So What Caused All The Snow In 1978?

NOAA claims that the extensive snow cover last winter was due to Arctic warming and loss of sea ice.

Note that there has been no trend for as long as Rutgers has been keeping records, and that the snowiest winter was 1978, which was a period of very thick, extensive ice cover. It was also the coldest winter on record in the US.

The cold and snow last winter was due to a very negative Arctic Oscillation, and the NOAA explanation appears to have successfully confused the entire press corps into believing otherwise.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/10/report_details_warm_arctic-col.html

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to So What Caused All The Snow In 1978?

  1. MikeTheDenier says:

    Global Warming alert for the Dakotas

    …BLIZZARD WARNING FOR NORTHWEST AND NORTH CENTRAL NORTH DAKOTA
    TUESDAY MORNING THROUGH WEDNESDAY MORNING…

    http://forecast.weather.gov/showsigwx.php?warnzone=NDZ035&warncounty=NDC015&firewxzone=NDZ035&product1=Blizzard+Warning

  2. Brendon,

    You are going to have to start attempting to put some intelligent commentary in your posts rather than spamming knee-jerk blather.

  3. Gneiss says:

    stevengoddard wrote,
    “Brendon,

    You are going to have to start attempting to put some intelligent commentary in your posts rather than spamming knee-jerk blather.”

    I see no comment by Brendon, who consistently posts some of the most intelligent commentary here. Did you censor him?

  4. MattN says:

    “there has been no trend for as long as Rutgers has been keeping records”

    If anything, you could claim a slight upward trend since 1981…

    • ChrisD says:

      If anything, you could claim a slight upward trend since 1981…

      Which would be entirely consistent with global warming…

      • During years when snow is light, it is due to global warming. During years when snow is heavy, it is due to global warming. Whatever the weather is, it is due to global warming.

      • glacierman says:

        Is there anything that could happen that would, without a doubt, not be consistent with global warming theory? Please provide a list so that we will know it when we see it. This should be an easy exercise, and that list must be very short because everything that happens is said to be consistent with global warming.

        http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

      • John Endicott says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 26, 2010 at 1:11 pm
        Which would be entirely consistent with global warming…
        ———————————–

        No matter what happens, we are told it’s “entirely consistent with global warming”. For it to be science requires fasifiability – in other words tell us what would NOT be consistent with global warming – if you can’t than it isn’t science.

      • ChrisD says:

        Come on, people, it’s not that hard to follow.

        Increased temperatures means increased evaporation.
        Increased evaporation means increased water vapor.
        Increased water vapor means increased precipitation.

        If it happens to be below 32F–which is not very cold–that will be snow.

        Now how hard was that?

      • I see.

        The cold and snow in Florida last winter was due to increased temperatures. Makes perfect sense.

      • John Endicott says:

        ChrisD says:
        Come on, people, it’s not that hard to follow.
        ————————–
        Seems it’s pretty hard for you to follow. Two people asked you to list what would not be consistent with Global warming, and you completely failed to address the question.

      • glacierman says:

        ChrisD says:
        “If it happens to be below 32F–which is not very cold–that will be snow.”

        That is the key, it has to be cold to snow. So cooler temps are consistent with global warming? That upward trend in snow fall does not indicate an increase in precipitation, just snow fall, which may have been rain if it were warmer.

        But I am sure you can prove it is consistent with global warming.

      • James Sexton says:

        The response to glacierman’s question…… uhmm,

      • ChrisD says:

        Is there anything that could happen that would, without a doubt, not be consistent with global warming theory?

        Here are two things off the top of my head:

        A declining or stable global temperature trend over a period long enough to be meaningful (i.e., not “since 1998”) in the absence of natural explanations such as a decline in TSI.

        Solid satellite evidence that the Earth’s energy budget is unchanging in the face of increasing GHGs.

      • glacierman says:

        “Solid satellite evidence that the Earth’s energy budget is unchanging in the face of increasing GHGs.”

        Explain how GHGs change the Earth’s energy budget. Do they re-radiate heat?

      • ChrisD says:

        Two people asked you to list what would not be consistent with Global warming, and you completely failed to address the question.

        Sorry if it took me 50 minutes to respond. I actually have other things to do. I’ll be sure to take note if you in the future you fail to respond to a blog question within 50 minutes.

      • ChrisD says:

        That is the key, it has to be cold to snow.

        But not that cold, which is what I said. And if the temperature is 30F instead of 26F, it’s still going to snow.

