Colder Winters Mean More Snow

To anyone with a higher IQ than a turnip, it should be obvious that snow is associated with cold. But Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth apparently don’t.

Colder winters in New York tend to have more snow. Warmer winters tend to have less snow. All ten of New York’s snowiest winters had below normal or normal temperatures.

Screenshot 2016-01-23 at 09.52.17 AM

About stevengoddard

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

58 Responses to Colder Winters Mean More Snow

  1. Scott Allen says:

    To quote “Barbie” (the children’s talking doll that was recalled because of political incorrect). “Math is hard”

  2. Henry P says:

    more snow cover means more sunlight reflected/deflected off from earth.
    so more of the world covered by snow means…..

  3. Gail Combs says:

    (Artistic rendition of Wisconsin Glacial Maximum)

  4. The Great Walrus says:

    Unfortunately, the ice sheet didn’t quite make it to Washington, D.C.

  5. Marsh says:

    When there is Ice into the middle of Summer : that is an even bigger indicator of Cooling..! Not just places like the Great Lakes but take a look at Scotland. There is evidence, showing the early stages of the return of Glaciers . Also, there is this interesting Ice formation that could not exist in a so called Warming world::

  6. Don says:

    Who woulda thunk it!

  7. Richard Keen says:

    That colder winters should be snowier in a wet climate that averages near zero C in the winter, and where half or more of the precipitation falls as rain, should be a no-brainer. So no wonder it takes a billion dollar model to make it otherwise. Steve’s graph for New York has confirmation in these charts for Boston:

    And Philadelphia:

    The full articles are here:

    • Andy DC says:

      Yes, during our record warm December, there was no snow in DC, but after a week of subfreezing weather in January, we got a blizzard. As difficult it is for alarmists to believe, snow is correlated with cold and the further south you go, the more it is correlated with cold anomalies! But even in Boston, you don’t want it above normal.

  8. gator69 says:

    What exactly is a “normal” temperature?

    • Henry P says:

      I am assuming that the “winter” temp. is Jan/Feb/March, combined.
      so the long term average for those 3 months measured over a period of [longer] time would be regarded as the “normal” winter temperature.
      It is indicated as zero [0.0] on the x line of the top of the two graphs from Richard Keen

      • gator69 says:

        There is no “normal” when it comes to climate, weather, or temperature. There are only averages over time.

        • Henry P says:

          Hi GATOR

          Ever heard of a normal distribution?
          Has to do something with stats.
          Just check it out.
          The point in the middle of the [x] normal distribution is the average or the assumed normal.

          Mind you, as to the weather, I discovered that in the relationship of the sun with earth, there are what we [I] call: “dead end stops”

          in 1927/8 and 2014/5 we had dead end stops, related to the strength of magnetism of the solar poles.

          The point that I am trying to make, materializes when you study things like rainfall [the weather]

        • gator69 says:

          Yes, there is “normal distribution” in statistics, but no “normal” in climate or weather. Let’s be precise, and stay on topic.

      • Richard Keen says:

        Almost right; winter on my PHL graph is Dec/Jan/Feb, and I think that’s also true for Joe’s Boston chart. “Normal” has nothing to do with these graphs; what counts is that when winters are colder, they tend to be snowier. Note that the PHL graph uses actual tempertures, while the Boston graph uses anomalies (with some “mean” subtracted out), but they give the same result. Statistically, subtracting the mean on the X axis will change the intercept of the linear regression line, but it will not change the slope. And the slope is the story here.

        • Henry P says:

          Hi Richard
          technically, winter in the NH starts a few days before Xmas, and usually there is little snowfall before Xmas anyway. It is still regarded as very “fortunate” to have a white Xmas. Looking at Jan, Feb, March might give you better results,
          i.e. higher correlation [Rsquare=0.3 is not that very impressive [to me],
          I don’t see the Rsquare on Steven Goddard’s graph but he does use January, February and March as “winter”. Might be interesting to hear if he knows what the Rsquare is on his graph there?

        • Richard Keen says:

          If one wants to be really formal about the stats, perhaps J-F-M, or D-J-F-M might give better results. But I’m of the mindset that the valid purpose of statistics is to quantify the obvious, and if isn’t obvious (in the raw data) you could be finding artifacts. In this case, it’s obvious from all three graphs – mine, Joe’s, Steve’s – that colder winters are snowier, which puts the lie to the warmer’s apologetics about warmer = wetter = snowier etc.

