Why aren't alarmists able to comprehend this article?

John,

I have no problem whatsoever in comprehending the article, I also have no problem in putting it in context and spotting all the errors and fabrications. Neither do I have a problem analysing or processing data; I’ve been doing if for the last 27 years.

By defending the article it would appear that you lack the same level of comprehension or are knowingly prepared to continue referencing an article that has been proven to be factually inaccurate and misleading.

The article shows one graph – namely the decadal winter snow cover. Doesn’t it strike you as being somewhat suspicious that an article written under the bold headline of “2001-2010 was the snowiest decade on record” only focuses on the decadal winter snow coverage?

Do you think there could be a reason that Goddard failed to include graphs showing the year round snow coverage or graphs for the spring or summer coverage? Why did he not show annual graphs as well as, or instead of, decadal ones?

If he’d have included more comprehensive graphs then the claim that “2001-2010 was the snowiest decade on record” would have fallen flat on it’s face.

Here’s what the spring, summer, autumn and winter decadal graphs look like http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorandclaire/46413... and here’s the same four sets of data depicted annually http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorandclaire/46413...

Here’s the graph showing the annual snow coverage on a decadal basis http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorandclaire/46407... and the data depicted annually http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorandclaire/46407...

I’ve recreated the graphs using exactly the same data that Goddard used (unlike Goddard I haven’t discarded three-quarters of it). The graphs are presented in the same format so as to make comparisons easier and I’ve recreated Goddard’s errors in the labelling and / or data-source of the graphs.

Whether the inconsistency between the labels and data-source is a genuine error, the inability to handle data or a deliberate attempt to further deceive is unknown.

What is clear is that when the data source tallies with the labels on the graph there are some notable changes. Compare the two graphs depicted here http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorandclaire/46437... and also look at the annual trend on these two graphs http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorandclaire/46431... The graphs at the top of the page incorporate Goddard’s errors, the graphs at the bottom of the pages use the data that are actually specified on the graphs.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RE: YOUR ADDED DETAILS

Thanks for the further comments. Originally I wasn’t going to comment on the second page you linked to but as you’ve specifically mentioned it then I will.

You’ll no doubt be disappointed to know that once again Goddard and Watts are distorting the facts to suit themselves and are deliberately spreading lies and false information (nothing new there then).

The gist of Goddard’s article is that the global climate models predicted there would be a decline in the snow cover in North America. It would help to read the full report rather than the few isolated comments that Goddard chooses to select http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/people/fac/frei/fre...

So how does he go about disproving the accuracy of the models? Simple, he lies, distorts the figures, selects only the data that can be used to validate his claim, relies on incompatible data to deceive and distort, and discards everything that doesn’t support his notion.

Instead of comparing North American predictions with North American observations he decides instead to compare them with the observations for the whole of the northern hemisphere. Why would he so this? Because he knows that the models accurately predicted the decline in snow cover in North America but he won’t admit to this.

Here’s the data from the Rutgers University website that Goddard states he has used http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.ph... and here’s the results when plotted as a graph http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorandclaire/46435... Strange isn’t it that when you look at the full picture it has a completely different meaning. You can download the data and verify their accuracy for yourself if you so desire.

So what does Goddard do next? He plots another graph showing the top 100 weeks of snow cover on a decadal basis. Once again he ignores the results for North America and chooses to use the data for the northern hemisphere. Not only does he do that but he includes the 1960’s in his graph even though the record doesn’t commence until week 40 in 1966 and he defines the decade for ‘2000’ as being 2000 to 2010, in Goddard’s world it seems a decade is 11 years long.

Here’s the weekly data from the northern hemisphere ordered according to snow cover http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.ph... and here’s the same but for North America http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.ph... If Goddard was being honest and knew what he was doing then this is the graph he would have produced http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorandclaire/46436... (again, you can verify the accuracy by running the numbers for yourself).

Goddard then produces a third graph, finally he is actually looking at North America. Up until now he’s been using annual data for the period 1967 to 2010. But now he decides to focus only on the winter data and to ignore everything prior to 1985. Why does he do this? Because it’s the only way he can get his graph to show the upward trend he so desperately wants to portray

And then in a brazen display of hypocrisy Goddard has the audacity to proclaim “Some web sites love using statistics to obfuscate. I have zero respect for these people.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TO JIM:

You may have considered the graph I posted previously was dubious, I guess that’s because it didn’t conform to what you would have liked to have seen. The fact remains that it is an absolute graphical representation of the entire dataset with no modifications made to it at all. I’m sorry if it shows a decline in snow cover but that’s just how it is.

