1. The Spring snow cover extent took what might be a step change downwards in the mid 1980s. In the mid 1980s were there changes in measurement tools (satellites) and/or algorithms that could have affected snow cover estimations in the late-winter months?

Purely anecdotal. I remember a series of years in the 80′s and 90′s where we didn’t have a white Christmas. I live north of 44 degrees and a lack of snow at the end of December was unusual. My gut tells me the step is real.

I noticed the graphs only went to 2007 and am very curious as what the snow cover was in 2008.

Steve: I did a post on this in December 2008. 2008 was the most snow in Toronto since the 1880s.

Steve: Please report your issues to Environment Canada, not to me; I’m quite confident that their metric conversion is accurate as this has been done for a long time in Canada.

I start with the IPCC Summary for Policymakers which has nice Figure 1c labeled “Northern Hemisphere snow cover” ( closeup ) . But, in reading the Figure 1 note, I notice that the graph covers just the two months of March and April rather than, say, the entire NH winter (November-May or something like that which would be more representative of snow cover). Odd.

Anyway, I took a look at the NOAA graph for NH Spring (March-May), and it is similar in pattern. Good enough, but it does raise a question, given below.

While I was visiting the NOAA site I noted the March- May temperature anomaly for NH and the NH winter snow cover anomaly . These raised two additional questions.

Here are my questions:

1. The Spring snow cover extent took what might be a step change downwards in the mid 1980s. In the mid 1980s were there changes in measurement tools (satellites) and/or algorithms that could have affected snow cover estimations in the late-winter months? If so, how were prior year estimations grafted onto the newer estimations?

2. If the Spring snow cover drop was natural and driven by GHG, why wasn’t there a similar drop in snow cover when the NH spring temperature rose circa 2000?

3. What natural reason would make the snow cover change in the NH winter so much smaller than the change in the NH spring?

I’m new to snow, so maybe the answers are well-known and clearly given somewhere in the literature. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the graphics.

Again, any help is appreciated.

You expressed that neatly. “The path of vigorous self-correction” rolls off the tongue. (No, Steve, not your snowed-in path).

I will make a claim, for fear that others misinterpret what you wrote, that my years in business did not show that science was corrupted for the convenience of corporate business. I rebel at the “Exxon motive” or similar, so often used to argue implicit bias. When you phrase it as “the business of scientific enterprise” I fully agree with you, noting that among the worst offenders are those whose future does not depend on productivity or accountability as is so often the case in the corporate business world.

Altruism has been stolen by peer-reviewed rogues.

This thought does not fit in the current thread either, except for the fact that the climate models are starting to diverge somewhat from reality, and it has never been clear to me that the modelers are on a path of vigorous self-correction. Maybe model behavior is coupled to modeler’s behavior?

Popper is not greatly liked by about half of the senior students of the philosophy of science with whom I’ve been privileged to help solve the known problems of the Universe and beyond. There are some deeper thinkers.
The problem is not understanding Popper and falsification, but getting scientists to run a ruler over their final drafts to ensure they do not violate Popper’s guidelines.

For example, I have an unrelated namesake Sir Charles Scott Sherrington who was much more into the philosophy of science. I do not seek fame on his coat tails through similar name, but I recommend that those interested in the philosophy of science should study (not just skim) his fairly voluminous works, perhaps starting with the autobiography then his biographies. It’s hard going, but though provoking and it has shaped a lot of my attitude (for what that is worth). It makes is easier to understand the importance of matters such as the audit of science, the isolation of confounding factors, the benefits of simple experiments on main themes, the value of tight deduction, the value of one (or more) observation(s)that challenges a theory, and the humility and redetermination that has to go with being shown wrong.

Sorry for being OT with snow in Toronto. What is below the snow on my cranium bothers me. I have seen a progressive degradation of the standards of science from a diversity of privileged viewpoints and I dislike the degradation.

Thanks for the links. Ross McKitrick’s proposal has been carried in a few journals, and the Christian Science Monitor , version posted earlier (the one I read) was pretty well condensed to its bare bones rhetorical detail, leaving out the supporting science.

I also considered the idea bold and ingenious, maybe even a bit too bold if temps trend upward due to solar forcings. Speaking of which…

We’re packing for a week’s vacation in Phoenix. Thanks again for your earlier reply.

Bill

1. The data is handled by two analytical camps (UAH and RSS) who often have opposing views on how to process the raw data. They compete with each other, which is great. One of the two, UAH, has no qualms about taking ideologically-unpopular stands about AGW in the scientific community.

2. The raw data is public (though obscure) and archived.

3. The goal is to look at trends which, so long as processing is consistent, should be relatively straightforward (though issues like changing satellites and satellite drift arise).

4. The trends being sought are large and should be easier to spot, and less subject to measurement error, than today’s small trends.

Of course, if Al Gore and allies take over and silence the UAHs of the world then all bets are off. Personally I think that the chances of that happening are quite low.