The massive snow storm that buried the parts of the Northeastern United States on the last weekend of October was not an unprecedented event. Claims have been made that this storm was something new and strange and that it was caused by global warming. The people that made these claims have not done their homework. In order to understand the present we must know and understand the past. One can’t put current events in proper prospective if we are ignorant of past events. That is why we teach children history in school. Apparently many adults do not appreciate the need to know history. Rabid claims that all so called “extreme” weather events are caused by climate change come from ideologically and politically driven people who are ignorant of past weather events.

A look back at historical weather events in New England and surrounding areas reveals that October snowstorms have always occurred. On October 26th 1859, 4 inches of wet snow covered New York City. This amount is similar to the 6 inches reported at Fieldston in Bronx county New York from this past October’s storm. Much earlier in history, on October 27th 1765 more than a foot of snow fell at Boston, Massachusetts. There is little information available about this event being it was nearly 250 years ago. However from a meteorological point of view it is reasonable to assume than many areas around Boston and perhaps Southern New England were also buried under large amounts of snow. Water temperatures off Boston would have been relatively mild in late October keeping snowfall amounts lower near the coast. It is possible that amounts of snow higher than fell in Boston occurred west of the city that day being that they were farther from the modifying influence of the still mild water temperatures. Large amounts of snow in Boston do not come from anything else but coastal storms this early in the season. These coastal storms, more often than not, affect large sections of Southern New England. If it snowed that much in Boston from this storm it is quite possible many other areas had large amounts of snow as well. However this storm played out, it is very significant that a major snowstorm hit Eastern New England on October 27th 1765 and that the snowfall was greater than what happened in Boston on October 29th and 30th of this year.

Another heavy snow event in late October occurred in Salem, Massachusetts on October 29th 1746. A foot of snow covered the ground by storms end. Again there is little additional information available to make reasonable assumptions about how widespread the storm was. Meteorological experience tells me that such a great fall of snow would not have been limited to one location, especially being that the water was still mild offshore. Additionally, amounts of snow this large do not occur in isolated areas this early in the season in Eastern New England but instead are associated with large coastal storms know as Nor’easters that frequently cover all of southern and Central New England. It is reasonable to assume that this was a large coastal storm that produced heavy snow across much of Southern and perhaps Central New England and is likely another example of the reality that the storm of late October 2011 is not unique.

Over 200 years ago an October snowstorm hit New Southern and Central New England that appears to be very similar to the event of this past October. On October the 9th 1804, three weeks earlier in the month than this year’s storm, a massive fall of snow buried parts of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire. Historical accounts indicate that a tropical storm moved up the Atlantic Coast, possibly merging with a pre-existing coastal storm and generated very heavy rains, strong damaging winds and large amounts of heavy, wet snow. New Haven, Connecticut, right along the coast, reported a small accumulation of snow (just as they did in this October’s storm). Low elevation cities in the Connecticut River valley reported 4 to 6 inches of wet snow. One foot of snow was recorded at Goshen, in northwestern Connecticut and amounts as high as 20 inches were reported in northern Connecticut. Farther north in the Berkshires of Massachusetts massive amounts of wet snow fell with up to 30 inches reported (exactly the same amounts as fell in this October’s storm). In Vermont and Central New Hampshire amounts of 2 to 3 feet of heavy, wet snow buried everything in sight (same as this past storm). Amazingly all of this took place three weeks earlier in the month than this year’s snowstorm. Given this fact there, it is likely there would have been massive and catastrophic tree damage but in those days there was no power to knock out so the impact was severe in a different way.

There were far fewer people and far, far fewer snowfall reports as well back in 1804. Today our network of snowfall measuring sites is vastly denser than in the past. This results in snowfall measurements picking up isolated large totals that would have been missed in the distant past making storms seem large today than in the past. The snowstorm of October 9th, 1804 has remarkable similarities to the storm of this past October. This should serve as a remind to us that nature repeats itself over and over again but on time scales that humans have difficulty comprehending due to our relatively short life spans.

Those who claim that this October’s snowstorm was caused by global warming or climate change are either too lazy, too politically motivated or too afraid to look into the past see what they might find, the truth. This October’s snowstorm was not unique and not caused by climate change. It is simply part of the sumptuous variety of weather here in New England and for that matter, around the world. If you don’t know history, everything that unfolds is new.

--------------

Icecap needs your donation no matter what size. We are fighting a large, very well funded climate fear machine that is bent on destroying our way of life in favor of some unattainable “green” utopia. Please send whatever you can so that we can continue to be the voice of reason. You can donate by clicking on the orange bar in the upper left hand side of the front page. Thank you for whatever you can send. Art Horn, Icecap member.

ICECAP NOTE: Icecap uses your donations to cover the costs of a dedicated secure server and other costs of maintaining the site. We also pay some content contributors where possible - like Art who has posted numerous stories. It is frustrating to us that many alarmist sites get a blank check from folks like George Soros or in the case of Real Climate Fenton Communications to propogandize. Yet those who question settled science are accused of being in the pay of big oil. The truth is big oil gives to alarmists causes. Exxon gave $100 million to Stanford and BP $500 million to UC Berkeley but I guess that doesn’t count. Everytime we post a comment to a story like the one recently by the AP on more snow being consistent witrh IPCC forecasts, the knee jerk response we see from the uninfromed is we must be supported by big oil or don’t care about the health and well being of the country. The reality is we care about the truth. Alarmists have won the lottery and want to ensure the annuity checks keep coming. We want to put that to an end. Please help.

