When I first posted a graph showing the total snowfall on Mt. Rainier from 1921 to the present, I did so to provide readers a chance to do some simple data analysis. Most readers, judging by the comments at Sound Politics, thought that I was making a point about global warming. I was not, except in a negative way, which I will explain at the end of this post.
(One very well-informed reader guessed that I posted the graph to show a linear trend. And there is a linear trend, but I don't think it fits the data well, for reasons I explained in that second post.)
It is often helpful in looking at a set of data to begin with the very simplest kind of analysis. Excluding the missing years, as we must, the average snowfall during this period was 637.3 inches per year. (Yes, I know that that number suggests a false precision in the original measurements, but that's a subject for another post.) So I started by drawing that dotted line across the chart to show the average.
And when you draw that line, you see that most of the years before 1954-1955 were below average, and that most of them after that year were above average. (Not quite like the children in Lake Woebegone, but close.) We can get an even better picture by bracketing the snowfall in those two periods with minima and maxima. And, by now, I hope almost everyone can see that there are at least two distinct periods in the snowfall records, from 1920-1921 to 1942-1943 (and perhaps later), and from 1954-1955 (and perhaps earlier) to the present. Within each period, there appears to be no obvious trend.
Anyone who took an elementary statistics class will have noticed a second way in which the two periods differ; the snowfall varies more from year to year in the second period. (Specifically, the standard deviation is 125 inches in the first period and 165 inches in the second.) That gives us even more reason to think that there was a shift between the two periods.
Infuriatingly, the missing years prevent us from know exactly when that shift happened, and whether it was gradual or abrupt — using only this data.
But there is a warning in the shift, and it is a warning that all of us should take seriously. As far as I know, climate scientists do not generally think that the shift was anthropogenic, that it was caused by man's activities. But that implies that, regardless of our views on global warming models, that we should be prepared for significant shifts in climate. They can happen, whether or not we cause them. For instance, in the next century, there will almost certainly be a large volcanic eruption, which will cool the earth for a few years. And we know from the geological record that some past eruptions were devastating, to put it mildly.
Nothing is constant except change, and that is true of our climate in the long run, as well as everything else.
Not being an expert climatologist like Joel Connelly (who moonlights as a Seattle PI columnist), or Greg Nickels (who moonlights as mayor of Seattle), or Al Gore (who moonlights as a carbon credits salesman), I won't say anything definitive about what snowfall records at Mt. Rainier tell us about climate models. I recognize that there is much that I do not know about the subject, and I wish those three gentlemen would do the same.
But I will say two things, the first tentatively, and the second, not. First, if those records are typical of this area, if there was a similar shift to higher levels of snow in other parts of the Cascades, beginning somewhere between 1943 and 1954, then an adequate regional climate model should be able to predict that. To put it another way, an adequate simulation of this region's climate should be able to take conditions around, for example, 1930, and produce the climate we now have, and have had for decades. I have no idea whether any models are able to do that. But if none are, then we have reason to be dubious about their ability to predict future climates.
Second, the climate change debate has become so polarized, so politicized, that many look at any new piece of data as possible ammunition for their side in the argument. That's a serious error, in my opinion. The climate will warm, or will not warm, regardless of the arguments we make about it. No speech, however powerful, no post, however amusing, will make any difference to the earth's temperature. And, though I shouldn't have to say this, no personal insult will make any difference, either.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(You can find the sources of the data at my original post. I made one minor change in the data set, restoring the fractions to four of the years.
Finally, some of my favorite pictures of the snow at Rainier, taken in March, 2008.)
Correction: Looking at the snowfall data yesterday, I made an off-by-one error on some of the years. I have corrected the dates in the text. The error had no effect on the graph or on any of my conclusions, tentative, or otherwise.
Posted by Jim Miller at July 27, 2009 10:20 AM | Email ThisFor details and the real data George Taylor's (Oregon state climatologist) see:
http://www.sustainableoregon.com/nwsnow.html
The AGWers are weasels.
