New York Times Says Snow Is A Thing Of The Past

ScreenHunter_314 Feb. 07 11.00

The End of Snow? –

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.

– Albert Einstein

About stevengoddard

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

36 Responses to New York Times Says Snow Is A Thing Of The Past

  1. gator69 says:

    Let me get this straight. They are worried about a 7F warming by the year 2100, because it has warmed 1.4 F “since the 1800’s”. Must be Common Core math.

  2. rw says:

    I’m confused. I thought the snow-is-gone meme had been put on hold for the time being. Maybe he didn’t get the message – or maybe he thinks we’re so air-headed that we can’t remember events from one week to another.

  3. Bob Knows says:

    NY Times is too STUPID to look out the window to Times Square. You could ski there this winter.

  4. Stephen Fisher says:

    He quotes the “professor of Global Change and Tourism”?…it is to laugh!

  5. Charles Nelson says:

    Too cold for snow.

  6. Andy DC says:

    This guy is a spreading blatant misinformation and progaganda! Both US and Eurasian snowcover are currently way above average and have largely been way above average over the past several winters.

  7. Andy Oz says:

    “The planet has warmed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1800s, and as a result, snow is melting. In the last 47 years, a million square miles of spring snow cover has disappeared from the Northern Hemisphere. Europe has lost half of its Alpine glacial ice since the 1850s, and if climate change is not reined in, two-thirds of European ski resorts will be likely to close by 2100.” -NY Times.

    The way I read that, the NY Times just said CO2 has nothing to do with climate change.
    Excellent. No carbon taxes and no further grants to study CO2 are required.

    • Bob Knows says:

      The 17th century and first part of the 18th century was the last part of a natural cool cycle. The Hudson River froze over in the 17th century. People could sometimes drive their horses and wagons across to Manhattan on the ice. The Old Farmers Almanac accurately predicted snow storms in NY in July. The natural cold cycle ended and we have been enjoying a warm cycle “since the 1800s.” It had nothing to do with industrial CO2. Of course the NY Times is either too ignorant to be writing newspapers or too dishonest.

  8. Tedsunday says:

    I live in Lake Placid I was 14 for the 1980 Olympics he speaks of, WE HAD NO SNOW until the start of the games. It was bitter cold but snow less. Just like this year I might add.

  9. Yes, I’m so confused . .. is Global Warming (TM) causing MORE snow, or LESS snow?!?

  10. NikFromNYC says:

    BOOM, Drudge does like big headlines:

  11. Mkelley says:

    The New York Times will never give up on “global warming/climate change”, nor will any of the left-wingers that need it to be “true” to push their agenda. Without the global warming scam, Obama could not give so much to the Sierra Club and their ilk. Coal mines and plants that are now shut down would still be open and their workers still employed. Electricity prices would be lower, and blackouts rarer. Most lefties don’t know a whit about “climate”, but they almost universally at least pretend to believe that human activity is ruining it.

  12. ChrisV says:

    And Meanwhile here in the East (Long Island) this decade has already been one of the snowiest in the last 100 years and probably more, and it’s not even half way over yet. I am tired of shoveling out blizzard after blizzard year after year. The New York Times is so worthless I wouldn’t even use it to wipe my ass.

  13. Molières says:

    The facts are straightforward: The planet is getting hotter. Snow melts above 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

    Snow melts above 32 degrees!!! You don’t say!

  14. Billy says:

    Is a 5th grade understanding of basic science that hard to achieve? The people I see commenting on this page should be utterly ashamed of their ignorance. At times I almost wish stupid was a painful or fatal condition. Please take 30 minutes to read a proper scientific journal on this subject or if the words are to big, settle for a wiki article. That way you will not embarrass yourselves when speaking on this subject in the future. Willful ignorance is shameful, lazy and inexcusable. If a person is not smart enough to understand a complex problem themselves then they should look to the consensus reached by more intelligent people who have spent their lives studying the problem. In this case you should be listening the consensus reached by the tens of thousands of our world’s best and brightest climatologists. Listening to these morons go on about how climate science isn’t real is like listening to a french fry cook claim that its impossible to make a rocket that can reach space while ignoring the panel of several hundred guys with PHD’s who just made one that did.

    • gator69 says:

      Hey Billy! Congratulations on your 5th grade education, hope it didn’t take you more than a decade.

      Many of us here are trained scientists. I was a climatology student right after the ice age scare, and right before the great global warming swindle. I spent years studying Earth Sciences at a major university and have followed the science as it has evolved.

