Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Sierra Snowfall Unaffected by Global Warming

Thanks, San Francisco Chronicle:
Snowfall in the Sierra Nevada has remained consistent for 130 years, with no evidence that anything has changed as a result of climate change, according to a study released Tuesday.

The analysis of snowfall data in the Sierra going back to 1878 found no more or less snow overall - a result that, on the surface, appears to contradict aspects of recent climate change models.

John Christy, the Alabama state climatologist who authored the study, said the amount of snow in the mountains has not decreased in the past 50 years, a period when greenhouse gases were supposed to have increased the effects of global warming.

The heaping piles of snow that fell in the Sierra last winter and the paltry amounts this year fall within the realm of normal weather variability, he concluded.

"The dramatic claims about snow disappearing in the Sierra just are not verified," said Christy, a climate change skeptic and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It looks like you're going to have snow for the foreseeable future."
Naturally, the ecochondriacs are still screaming the study's questionable. Okay, how about this one:
The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.
The anthropogenic theory of global warming is dead. I refuse to call it climate change, because that's nonsensical. The historical record has shown the only constant with climate is change. So you can't get alarmist about what the Earth has been doing since it formed.

The truth is, even if the global climate were rock steady for the next 50,000 years, alarmists would scream that the stability was unnatural and anthropogenic to justify their government grants.

Can we hang Al Gore in effigy now?

More global warming myths are dispelled here.


tom said...

"One data point and you're jumping for joy."
-Hip Hop Hayek

It seems you haven't thought this through very carefully. If you concede that the global climate is changing, then how does a data point against climate change in general refute that said change is anthropogenic? All that says is that global climate change (which you concede is taking place) has uneven effects. It says nothing about what is causing change.

Hip Hop Hayek here:

Mark said...

Strictly speaking, a single data point can disprove a theory, if it's a real theory. In this case, it's one of several data points recently disproving the computer models that have been predicting AGW.

Also, keep in mind the models are trying to measure total heat energy in the atmosphere. Something that actual snow packs are more directly reflective of.

Andrew said...

Mark's responded well. I'd add that my point on climate change is that that's been consistent prior to the existence of humans on the planet, and prior to any human ability to have any significant impact on nature.

So, trying to change the discussion from Anthropogenic Global Warming to Climate Change is a nonstarter. Change is guaranteed whether humans are present or not.

The current panic is based on a theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I've collected many data points on this blog that demonstrate the theory isn't just unproven, but possibly even disproved. This post just continues to add to them.

The Climategate e-mails by backers of the anthropogenic theory of global warming admit as much.