26, 2008 at 8:47 pm |
DBB,
Although I should add that Lynas has recently upset a lot of the Greens here in the UK by saying that their kneejerk opposition to nuclear power needs to be reconsidered.
Funny how things develop isn’t it?
Tom G // December 27, 2008 at 7:13 pm |
Mark Lynas is ‘extreme’?
The Royal Society seems to think very highly of him.
http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=7836
Hank Roberts // December 27, 2008 at 7:39 pm |
Dave A doesn’t footnote.
Mark Lynas does.
Who ya gonna trust, the opinion guy or the researcher who gives you sources to check?
nanny_govt_sucks // December 27, 2008 at 11:59 pm |
Wow, what happened? Are you sure dhogaza?
Yes, preventing flooding means preventing the replenishment of topsoil, the prorogation of fish species, and more. To say “floods are bad” is like saying “forest fires are bad”. They both have their place in the natural order of things.
Green: Of course I’m talking about the greening planet as a whole. Is this one really hard to swallow? It seems the vitriol really comes out when I bring this up.
nanny_govt_sucks // December 28, 2008 at 12:13 am |
And with such a streamlined, efficient system we have problems with water planning? Say it isn’t so!
What you’ve described may not be a complete centralization, but when local water decisions involve federal agencies with veto power we’ve gone pretty far in that direction.
dhogaza // December 28, 2008 at 1:33 am |
So, still holding forth with your statement that “flooding is NEVER bad for topsoil”?
Glad to see it. Stick to your guns, Nanny!
And your improved system? Ranchers go back to shooting each other over water? As happened to Peter French, one of the largest cattle barons of all time?
Why do you think government got involved in the first place? Have you noticed that no one in the West who depends on water suggests getting rid of government, and going back to the “them that shoots fastest and furthest and bestest” gets to keep it for themselves?
OK, not all water disputes were settled via the rifle. Sometimes arson, or running off of cattle, or intimidation would do the trick.
nanny_govt_sucks // December 28, 2008 at 6:52 am |
This “former system” you refer to included French using the power of government to build his empire in the first place. No wonder nearby homesteaders had it in for him. If only the assassin could have shot down those unjust laws instead of French.
Does the phrase “Pigs at the trough” mean anything to you?
dhogaza // December 28, 2008 at 5:54 pm |
which “unjust law” do you refer to? Please be specific.
Sure. The unregulated derivatives market comes to mind …
Hank Roberts // December 28, 2008 at 6:05 pm |
Nan, some troughs are more equal than others.
David B. Benson // December 28, 2008 at 8:46 pm |
Dave A // December 26, 2008 at 8:42 pm — Mark Lynas, at the extreme, seems to agree fairly well with Peter Ward, a scientist, in “Under a Green Sky”. Try physicist Joe Romm’s “Hell and High Water”, now available in paperback.
nanny_govt_sucks // December 29, 2008 at 4:52 am |
dhogaza, French was no libertarian. He used the force of government to gain an advantage over others. See the “Cattle King” section of his wiki page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_French
The government was already involved.
Reminds me of the Harry Browne quote “Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, “See, if it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk.”"
Ray Ladbury // December 29, 2008 at 9:38 am |
Nanny, You know, I’ve lived in places where government was week. There you had the wonderful combination of both lawlessness and repression, since repression was the only way they could keep any order at all. I’ve visited places where government was all encompassing, and there they might break your leg, but they knew they didn’t have to give you a crutch. Human beings are not cut out to live without law, so the only combination I know that works is government + vigilance. It’s called democracy, and for all its faults, it can be made to work.
Sekerob // December 29, 2008 at 10:44 am |
Here’s one from the playground. 12 months, splitting EurAsia and NA less Greenland in an animation.
Commented elsewhere, EurAsia has a more pronounced trend, December being the only month that actually is pointing up, presuming that there’s more vapor to turn into snow. Canada/USA have less of a trend,
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q210/Sekerob/SnowCoverAnim.gif
dhogaza // December 29, 2008 at 5:26 pm |
Without the barriers of the homestead and swamp/recovery acts he would’ve seized the land with much less effort.
The reality is that he *broke* the law to gain his power, not *use* the law.
He had his vaqueros (mangled into “buckaroo” in English) file homestead claims, then transfer them to him, both actions being illegal (the vaqueros were not, for the most part, US citizens therefore not elgible to homestead, and homesteads could not be freely transfered).
There was insufficient federal presence to police the law in scarcely populated areas, making it easy to cheat. More government in the form of enforcement would’ve forestalled the French/Glen land grab.
Less government in the form of no law would’ve allowed French and Glen to exercise their considerable financial and muscle resources without restraint.
It’s a pity you allow your political beliefs to blind you to reality. It’s clear that your denial of science is based on that political bias. Now it’s apparent that it leads you to deny history, as well.
nanny_govt_sucks // December 29, 2008 at 8:31 pm |
Those “barriers” were ripe for French’s abuse and turned out to be advantages for him. There are no perfect laws, you see. Unintended consequences are the rule, not the exception. The more that government does the more problems it creates, and the more “solutions” it forces upon us in the form of laws and regulations which only cause more problems.
We would have been better off with a system where French negotiated with the locals for his property rights. Would he be able to build the same empire as in the government system? Probably not as he would have no advantage that other homesteaders did not have. What about disputes? A legitimate place for government is to run a court system to resolve these disputes – where Native Americans would have their rights respected as well. Would force be involved in some of the land grabs? Perhaps. But it would not be institutionalized force as with federal laws.
dhogaza // December 29, 2008 at 9:08 pm |
Uh, he was BREAKING the law. It was not an unintended consequence of the laws themselves, it was an entirely predictable consequence of not establishing an infrastructure capable of forcing people like French to comply with the law.