    • RAH says:

      Many people, including many weather types use “normal” when they’re talking about the average temperature for a particular place at a particular time or period of time.

      For example for my area in central Indiana the average temp range for the month of January is:
      High – 34 F or 1 C
      Low – 19 F or -7 C

      Anything outside that range would be abnormal. These maximum and minimum temperatures are based on weather data collected from 1981 to 2010 by the US National Climatic Data Center.

      There will come a time when the “adjustments” being made to create a record that is warmer than the actual data indicates in the present or recent past will not be able to be sustained in the face of reality. When that happens the government will have to “adjust” the past records to show it being even cooler than it already does in order to prevent new lows becoming common. Eventually their house of cards has to collapse in the face of reality.

      • gator69 says:

        Close, but no cigar.

        Anything outside that range would be abnormal.

        No, it would simply be outside of the known average. There is no “normal” in climate or weather. We humans have a very narrow scope of observation, and tend to think that if we have not seen something before, it is “abnormal”. When speaking of terrestial events, it is important to recognize that our subject has seen it all.

        • RAH says:

          Well we are talking about humans talking to other humans about nature with the frame of reference being what humans have experienced or measured. And so something that lies outside of the norm is considered abnormal. According to my thesaurus abnormal is a synonym for anomalous or anomalistic. And temperatures outside the average range are most certainly an anomaly.

        • gator69 says:

          And temperatures outside the average range are most certainly an anomaly.

          Outside of whose average? We are discussing the climate of the Earth. A housefly would think that 2 sunsets are “abnormal”.

        • RAH says:

          I’ll repeat: “we are talking about humans talking to other humans about nature with the frame of reference being what humans have experienced or measured.” It is that frame of reference that your refusing to recognize. I’m talking about recorded history and records of the human experience of weather and climate. Your apparently talking about a much longer frame of reference.

          For something to be “abnormal’ it doesn’t have to be unprecedented over all of time or even recorded history. If it got up to 70 F today here in central Indiana that would be abnormal despite the fact is may have happened once before in the meteorlogic record. Same with the snows in Cairo.

        • gator69 says:

          I understand what you said Rah, humans talking to humans, but this human prefers to be precise in his speech and for good reason. This especially applies to the subjects of climate annd weather, which can cause some to panic, raise taxes, and take away liberties.

          When we explain to the climate ignorant that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate and weather, we do all of humanity a huge favor.

        • RAH says:

          I get you. The terms “abnormal” and “unprecedented” are constantly being abused.

        • gator69 says:

          Exactly. By using the term “normal” when discussing weather and/or climate, we are setting ourselves up conceding “abnormal” conditions. Once upon a time this was not an issue.

          I corrected my state climatologist who used to describe conditions as “normal”, and he no longer does so, he now says “observed average”. He actually sent me a thank you letter, explaining that he had never really thought about how incorrect it was to suggest that weather and climate have norms.

        • Marsh says:

          gator69 : I believe, the wished for “normal” or “abnormal” applied to climate & weather, stems from the human condition to have a finite term of reference ; much in the same way people often can’t accept the Universe being infinite. You’re technically correct, but it goes against human nature…

  9. Gail Combs says:

    Gator, I agree with you on the use of ‘normal’ as propaganda. It is one of the reasons I toss out the ‘Coming Ice Age’ hysteria to yank the Alarmist chain. (The data supports that catastrophe better than CAGW.)

    • gator69 says:

      It never ceases to amaze me how willing people are to adopt the language of the left. The language of indoctrination is a subtle poison, that takes time and many doses to reach it’s ultimate effect. First it numbs reason, and then if not rejected, it kills all thought.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Gator, It is not ‘willing to adopt’ it is getting screamed at and abused if you do not. Try using the old polite word Negro or even Black today instead of African American or whatever the new word is and some people go ballistic. Yet vulgar language I never heard or knew the meaning of when I was growing up is now routinely used on the radio in songs, in book and movies . So it is certainly a control issue.

        America’s Ruling Class

        …Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

        The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century’s Northerners and Southerners — nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, “prayed to the same God.” By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God “who created and doth sustain us,” our ruling class prays to itself as “saviors of the planet” and improvers of humanity. Our classes’ clash is over “whose country” America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark’s Gospel: “if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”

  10. Henry P says:

    gator says
    Yes, there is “normal distribution” in statistics, but no “normal” in climate or weather. Let’s be precise, and stay on topic.

    henry says

    there is a ‘normal” in the weather but on longer times scales, typical at least 87 years.