      • John Endicott says:

        ChrisD says:
        Sorry if it took me 50 minutes to respond
        —–

        Bwahahahaha. You responded in 50 minutes, Look at the thread
        three posts in a row
        Question asked by poster #1 October 26, 2010 at 1:19 pm
        Question asked by poster #2 October 26, 2010 at 1:48 pm
        Your “Come on people” reply October 26, 2010 at 1:55 pm
        it’s not the fact that it took you “a long time” to respond that was at issue, it’s that your response completely dodged the questions that you were posting a response to.

        ChrisD says:
        A declining or stable global temperature trend over a period long enough to be meaningful (i.e., not “since 1998″) in the absence of natural explanations such as a decline in TSI
        ———————-

        Sortof like from the 1930s to 1970s when global temps were trending down but CO2 was trending up and TSI was not in decline. Well then there you go, gloabal warming has been falsified by your own criteria. But somehow I suspect you’ll just come up with more excuses as to why you believe in it, just like all religious zealots do when confronted with the facts.

      • ChrisD says:

        Bwahahahaha. You responded in 50 minutes, Look at the thread three posts in a row

        Sorry, Sparky, but I’m aware of no requirement that all questions must be answered at once. I posted one response and came back later for the other. You’re desperately trying to make something out of nothing. Why, I have no idea.

      • ChrisD says:

        Sortof like from the 1930s to 1970s when global temps were trending down

        Temps didn’t trend down from the 30s to the 70s. They trended flat to slightly down from ~1945 to ~1975, and the reasons for this are well understood. And, as my kids had learned by the time they were about eight, there’s a difference between a “reason” and an “excuse.”

        But somehow I suspect you’ll just come up with more excuses as to why you believe in it, just like all religious zealots do when confronted with the facts.

        But somehow I suspect you’ll just come up with more excuses as to why you don’t believe in it, just like all religious zealots do when confronted with the facts.

        See how easy that is, and how it adds nothing whatsoever to a discussion?

      • John Endicott says:

        ChrisD says:
        Sorry, Sparky, but I’m aware of no requirement that all questions must be answered at once.
        ———————-

        Sorry, “sparky” but you excuse doesn’t fly. You repsonse didn’t really address any of the issues, because lookging at the three posts that you could possibly be replying to – all three were addressing the same issue (two directly in the form of a question and the third one indirectly in the form of sarcasm). an issue you choose to dodge until pressed about it. In future, if you wish to use the excuse “I’m only addressing one specific point” you might try quoting what it is you are responding to, particularily when the very issue that is at the heart of all the posts in the subthread that you are responding to isn’t the point that your post is about.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 26, 2010 at 1:55 pm

        Come on, people, it’s not that hard to follow.

        Increased temperatures means increased evaporation.
        Increased evaporation means increased water vapor.
        Increased water vapor means increased precipitation.

        The graph shows extent not total. There cannot be a greater extent from a warming world.

        Also, the feedback from increased precipitation is strongly negative.

      • John Endicott says:

        ChrisD says:
        Temps didn’t trend down from the 30s to the 70s. They trended flat to slightly down from ~1945 to ~1975,
        ————————–
        slightly down is still down and it’s still in a different direction than CO2 was trending during the same time period. But as expected you dodge the issue like the zealot your posts have proven you to be.

      • ChrisD says:

        Explain how GHGs change the Earth’s energy budget. Do they re-radiate heat?

        Huh? That’s sorta the whole point. They absorb outgoing IR, heat up, and re-radiate IR in all directions. The downward portion of the re-radiated IR is energy that would otherwise have escaped back into space.

      • ChrisD says:

        But as expected you dodge the issue like the zealot your posts have proven you to be.

        I didn’t dodge the issue at all. The reasons for the temp trends are pretty well understood, have been discussed ad infinitum, and don’t fit my criteria because I said a decline in the absence of other factors.

        But as expected you ignored that like the zealot your posts have proven you to be.

      • ChrisD says:

        The graph shows extent not total. There cannot be a greater extent from a warming world.

        You really don’t understand why this is wrong, do you?

      • ChrisD says:

        So long for now, folks. I’ve got other stuff to do, so go ahead and try to attach cosmic significance to my not responding for a while.

        It’s just as valid as pretty much everything else you’ve had to say here.

      • glacierman says:

        “They absorb outgoing IR, heat up, and re-radiate IR in all directions. The downward portion of the re-radiated IR is energy that would otherwise have escaped back into space.”

        You are right that is the whole point – Back Radiation – and where the disagreement really lies. What you are stating is not consistent with the laws of physics.