Posted by: Paddy on July 27, 2009 11:01 AMHow do snowfalls relate to average temperatures during the periods?
One thing you would admit is the glaciers on Mt Rainier (and Glacier NP) are disappearing. The question to be answered is why? Al Gore would state it is Global Warming. Yet by your initial numbers there is more average snowfall in recent years, so that should equate to thicker glaciers. Therefore, my question on temperatures. One could have higher snowfall, but due to higher temperatures, also quicker melting and therefore, a decline in the glaciers.
Another reason may also be the mountain warming up. Therefore, seismic activity may also explain, at least for Mt Rainier. I don't believe it explains Glacier because the mountains there are not formed due to volcanic activity.
Posted by: tc on July 27, 2009 11:33 AMI'd like to see data on glacier size, depth, and mass during those years to compare them. It'd also be interesting to see average temperature on the mountain during that period as well.
Then, and only then, can we hope to start discussing how snowfall relates to temperature or glacier size, and how temperature relates to glacier size.
But this does nothing to address the question of whether there is a phenomena of global warming, and to what degree that phenomena is caused by human activity. Nor can those questions address the effects of global warming on Mount Rainier.
Up until the point that we have accurate and reliable data, we are only speculating. Computer models built on this speculation are worse than speculation. And hamstringing our economy on speculation is the road to serfdom.
Science is a tricky business, made no less tricky from Socrates observation that the only thing he knows is that he knows nothing.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on July 27, 2009 11:59 AMAnswer may be too strong a word, since, to give everyone a little hint, what I plan to do in that post is to share my confusion on the subject.
(Besides that, I plan one more post in this series, on problems of measurement.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on July 27, 2009 12:07 PMAll this is happening now, and it will affect every American whether they want it or not. We are being "dictated" to by our elected officials like Adam Smith, who'se ears are shut and mind made up. Don't bother going to his "Town Hall" meetings. They're just held to let the "little people" know what Adam thinks, not for him to "listen".
Posted by: scott on July 27, 2009 12:25 PMIf we are going to believe a forecast based on a model, that model damn well better spit out data that reflect the climates we've actually witnessed. They don't.
The worst of the lot is the fact that CO2 has steadily risen over the past 2 decades. The models say CO2 is so potent an heat trapper that it projects equally steadily increasing temps... except, temps cooled for almost a decade now. Basically, when the observation of our climate didn't wash with the models, people just shuffled feet or changed the model. The premise is that CO2 is an aggressive heat trapper even as a tiny fraction of our atmosphere. It's only a few 10th's of a percent of the atmosphere, yet, while CO2 increases each year our temps fell. The models didn't predict that either.
The eco movement will not admit that it is married to the idea that fossil fuels have to be eradicated. Whether or not CO2 causes warming is only tangentially important. It's a means to an end. Governments simply use it as a means to further control economies and raise revenues. A little ice age could start and global warming would be blamed for it.
Posted by: Cecil on July 27, 2009 12:37 PMLooking at the chart, the dips 1960-1970 and 1979-1994 are in the realm of 1920-1940, though the lower limit is 30% higher.
The spike in 1972-1976 correspond to the Time magazine "Coming Ice Age" article.
The dip from 1984-1998 corresponds to the growth of global warming "scientific" model.
The overall rise in 1998-present corresponds to the growth of climate change hysteria -- oops -- awareness -- programs which have morphed into critical, must act now with draconian government policies - in order to save the world, or something.
I'd recommend looking at this presentation by Dr. Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University. Pay attention to page 23 and the 4th bullet point on page 32. Excellent data about glaciers in the Cascades (in particular, Mt. Baker).
Maybe it's a natural cycle? As the presentation states, there are 400 years of recorded 25-35 year grow/retreat cycles of glaciers, and just the last two have had significant CO2 contributions. And the first of those two saw GROWING glaciers, not shrinking.