Of course, absent law, he would’ve simply acted in an entirely unfettered way.
Hilarious. Sure he had an advantage – more money, more guns, more vacqueros, and fewer scruples and certain moral outlook on the use of power.
He didn’t arrive on the scene penniless, he arrived well-funded with a mandate to build an cattle empire in SE Oregon and NW Nevada using all the resources made available by his partner in California.
And this I love:
Without law, the court would have nothing to say about those disputes.
Well, enjoy your naiveté.
I’m done arguing against your libertarian fantasy that, absent government, everyone would be nice to each other.
Lee // December 31, 2008 at 1:56 am |
nags, this is astonishing!
“And with such a streamlined, efficient system we have problems with water planning? Say it isn’t so!
What you’ve described may not be a complete centralization, but when local water decisions involve federal agencies with veto power we’ve gone pretty far in that direction.”
So nags agrees that negotiations involving all stakeholders aren’t efficient. Gee.
And then! – nags, watersheds have a characteristic that makes them more than local. Water runs downhill, usually through multiple jurisdictions. Multiple states, even. “Local” water decisions in Boise, Idaho have an impact on stream flow, water quality, and fisheries health all the way downstream at Astoria, Oregon. Hell, even into international waters, when we talk about fisheries health.
Also, water gets transported – this transport leads to massive, huge economic output. Water decisions in the Trinity/Klamath watershed in the far north of California have impacts on farmers in the southern San Joaquin valley, and therefore on the economic health of the entire state. Because we are wheeling water, they also have impact on fisheries and waterflows in multiple other watersheds. The feds are involved because watersheds are NOT local, they are multi-jurisdictional, interstate, and international. Not to mention that the feds have direct constitutional jurisdiction over navigable waterways even when they are not interstate.
In these negotiations, the feds are ONE of several stakeholders, and they have to arrive at a compromise accceptable to all veto-bearing stakeholders and to the courts, and thus the water right holders.
What would you prefer? I own all the water that falls as rain and snow on my land? I own all water that runs through my land? That would give effective ownership of entire watersheds and rivers, perhaps hundreds or thousands of miles downstream, to the upstream water “owners.” Those upstream owners could sell the river that flows through land downstream, that shipping and fisheries require, to users perhaps states away.
Western water law, with superceding rights and government oversight and regulation, was derived to deal with exactly these issues – and has worked well enough, despite its inefficiencies and problems, to have been adopted in arid multi-state regions across the world. It was adopted because it is far, far preferable to open water wars – which was the commonly-exercised option and still is the alternative.
nanny_govt_sucks // December 31, 2008 at 4:38 am |
dhogaza, your ridiculousness continues
Not really, from what I’ve read in his wiki. Only when he fenced in “commons” land. More about that later…
Well, no one is forced to comply with the law today, so what kind of a system are you talking about here?
Mindreading, now?
He used government to gain power. Think about it. What public land could he have fenced in if there was no public land? What deals on marshland could he get if there were no federally enforced deals on marshland? He may have had a certain moral outlook on the use of power, but with out government he had none. Money, yes. But others had money too. Competition would have kept French in check.
LOL! So, right and wrong, rights and liberties depend on written law?
Thanks for the fun.
nanny_govt_sucks // December 31, 2008 at 4:57 am |
Lee, there’s another way. Many of the stakeholders you pointed out made themselves stakeholders when it was none of their business. You seem to be starting with the assumption that it is the place of government to be involved in private economic activity. I don’t hold this belief.
Jurisdictions that should be concerned about protecting people’s rights and civil liberties. Not their economic well being.
Dream on. Maybe in some supreme court ruling but the SC can be wrong.
Sure, while it’s on your land. That’s one way. If you had space for a reservoir your land might be quite valuable to the farmers downstream.
I’m reminded of the consortium of farmers that bought the Big Bear Valley. Huh? Why did they do that? Where’s the Big Bear Valley? Well it doesn’t exist anymore because they built a dam, flooded the Big Bear Valley and made Big Bear Lake. And provided themselves with a consistent water supply throughout the growing season.
All without the help of government (except of course to protect their property rights)
So there is another way, Lee and dhogaza. Perhaps it is just hard to imagine with all the government around us, or it is too far back to remember.
Hank Roberts // December 31, 2008 at 5:21 am |
Remember the rule of law for pumping water from an aquifer is “use it or lose it” — and for many sandy and fairly loosely consolidated aquifers, the rule of nature is “overuse it and lose it” — this leads to situations where the law insists that to protect one’s right to draw water, one must draw water, thereby collapsing the aquifer so no one will ever be able to draw water from it again.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=aquifer+collapse+overdraft
Sekerob // December 31, 2008 at 9:32 am |
T.Bone Pickens: Windmills or Water rights, the true motive?
Holly Stick // January 2, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
TCOisbanned?, I would call your attention to this discussion which includes the use of personal, regional and historical anecdotes to illustrate the significance of the statistical trends. Statistics are good if used carefully, but you need anecdotes to understand and communicate the meaning of statistical trends.
[Response: I think extreme caution is required regarding anecdotal evidence.
Statistics are more than just "good" -- they're actually reliable, if applied carefully. The problem is that sometimes they're not applied carefully, and sometimes they're deliberately abused -- which leads to such quotes as "three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
I accept the usefulness of anecdotal evidence, but I suggest that even greater care is required interpreting their meaning. Whenever I can get numeric data and apply statistical analysis, I prefer to ignore anecdotes -- it's just too easy to misinterpret and/or abuse them.
Just my opinion. And, of course, I am a statistician.]