    Table II and III

  11. Henry P says:


    this data

    shows a similar linear downward trend in ozone concentration versus time, but you would be wrong in drawing the conclusion that ozone is going down….[although that is what many people did in the past]

    clearly ozone is going up [now]

    • Gail Combs says:

      …The wavelength associated with the photolytic formation and degradation of ozone lies in the ultraviolet range of the electromagnetic spectrum. According to the first reaction, oxygen molecules can absorb the “UVC” end of the ultraviolet spectrum and the ozone molecules (see the third reaction) are cleaved by absorbing “UVB” radiation.

      Ultraviolet light creates and destroys the ozone layer depending on the wavelength so the changes listed in the chart below matter. A shift in the ratio will shift the amount of ozone created vs that destroyed. Ozone production is driven by UV radiation of wavelengths less than 240 nm. Ozone is a highly unstable molecule so when it absorbs low energy UV (240–310 nm) it splits into an ordinary oxygen molecule and a free oxygen atom.

      In the three decades prior to the 2009 solar minimum and the switch to a ‘quiet sun (1979 to 2009) the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth’s surface increased markedly. This energy would be absorbed by the oceans at depths up to 100 meters.

      FROM NASA:

      NASA scientists analyzing 30 years of satellite data have found that the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth’s surface has increased markedly over the last three decades. Most of the increase has occurred in the mid-and-high latitudes, and there’s been little or no increase in tropical regions.

      …..for example, …at one line of latitude — 32.5 degrees — a line that runs through central Texas in the northern hemisphere and the country of Uruguay in the southern hemisphere, 305 nanometer UV levels have gone up by some 6 percent on average since 1979. [This is addition energy into the oceans at that latitude]

      The primary culprit: decreasing levels of stratospheric ozone….

      The study also shows that increased cloudiness in the southern hemisphere over the 30-year period has impacted UV.

      Solar Radiation: Sources of Energy for the Earth’s Atmosphere

      Solar Radiation – – – – – – – – – – – Energy Flux – Solar Cycle Change – Deposition Alt.
      TSI (mostly Visible & Infrared) – 1366 W/m2 – 1.2 W/m2 – – 0.1% – Surface
      MUV (200-300 nm).- – – – – – – – – – 15.4 W/m2 – 0.17 W/m2 – 1% – 15-50 km
      FUV (126-200 nm) – – – – – – – – – – – 50 mW/m2 – 15 mW/m2 – 30% – 30-120 km
      EUV (0-125 nm) – – – – – – – – – – – – -10 mW/m2 – 10 mW/m2 – 100% – 80-250 km

      Ultraviolet light [and destroys] creates the ozone layer…

      …. changes in the EUV irradiance affect the thermosphere, ionosphere, and near-Earth space.

      …the solar-plus-ozone change leads to increased tropical stratospheric warming in the mid-to-upper stratosphere during solar maximum conditions. Higher latitudes during Southern Hemisphere winter receive no such augmentation, and the increased latitudinal temperature gradient results in stronger stratospheric west winds. Via the interaction of these wind changes and planetary waves propagating up from the troposphere, the circulation in the stratosphere weakens, a response characterized by greater relative upwelling in the Southern Hemisphere extratropics, and more downwelling in the northern extratropics. This downwelling has a tendency to extend into the troposphere, limiting convection and rainfall during Northern Hemisphere summer at these latitudes, producing drier conditions. This effect is seen in some paleoclimate records and has been attributed to solar influence.

      Total solar irradiance changes, though of small magnitude, do appear to affect sea surface temperatures (SSTs), most obviously at latitudes where cloud cover is small and irradiance is abundant, such as the Northern Hemisphere subtropics during summer. The increased SSTs then help intensify circulations spiraling away from the subtropics, again favoring reduced rainfall near the equator and to the south, as well as northern mid-latitudes. Hence, both the UV and TSI forcings produce similar effects, with the latter helping to sharpen the response.

  12. Henry P says:

    Gail says
    In the three decades prior to the 2009 solar minimum and the switch to a ‘quiet sun (1979 to 2009) the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth’s surface increased markedly. This energy would be absorbed by the oceans at depths up to 100 meters.