You claim (falsely I believe) that you produced your own graphs and that these essentially verified Watt’s article. Please upload these graphs so we can all see them. If you don’t have the facilities to upload them then please forward your data to me and I can upload them for you. You can send the data in any format you want including as plain text (ASCII).

I have produced my own graphs that I have uploaded so that anyone can see them (see links above). The only modifications I made to the original dataset were the interpolations of 8 missing values, these were in the years 1968, 1969 and 1971.

I am more than happy to send you the data I used, I can easily convert it to XLS format complete with all functions. You can then pick at it as much as you like.

Sea aspect upward thrust using melting sea ice? do not imagine so and neither did scientists in 2009/10. yet so a approaches as warming causing land ice to soften; in case you imagine the guidelines of physics have replaced in view that then, attempt this attempt. Take the ice cubes from the ice dice tray out of your freezer and placed them on your pc keyboard. Liam Professor Brian Cox became talking about the Milankovich cycles and not in any respect contemporary warming.

John,

what you really need to do is splice this snowfall data on to some obliging tree ring data and show snowfall in the last decade was the heaviest in the last thousand years. Apparently that "trick" is no trick at all, and it doesn't hide anything. You might even get your graph featured in the next IPCC report.

Snowfall is a crude indicator of global climate. I'm hanging my hat on "No statistically significant warming over the last 15 years." Out of the mouths of babes- or the chief alarmist himself in this case. The AGW disciples have no counterargument for this statement.

Edit: Four thumbs down? For which part? Splicing contemporary, measured data on to a graph of tree ring data really is a ludicrous idea, isn't it?

Most 'alarmists' I've seen attribute it the rise in water vapour concentration in the atmosphere. The temps have risen less than 1 degree in the last century. Many places in the world get far below freezing. One would think that, as a result, snowfall in those places would increase. I mean one of the scenerios for a warming climate is more rainfall in specific areas of the world. Rainfall, of course, could and should be substituted for 'precipitation'.

Are you one of those people that claim the globe is currently cooling as opposed to warming?

: EDIT :

I'd also like to point out that any meteorologist/climatologist/logical human being would look at the odd weather, which was caused by an extremely negative Arctic Oscillation, and explain it that way. Something that has been stated time and time again yet it seems to fall on deaf ears. Maybe it actually snowed record amounts in some places because, believe it or not, it was cold in those places specifically due to this weather pattern. Research it, here I'll give you a start.

http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscilla...

and look at this, even Watts himself posted about it: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/28/the-arctic-o...

you want to talk about propoganda? There it is. The guy even knows what's going on and still continues to put out this stuff.

Watts has found a field of cherries and deniers are swallowing them, pits and all while comprehending little.

In the main link Watts talks about northern hemisphere snow “coverage” then cherry picks four locations that witnessed record “snowfalls”.

“Many regions of the Northern Hemisphere have seen record snowfall this winter, including Washington D.C, Moscow, China, and Korea. Dr. Hansen’s office at Columbia University has seen record snowfall, and Al Gore has ineptly described the record snow “

So are we talking decadal "coverage", or are we talking amount of "snowfall" received in the 2009-2010 winter in this blog article?

The second link that you point to makes me wonder if it is the deniers that are incapable of comprehending anything of what is being said. It was the article titled “North American snow models miss the mark – observed trend opposite of the predictions”

Hang on now, we are talking North America snow coverage and no longer hemispheric snow cover? Well that’s quite a switch in the subject area, don’t you think? Na, don’t answer that, think of it as a rhetorical question.

If we ignore for a second the fact that Watts is playing a spatial shell game, the article this link talks about states:

“Our conclusion that these models predict a significant decrease in snow extent over North America during the 21st century is robust, in the sense that all available models agree for two different yet realistic SRES future emissions scenarios, while no model predicts such a decrease for the unrealistic COMMIT scenario.”

Since we are still only in the first decade of the 21st century with considerable warming yet to be experienced, exactly how are Watts’ comments justified:

“While some other bloggers and journalists insist that recent winter snows are proof of global warming effects, they miss the fact that models have been predicting less snow in the norther hemisphere. See this 2005 peer reviewed paper:” and “It says exactly the opposite of what some are saying now. – Anthony”

especially when there is a clear caveat regarding the model respond in the paper’s abstract?