      There are not “tens of thousands of our world’s best and brightest climatologists”, in the world, much less supportive of CAGW. But there are tens of thousands of actual working scientists who say CAGW is nonsense.

      Sorry you are not up to the task of reading and evaluating scientific papers, but keep reaching for the stars, and maybe in a few years you will graduate 6th grade.

    • Stephen Fisher says:

      Another moron, eh Billy?…by the way, I am still looking for the “climate science isn’t real” posts that you reference-all I find is disagreement with the politcally driven conclusions of toadies and lickspittles such as yourself…moron indeed.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Hey Billy,

      You want something to read?

      How about my cache of over three hundred quaternary science papers on the coming glaciation and other stuff?

      Here are a few:

      Sea level has DROPPED:
      Just in case you were wondering the Sea Level chart in WIKI is an ADJUSTED,/b> sea level chart. The sea level is actually dropping.
      Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits

      ….backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes…..reconstructed for the last 8000 years….The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka….

      Sea-level highstand recorded in Holocene shoreline deposits on Oahu, Hawaii

      Unconsolidated carbonate sands and cobbles on Kapapa Island, windward Oahu, are 1.4-2.8 (+ or – 0.25) m above present mean sea level (msl)…we interpret the deposit to be a fossil beach or shoreline representing a highstand of relative sea level during middle to late Holocene time. Calibrated radiocarbon dates of coral and mollusc samples, and a consideration of the effect of wave energy setup, indicate that paleo-msl was at least 1.6 (+ or – 0.45) m above present msl prior to 3889-3665 cal. yr B.P, possibly as early as 5532-5294 cal. yr B.P., and lasted until at least 2239-1940 cal. yr B.P

      Holocene sea-level change and ice-sheet history in the Vestfold Hills, East Antarctica

      A new Holocene sea-level record from the Vestfold Hills, Antarctica, has been obtained by dating the lacustrine–marine and marine–lacustrine transitions that occur in sediment cores from lakes which were formerly connected to the sea. From an elevation of ∼7.5 m 8000 yr ago, relative sea-level rose to a maximum ∼9 m above present sea-level 6200 yr ago. Since then, sea-level has fallen monotonically until the present….

      A new Holocene relative sea level curve for the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica

      The curve shows a mid-Holocene RSL highstand on Fildes Peninsula at 15.5 m above mean sea level between 8000 and 7000 cal a BP. Subsequently RSL gradually fell as a consequence of isostatic uplift in response to regional deglaciation….

      Verification by another method:
      Sea Level Changes Past Records and Future Expectations

      For the last 40-50 years strong observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions. The Earth’s rate of rotation records an [average] acceleration from 1972 to 2012, contradicting all claims of a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly falling, sea levels.

      • Gail Combs says:

        More Verification by still another method:
        The paper, Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic> says: “Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present.”

        Another, more recent study in Norway agrees:

        A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier January 2012
        Kristian Vasskoga Øyvind Paaschec, Atle Nesjea, John F. Boyled, H.J.B. Birks

        …. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP….

        The authors of all these papers simply state that most small glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial increase has been in the past 600 years. This is hardly surprising with ~9% less solar energy.

      • Gail Combs says:

        And STILL MORE on Sea level:
        Dutch scientists found that the moon has some influence on the measured sea level based on cyclic variations of the orbit of the moon.


        Click to access JCOASTRES-D-11-00169.pdf

        The moon pulls the ocean water from the southern to the northern hemisphere in cycles of 18.6 years. The oceans then get more or less the form of pear with the stalk heading north and south alternately. That should have an influence on the sea level of at least at few millimetres and that effect should not be forgotten when you monitor sea levels. You have to monitor for whole cycles of 18.6 years to get correct data. For the time being, the stalk points south.

        Besides that effect, the mentioned moon cycles should, according to this paper:

        Click to access theClimateArticle.pdf

        also have a more general influence on the climate in the northern Atlantic region.

        At present the TRF is defined through the loosely coordinated networks of four independent space geodetic techniques: Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR), in which ground-based lasers range to Earth satellites carrying suitable reflectors; Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), in which ground-based radio telescopes make precise angle (or differential range) measurements to distant radio sources; and Global Positioning System (GPS) geodesy, in which groundbased
        (and some low orbiting) GPS receivers make precise one-way range and range rate measurements from orbiting GPS sources, and DORIS, in which ground-based beacons broadcast to receivers on Earth orbiting satellites. The current ITRF2005 reference frame has contributions from all four techniques [Altamimi et al., 2007].