        “Since climate alarmism feeds on a “greeenhouse effect” based on “backradiation”,
        removing backradiation removes the main energy source of climate alarmism.
        Figure 4: The Earth energy budget according to NASA [9] with incorrect unphysical
        100% backradiation and 117% = 390W/m2 outgoing radiation from the Earth
        surface, but with correct physical 30% out of absorbed 48% transported by convection/
        evaporation from the Earth surface to the atmosphere.”

        See:

        Click to access ambsblack.pdf

      • glacierman says:

        Ah, sorry you have other things to do. This game of scientific twister has been fun.

      • John Endicott says:

        ChrisD says:
        I suspect you’ll just come up with more excuses as to why you don’t believe in it
        —————————-
        And there once again you show how you’ve confused science and religion. In science the default position is *NOT* belief therefore one does not need any excuse not to believe something other than that those proposing a theory have failed to convinvce with evidence. Claiming the debate is over (before it even started) and appeals to authority (consensus and “it’s well known”) is *NOT* evidence and it certainly does not convince. Attributing adverse local weather events (Hurricane Katrina) to Global Warming but then saying “that’s just weather” and/or “that’s local not global” when other events that don’t fit the narritive are pointed (or worse changing your narritive such as AGW will make snow a thing of the past in the UK, oops AGW will cuase more snow in the UK) out also failed to convince. Attributing those who don’t believe to some grand conspiracy (their all paid off by big oil) doesn’t convince. tricks and bully tactics (as revealed in the CRU e-mails) fail to convinve as well.
        Honest open Scienctific evidence and debate is what is needed to convince. Hiding and manipulating your data and attempting to shut down all opposing view points (again see the CRU e-mails) is the exact opposite of that.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 26, 2010 at 2:52 pm

        The graph shows extent not total. There cannot be a greater extent from a warming world.

        You really don’t understand why this is wrong, do you?

        Sure it’s wrong.

        So your logic is: The entire world will be covered in snow if it would just get hot enough.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 26, 2010 at 2:53 pm

        so go ahead and try to attach cosmic significance to my not responding for a while.

        That’s what we were going to do. Good thing you told us not to do it. You are so deep and certainly there are reasons for you not being here that only great minds could embrace. We’ll try to occupy ourselves with something until we see you get back. What a vacuum is created when you are not around.

  5. Green Sand says:

    It ain’t getting any warmer here in the old country:-

    “Frozen Britain braves coldest October night for 17 years”

    “Parts of Britain have suffered their coldest October night for 17 years, with temperatures plummeting to -6.6C.”
    “Britain has experienced some of its coldest temperatures in recent years. January 2010 was the coldest for 23 years after much of the country was engulfed in snow.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/8085946/Frozen-Britain-braves-coldest-October-night-for-17-years.html

  6. Philip Finck says:

    “……. the report notes that the winter of 2009-2010 featured “one of the three largest Arctic high-pressure events since 1850.”

    Sooooooo ….they don’t say the largest, if it was they would certainly say so. So does that mean that summer ice extent was also very low (or lower) in other periods of time and resulted in heavy snow fall? When exactly? It better have been very recently, say in the last 10 years or so. Otherwise it blows the whole theory out of the water.

  7. Anything is possible says:

    It’s not global warming anymore, it’s global climate disruption, and any change in the climate, by definition, is consistent with global climate disruption.

    Catch 22 (:-

  8. Sundance says:

    Steve we’re still trying to figure out what caused all that snow in 1830-1831. We’ve ruled out SUVs causing more water vapor though. We’re still mulling over horse farts as a cause.

    http://www.illinoishistory.com/deepsnow.htm

    • glacierman says:

      Well, it couldn’t have been caused by it being warmer, which is the post-normal explanation to recent snow fall records, so it must have been something else man caused such as steam locomotives, or horse farts. Yea, I like that one.

  9. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    This graph is extent, not of total.

  10. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Looking at an ENSO graph you can see strong La Nina starting around 1971 lasting until about 1976. A likely suspect for increase snow extent in the Northern Hemisphere.

  11. Geezer1 says:

    Let me see if I got this right. More snow due to rapid warming and sea ice loss in the Arctic. Didn’t know that it snowed in the summer because there sure as hell wasn’t any sea ice loss last winter.

  12. PJB says:

    Does this mean that we will have to endure 30 years of “coming ice-age due to man” (global warming causes more snow so albedo change causes cooling so….) before the cycle starts back upwards again so that they can dust off the old propaganda and recycle it (as is their wont).

    • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

      That’s probably on the way. And people like ChrisD and Brendon will give us a condescending sneer as the tell us their illogical arguments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s