It's simple. This story doesn't support their case. This story goes against their case, it is therefore impossible for it to be true, it is in fact, a lie told by those evil people who do not believe.

Greenland losing its ice? Really? So how does an airplane get buried under 300 feet of ice in 60 years if the ice is going away?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/WWII-plane-recove...

Goddard is still wrong. He links to a study which uses 9 climate models to simulate Northern Hemisphere snow cover changes for the month of January (see Figure 1):

http://www.eee.columbia.edu/research-projects/wate...

Here is the actual data for the month of January from Rutgers:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/nhjan.jp...

Notice this graph plots all the data (starting in the 1960s), not just the data from 1989 like in Goddard's cherrypicked graph. There is no long-term trend, similar to the climate models, most of which show no significant decline by the year 2010.

Goddard's other article is still inaccurate. It constantly confuses winter data with annual data. The fact that he may have correctly plotted the winter data doesn't make the text of the article (especially the headline) any less inaccurate.

I'm willing to admit that Goddard's graphs may have been accurate. I'm still waiting for you to admit that the headline, text, and conclusions (that this data is inconsistent with AGW) are inaccurate.

*edit* "You say he cherry-picked one of his line graphs by using data from no earlier than 1989, yet RIGHT BELOW that graph is another that shows data from 1960."

The graph he plots below is completely different data (number of top 100 snow extent weeks per decade). He never plots winter snow extent from 1960 to Present because it doesn't increase, it's flat. That's cherrypicking.

"You also say that his text is wrong; I'd be obliged if you could tell me exactly what's wrong with it."

Happy to oblige. The first error:

"the past decade not only had the most snowfall, but it also had the most consistently high snowfall, year over year."

You can't conclude that from just winter data. Some snow falls in spring, some snow falls in fall. Hell, in some places in the Northern Hemisphere snow even falls during the summer months.

"It appears that AGW claims of the demise of snowfall have been exaggerated."

This is the biggest error in the article. It's based on a statement from one climate scientist talking about *British* winters a decade from now. There are no "AGW claims of the demise of snowfall" over the entire Northern Hemisphere, especially not by 2010. This is a huge error and the entire basis of his article.

"And so far things are not looking very good for the climate model predictions of declining snowfall in the 21st century."

This is probably the second-biggest error. The climate model predictions show very little decline in Northern Hemisphere winter snow cover by 2010, as illustrated above. And finally,

"A decade long record across the entire Northern Hemisphere is not appropriately described as a “snowstorm.”"

It's not a decade-long record. Over the full decade, Northern Hemisphere snow cover decreased. If you're going to focus only on winter snow cover, you can't pretend it represents the entire decade, because it only represents 25% of the decade.

I guess I'll answer my own original question by saying it can indicate whatever you want it to indicate.

So far, the only good point made is that the headline is misleading. However, the way that point is made looks like only one side of this issue makes misleading headlines.

The problem is that we're talking about two different issues -- "snow fall" versus "snow coverage".

Year-round snow/ice coverage IS declining and is predicted to continue to decline. Snow fall (mid winter snow coverage) hasn't changed significantly.

Watts and Goddard are hiding to decline in snow/ice coverage by graphing "Winter Snow Coverage". Winter snow coverage is a not very exact estimate of "snow fall".

If Watts and Goddard wanted a real discussion of "snow/ice coverage", then they should have created the graph that Trevor posted yesterday: http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorandclaire/46407... Or better yet, they should have skipped the simple bar graph and created a line graph instead: http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q252/bush_iraq/...

As far as the claim that the models and the IPCC are wrong, the IPCC doesn't really discuss "winter snow coverage". The IPCC is clear that snow/ice coverage will decrease in the future[1], but also that intensity of precipitation events is expected to increase[2].

Benjamin seems to be arguing that snow fall is decreasing yet coverage is increasing yet it is warming. Talk about a confused individual. I took the time to graph this data after Trevor posted what I considered dubious and which I proved to myself was it fact dubious. The data I graphed essentially verified Watt's article though I didn't use winter months. It isn't related to CO2 in my opinon. If it were it would tend to follow CO2 concentrations. Alarmists attempt to use too much. Any increase is proof of AGW. Any decrease if proof. Any drought is proof of AGW. Any hurricane is proof etc etc. This is just one of many things that they have been proven wrong on. It won't stop them. They will continue because they have a belief -- i.e., non-empirically based doctrine -- in AGW.