Something to think about... The graph of page 11 is also quite telling, in that current temperatures are well below the last 2000, 5000, and 10000 year timeframes.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 27, 2009 12:44 PM-
Yes, and there is anthropological evidence about this. A few years back, as a glacier was receding from an area of the Alps, mines were discovered, complete with the miners' tools. Seems that the miners used to leave their equipment behind when winter would come, and then return in the spring to resume mining in those high elevations. Well, one year the snow didn't melt in the spring, or the next, or the next. It didn't melt again until, like 2007.
So, I ask the AGW'ers... what is the correct temperature? What caused the last Ice Age to end? Wasn't much of the state of Washington under ice? What/who caused it to melt several thousand years ago?
Posted by: Gary on July 27, 2009 01:08 PMThe US will basically tax itself trillions in order to attempt to reduce emissions. Based on Canada's efforts you should know that we won't succeed. US emissions will in fact still increase, just more slowly. But even if we had some modest reduction what will happen to Global CO2???
China, India and many others aren't going to do anything. What do those countries have in common? Their rates of increase of CO2, year on year, are the highest in the world. We'll spend trillions while the increases from these countries eat up all the saved U.S. CO2 and still net out a year on year global increase. CO2 goes up anyway.
What else happens? Well, we notably increase the prices of everything bought or sold in this country as a result of cap n trade. Our export products pricing, already expensive in foreign markets relative to our foreign competitors, goes up. While our competitors products become increasingly more attractive, reducing our exports.
The only way a cap n trade situation works, again you have to take as a given the AGW models that have yet to accurately predict existing climates can forecast future ones, is if every major economy in the world participates. If not, productivity, wealth and investment flow to the economy of least resistance. The world will not buy American because we're doing so much for the climate.
Our CNT will not work. Won't work to cut CO2. Will increase the cost of everything we produce. Will reduce our competitiveness in foreign markets, will cost jobs, will limit growth.
There's no free lunch. If we chose to add a Carbon surcharge to the price of everything American made or delivered, the consumers of those goods and services will gravitate to the products/services without the self hung carbon albatross. This is simple economics and I never hear the greens address these realities. If the US actually achieves significant CO2 reductions it will be though significant reductions in our GDP. Anyone understand what that means in real terms or does it not matter as long as we can feel good about what we are doing?
Posted by: Cecil on July 27, 2009 01:09 PMFrom looking carefully at the range of evidence made available by both sides of the Anthropological Climate Change Debate, the discussion would certainly be simplified if those on Al Gore's side would simply tell the truth as they know it. If they were sincere, they would have no problem doing so which further makes me smell a rat.
If those on the other side told the same truth, it wouldn't matter nearly as much because they are not explicitly mixing "science" with politics for political gain as the AlGoreans are.
The geological record reveals some likely answers to questions asked by Gary at #10 including reasons why the last Ice Age ended and what caused glacier masses in Washington State to melt and when. Of course these are all theories derived from observation of a record that is thousands and even millions of years long and though they are reliable theories, they certainly cannot tell us if automobiles are causing (or significantly contributing to) global warming. Nevertheless, they give us a hint if we are willing to take it.
By the same token and for the same reasons, it seems obvious that the forces at work in the past are more likely to be the same forces at work today, and emissions only a small contributing factor to a much larger global syndrome playing itself out along the millennia. Before human civilization provided us the egos to believe we were so consequential to the climate, the earth did as the earth does, forever change.
Anything is possible but likely is the key. We are left to use our common sense in interpreting the likelihoods of claims made by those who have significant individual personal motives to demand we alter our economic futures, and weak (almost non-existent) evidence that doing so would serve the interests of anything but them.