        Beckley et al. [2007] reprocessed all the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 SLR & DORIS data within the ITRF2005 reference frame, and found that the differences in the older CSR95 and ITRF2000 realizations and ITRF2005 caused differences of up to 1.5 mm/yr in regional rates of mean sea level rise.

        Thus, we assess that current state of the art reference frame errors are at roughly the mm/yr level, making observation of global signals of this size very difficult to detect and interpret. This level of error contaminates climatological data records, such as measurements of sea level height from altimetry missions, and was appropriately recognized as a limiting error source by the NRC Decadal Report and by GGOS. (

        Click to access GRASP_COSPAR_paper.pdf

        So the Climate Scientists do not measure the TRF with the “great precision” they tell the gullible press they do. Currently they resort to cobbling together data from 4 different systems, including the GPS satellite system which was not designed for the job. To the extent that the GRACE system has not been as useful as hoped, and to the extent they want a new launch (GRASP) to resolve the problems.

        Thus, we assess that current state of the art reference frame errors are at roughly the mm/yr level, making observation of global signals of this size very difficult to detect and interpret. This level of error contaminates climatological data records, such as measurements of sea level height from altimetry missions, and was appropriately recognized as a limiting error source by the NRC Decadal Report and by GGOS. (

        The revisions to the data plots of the satellites is ongoing. The most egregious adjustments were shortly after they killed Envisat and Jason I. Since then, they’ve only had Jason II to play with, and play with it they have. They regularly change the historical plots with Jason II. If anyone wants to trip down memory lane with the satellite measurements and what they did with the Jason I plots after it quit measuring sea level, you can go here.

        The conflation of the data sets is ludicrous. There is no validity to what they’re doing anyway, but, it’s fun to watch them alter history and pretend its some reflection of reality.

        The approximate 18.6-year cycle has been known for some time as the Metonic Cycle (see below). The cycle is the basis for the 19-year tidal epoch used to define the sea level datum. See American Council of Surveying and Mapping Bulletin at the NOAA website:

        Click to access Understanding_Sea_Level_Change.pdf

        In particular, note Figure 2. “The variation of Mean Range of tide (1900 – 1996) at Seattle, WA, demonstrates the need for averaging the National Tidal Datum Epoch over 19 years.”

        In the US, sea level is not just an academic or climate exercise. The various sea level datums, i.e. sea level with respect to adjacent land, are the basis for demarcation between public lands and private lands, historic land grants, and various land ownership boundaries. Quoting from the ACSM Bulletin:

        The importance of a uniform system of tidal datums for all tidal waters in the U.S, its territories, and trusts was recognized and established by the National Tidal Datum Convention of 1980. As a result, NOAA’s definitions of tidal datums—Mean High Water (MWH), Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), and LMSL—were authorized as the official policy of the U.S. Federal Government.

        “Local mean sea level is a term used to denote the average height of the ocean relative to land. Because the ocean surface is dynamic (being influenced by seasonal-to-decadal oceanographic and meteorological processes), we need to use a long period of observations to determine LMSL. The LMSL for the United States is determined as part of the National Tidal Datum Epoch (NTDE) which is based on 19 years.

        “Nineteen years is also the length of the Metonic Cycle of recurrence of the lunar phases. This lunar cycle, first determined by Meton of Athens in 432 BC, captures a long-period change in the amplitude of the tide due to the orbital paths of the Earth and Moon relative to the Sun. The Metonic Cycle was selected because it includes daily, monthly, annual, and decadal changes in the amplitude of tides over 19 years.”

    • Billy, have you been watching Bill Nye the Science Guy instead of homework again?

      • Gail Combs says:

        He has been getting his brain washing from teachers who are too darn stupid to get a real science degree and actually work in productive fields. My courses for a BS in chemistry were far harder than the courses required for a chemistry teacher. (I was a dual major and took all the courses required for both majors.)

        Even with the easy courses most teachers in my graduating class were History or English. ~ 500 of each. There were a dozen math teachers, 8 chemistry teachers and 3 physics teachers.

        My Ex and I had an entire science department covered between us. I had Bio, Chem and Geology. He had Physics, Math and Astronomy.

        Hey Billy read Dumbing Down Americaby Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld

        8th Grade Final Exam from 1895

  15. Stephen Fisher says:

    Where’s Billy-boy?…anyone heard from Billy?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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