    Henry says
    we are going a bit off track here, but this is a very interesting subject.
    I see a bending point in my poly nominal at around 2005 or 2006.
    So the reason for the recent [natural] warming of earth can indeed be explained by more UV reaching and warming the oceans.

    However, as shown, ozone [ + peroxides & N-Oxides] are now increasing, TOA, as earth protects itself from the the sun’s most energetic particles, of which more are released now due to the lower solar polar magnetic field strengths. Clearly 1997-8 was a defining point.

    It will get cooler.

  13. Gail Combs says:

    Don’t forget the oceans are just part of what ozone does to the climat.

    Climate Change Look up, Look out
    Basic Description

    …The most important part of the Stratosphere is the ozone layer which absorbs harmful incoming radiation from the sun.

    Stratosphere is divided into four zones:

    * Tropics -20°S to 20°N altituted 16 km (50,000 ft), ozone is created in this zone

    * Surf Zone – Middle and high latitudes, the area of air mixing

    * Polar Voretex – beyond 66.5° in each hemisphere

    * Lower Stratosphere – where temperatures stabilize then rise, just above the tropopause

    Surf Zone circulation becomes downward and poleward tending to push ozone in those directions;

    Polar Vortex air is very cold due to its near isolation from the Brewer-Dobson circulation…

    The Brewer-Dobson Circulation transports air molecules and ozone toward the polar regions and downward in the polar zones. Planetary Waves (temperature change and the Coriolis Effect) and large seasonal differences are primary influences of air circulation in the Strtosphere.

    QBO (Quasi-Biennial-Oscillation) is a fluctuation of easterly/westerly equatorial stratospheric winds, generally based on the stratispheric zonal wind at Singapore. The fluctuation occurs irregularly every 22 to 34 months. QBO occurs at higher altitudes (20-35 km) but impacts the atmospheric situation, much like the equatorial El Nino affects earth’s surface weather.

    Polar Night Jet is a jet stream over the polar winter regions which get no sun. This circular Jet Stream isolates polar stratospheric air from the rest of the stratosphere. It is stronger around the South Pole due to colder winters, higher winds, and a more stable environment than the North Pole. This circulation is the primary cause of the Ozone Hole which is enhanced by the polar Night Jet….

  14. Henry P says:

    Gail says
    Don’t forget the oceans are just part of what ozone does to the climate.

    Henry says
    First of all: It is not only ozone.
    Above the oceans peroxides are being formed preferentially to ozone from the OH radicals.
    Hence, there never was a “ozone hole”.
    The sun’s most energetic particles also lets nitrogen and oxygen react, making a cocktail of nitrogenous oxides.
    Note that the absorption spectra of H2O2 and ozone look very similar.
    Hence the effect of all these substances being formed by the sun’s most energetic radiation [which would otherwise harm us] is a labyrinth for anyone not understanding the solar spectrum, as it appears to us at sea level….

    Unfortunately, nobody is measuring all of this happening, TOA….
    Let me get back later on this
    {suppertime now for me)

  15. Henry P says:

    where was I?

    thsi is what we call in stats: a Chi-square distribution

    • Gail Combs says:

      And notice it only has the absorption bands for CO2, H2O and O3

      What about NOx, O2, Cl compounds, sulfur compounds and all the rest of the stuff volcanoes and organic toss into the air? You and I know there is a heck of a lot of chemistry going on in the upper atmosphere as molecular bonds are broken and reformed with the help of UV but you never hear a peep about it in the MSM.


      Of course mankind is blamed as usual as if nitrogen and oxygen were not already a major potion of the air.

      At least the paper admits

      Tropospheric nitrogen oxides originate primarily from the heating of air to temperatures where the Zeldovich mechanism becomes operative, These temperatures are reached during most combustion processes (including fossil fuel and biomass burning) and lightning. Additional NOx sources may be associated with bacterial processes in soils.

      Once in the atmosphere, NO and NO2 partake in many chemical reactions. Some of these are simple NO – NO2 interconversions, while others are actual NOx sinks….