There was considerably more solid evidence that Saddam Hussien had weapons of Mass Destruction than that our climate change is attributable to human causes of any kind, yet the liberals would base our whole economic future on pseudo-science and ignore the obvious and imminent multiple threat of Iraq on the other. There is no solid evidence that should every single automobile instantly disappear from the face of the earth that our climate would not continue to change is it currently changing for the foreseeable future.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 27, 2009 08:05 PMIt could be the observatory, though.
Posted by: Marcus Welbey on July 27, 2009 10:04 PMDoes anyone here know what it SHOULD be?
Does anyone here know which species or which glaciers or what sea-level should be the indicator for optimal global temperature?
Does anyone here know when the earth has had optimal global temperatures in the past?
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 28, 2009 05:20 AMThat should tell you all you need to know about what it is they want.
And Bart, exactly... there is no "optimal temperature". But Obama assures us that he can keep the entire earth's temp within 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels.
And people believe him.
And they also believe that nature has changed the climate constantly, for millions and millions of years... until now. Now it can only be caused by man, the sun and earth have nothing to do with it.
When they can figure out how to tax the sun, then they'll blame the sun.
We are just mortals who should genuflect and give our support to such a god-on-Earth!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 28, 2009 07:10 AM'It will, without doubt, have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice, has been during the last two years greatly abated. This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened, and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.'
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817
-
It may have been "inexplicable at present to us"
in 1817, but we all know now that it was because of early 19th century SUV's.
Perfect.
I especially liked the "interesting to . . . the future intercourse of mankind . . ." It further opened shipping lanes.
Innumerable historical texts that attempt to trace the beginnings of human history cite diggings that provide evidence of comparatively drastic differences between our current climate and that of periods in the past (esp medieval period).
I don't doubt that modern emissions affect the climate in some negligible way, but wise policy making can only be achieved by taking everything into consideration. The alarmists are afraid of exposing data, and protective of their opinions. Doesn't that belie the inherent weakness of their position?
This seems so intuitively obvious.
Am I missing something important?
Lindzen is looking out for the Sycopahnts we often read here like demo kid. Lindzen worries about the psychological well being of the Alarmist Sycopants who have allowed themselves to be swayed by propagandists like Al Gore. Swayed to the point where they are convinced that there is significant Anthropogenic Warming, and that such alleged warming warrants drastic economy changing action. As time goes on, and the truth that human effects are minimal becomes more clear, will these people have the courage to admit that they were lead astray? And will the be able to absorb the emotion they have invested in now completely discredited picture non-arguments like the Hockey Stick graph, Polar Bears on icebergs, etc.?
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 28, 2009 11:52 AMThanks for the cite by Lindzen, his stuff is excellent. I added him to my list.
I particularly appreciated Lindzen's characterization of the alarmists protectiveness of their opinions as rallying whenever their "psychic welfare" is at stake, although in the case of Al Gore "psychotic welfare " might be more apropos.
Thanks
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 28, 2009 12:14 PMCheck out this great Lindzen paper as well.
It pretty much blows the whole AGW Alarmism out of the water, and exposes it correctly as a political ploy designed to further itself, and not real science which would allow for questions.
Lindzen is what an actual climate scientist looks like, as opposed to an Alarmist Activist like Jim Hansen who has abandoned scientific integrity in favor of stagecraft and scaremongering.
However, it should also be noted that environmental chemist Dr. Drew Budner at Whitworth University believes, from his own ice core research, that the earth's atmosphere is overall cleaner today that it has been in over 150 years. (Source: a talk he gave about 18 months ago.) Still, there could be a local source of soot depositions on Mt Rainier.
Annual snowfall depth is just one of many possible metrics to look at regarding Mt Rainier. Think temperature, days of cloud cover, volcanic activity, soot deposition, total snow fall, etc. all of which factor into the situation there.
Posted by: Ed on July 28, 2009 01:52 PMRock dust, pollen and algae contribute as well.
Confirming the presence of human produced soot is a tougher job, and it maybe under-reported because of that.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 28, 2009 02:32 PM