      It is very difficult to predict what the chemical state of the troposphere will be a few decades from now. In addition to the non-linearities which distinguish the basic HOX – NOX – CO – CH4 system, numerous other tropospheric processes occur. The troposphere is rich and highly varied in its composition, with numerous different compounds of carbon, sulfur, nitrogen, and the halogens. Chemical transformations may occur not only in the gas phase, but also in cloud and rain water, and on the surface of aerosols. Perhaps most importantly, the troposphere is strongly coupled to the other “spheres.” One stratospheric coupling is via UV radiation, as discussed in the previous section, yet another is the change in transport of gases across the tropopause (in both directions) if the chemical composition of either the troposphere or the stratosphere is altered. The troposphere is also strongly coupled to the earth’s surface which can be source and sink for tropospheric gases. The biosphere plays a central role here, because many of the emissions are related to natural ecosystems and to human activities (here, too, UV can play a role if it can induce significant changes in biological activity on land and ocean). Uncertainties abound. At best, some of these processes are beginning to be understood in one direction, (for example, the effect of isoprene emissions on tropospheric chemistry) but very little is known on the reciprocity of the coupling. Future global atmospheric change, whether it is climate, or UV irradiation, or exposure to altered tropospheric air, will most likely change how the biosphere affects the troposphere, completing a feedback which today is beyond our predictive skills.

    • Henry P says:

      What is important to know of a Chi-square distribution is that most of what we are measuring is actually in the first 25% on the left on the x, in this case x = the wavelength.
      Note that both of the most popular solar spectra available don’t even mention the effects of the peroxides and Nitrogen oxides. But even if we stick with O3 only: note how much irradiance / energy is being cut away by the presence of the ozone? [=the difference between blue and orange line – in my 2nd solar spectrum graph].
      The reason for this is the back radiation caused by ozone & other GH gases formed TOA to protect us from the sun’s most energetic radiation.
      So, I think, we can all imagine that varying amounts of ozone [& others] at the TOA will also cause a considerable difference in energy getting into our oceans = 70% of earth’s surface.

      Try as much as you like, but normal visible light does not really heat up anything, including water.
      However, water does have absorption in the UV and the IR. So, it is the invisible radiation that gets re-radiated [in water]. The oceans have a lot of mass, and eventually the invisible UV and IR gets exchanged with heat in the oceans.

      Must say though, that the UV coming through has the most energy and therefore this the radiation to watch to predict a cooling or a warming period.


      Feel free to ask me a question.

  16. Henry P says:

    CO2 is a red herring.
    the increase in CO2 does not do much of anything,
    possibly even a cooling effect rather than a warming effect,
    going by the solar spectrum chart.

    • Gail Combs says:

      All the CO2 increase does is make plants happy and ‘green’ deserts due to increase in water efficiency.

      • Henry P says:

        more Carbon is OK!
        pure carbon (dust) might even help us against the ice age trap –
        this is when there is too much ice and snow on earth deflecting too much light off from earth.

        • Gail Combs says:

          If you have not seen this before you might be interested. Albedo regulation of Ice Ages, with no CO2 feedbacks

          Remember the switch from the Wisconsin IceAage to the Holocene was within three years.

          …”‘You did not need to be a trained ice core observer to see this,’ recalled Alley. ‘Ken Taylor is sitting there with the ECM and he’s running along and his green line is going wee, wee, wee, wee – Boing! Weep! Woop! And then it stays down.’ Dust in the windy ice age atmosphere lowered the acidity of the core to a completely new state. ‘We’re just standing there and he just draws a picture of it,”‘Alley said.”

          “Spontaneous celebration was followed by a sudden and unexpected quiet. ‘I think we cheered,’ recalled Alley, ‘and then we were all a little sobered. Because it was just so spectacular. It was what we’d been looking for, and there it was, and then we’re sitting there. Holy crap.'”

          “The instant of recognition that summer of 1992 had a raw feel to it, although eventually the disquiet would find concrete expression in numerous articles and presentations as the scientists became accustomed to the large truth of abrupt climate change and immersed themselves in its fine details. Alley recalled later: ‘Those of us who were down there in that trench at that time knew right then that our picture of the world had changed. There’s a whole bunch of us who came out of that ice core project who have since dedicated ourselves to understanding abrupt climate change.'”

          “In the GISP2 science trench, the tray holding the section of core rolled down the assembly line and then it was Alley’s turn at the ice. “It slides across in front of me and I’m trying to identify years: ‘That’s a year, that’s a year and that’s a year, and – woops, that one’s only half as thick.’ And it’s sitting there just looking at you. And there’s a huge change in the appearance of the ice, it goes from being clear to being not clear, having a lot of dust.”

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s