Small donations add up and are appreciated.

The global reinsurer Munich Re has received a lot of attention for its press releases on climate change, such as this statement issued one year ago:

A month before the start of the world climate summit, Munich Re is drawing attention to the strong probability that there is a connection between the large number of weather extremes and climate change. The reinsurer has built up the world’s most comprehensive natural catastrophe database, which shows a marked increase in the number of weather-related events. For instance, globally, loss-related floods have more than tripled since 1980, and windstorm natural catastrophes more than doubled, with particularly heavy losses from Atlantic hurricanes. This rise cannot be explained without global warming.

Munich Re also said via press release:

[I]t would seem that the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change.

A new paper is forthcoming in the journal Climatic Change in 2012 helps to shed some additional light on such claims. The new paper—titled “A Trend Analysis of Normalized Insured Damage from Natural Disasters” by Fabian Barthel and Eric Neumayer of the London School of Economics—is a follow on to their earlier work which was published last November (and if you read that one, the new study won’t be surprising).

Here is what the new paper concludes based on its examination of weather-related losses from the Munich Re global dataset from 1980 to 2008 (emphasis added):

[At a global scale] no significant trend is discernible. Similarly, we do not find a significant trend if we constrain our analysis to non-geophysical disasters in developed countries…

Convective events, i.e. flash floods, hail storms, tempest storms, tornados, and lightning, deserve closer attention since these are likely to be particularly affected by future global warming (Trapp et al. 2007, 2009; Botzen et al. 2009) and there is some evidence that past climatic changes already affected severe thunderstorm activity in some regions (Dessens 1995; Kunz et al. 2009). Figure 7a shows that there is no significant trend in global insured losses for these peril types. Similarly, there is no significant trend in insured losses for storm events (Figure 7b), tropical cyclones (Figure 7c) or precipitation-related events (Figure 7d).

They do find a positive trend in insured losses in the US since 1973, and for specific phenomena such as hurricanes and floods, for which longer-term data sets show no upwards trends for either phenomena (and which Barthel and Neumayer acknowledge). Interestingly, they also claim to find a positive trend in insured losses from convective events in the US (including tornadoes), which is in sharp disagreement with our recent work on normalized tornado losses, which finds a dramatic reduction in both economic losses and strong tornadoes since 1950 (in fact, even the non-normalized economic losses show a downward trend). They also find upward trends in storm losses in the western part of Germany. The acknowledge that both regional trends might be associated with simple variability or how they adjust for insurance penetration—it will be interesting to reconcile our tornado work with theirs (ours focuses on total damage).

Based on their analysis they conclude (emphasis added):

Climate change neither is nor should be the main concern for the insurance industry. The accumulation of wealth in disaster-prone areas is and will always remain by far the most important driver of future economic disaster damage…

What the results tell us is that, based on the very limited time-series data we have for most countries, there is no evidence so far for a statistically significant upward trend in normalized insured loss from extreme events outside the US and West Germany…

[W]e warn against taking the findings for the US and Germany as conclusive evidence that climate change has already caused more frequent and/or more intensive natural disasters affecting this country. To start with, one needs to be careful in attributing such a trend to anthropogenic climate change, i.e. climate change caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Our findings reported in this article could be down to natural climate variability that has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Such natural climate variability may well explain our finding of a significant upward trend in insured loss from hurricanes in the US, for example…

They offer several other methodological cautions about the interpretation of the few trends that they found, and quite appropriately.

But the most interesting part of their study is not their conclusions, which are both a valuable contribution to this area of research and perfectly consistent with the growing literature on this topic, but rather, what is found in the acknowledgments (double emphasis added):

The authors acknowledge support from the Munich Re Programme “Evaluating the Economics of Climate Risks & Opportunities in the Insurance Sector” at LSE.
My favorite press spokesman at LSE, Bob Ward, also gets an acknowledgment.

So the next time that Munich Re wants to attribute the growing toll of disaster losses to climate change, or you see someone citing Munich Re saying as much, they might be reminded of the Munich Re funded (and peer-reviewed) research which tells quite a different story than that found in press releases. 

ABSTRACT

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report Four (AR-4) of 2007, concerning the influence of rising levels of CO2 on global increases of tropical cyclone (TC) activity is inaccurate and a disgrace to the scientific community. The public expected there would be rigor and objectivity coming out of such an important document which shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former US Vice President Al Gore. The summary of TC activity of this report was based on discredited peer-reviewed papers whose lack of authenticity was known before the report was released. A select cadre of global warming advocates (with little TC knowledge or experience) bent their objectivity to drive this report toward a desired (but faulty) conclusion that global TC activity was increasing in frequency and intensity. They further implied that a large portion of this alleged TC increase could likely be attributed to rising levels of CO2.

This paper brings forth observational and theoretical evidence to show that rising levels of CO2 have not had any observable association with increases in global tropical cyclone frequency and intensity. In fact, levels have been trending downward over the last 20 years.

This paper discusses why we should not be able to measure any potential future CO2-TC association for many decades, and if any such potential future relationship should ever be able to be isolated, it would be quite small. It also dissects the many observational and theoretical errors of the IPCC-AR4 concerning its reported past and likely future increases of global TC activity.

This paper extends the list of IPCC-AR4’s many questionable conclusions and misrepresentation beyond those that have already been earlier pointed out such as the Himalayas becoming snow-free by 2035, the Arctic Ocean possibly becoming ice-free in coming decades, and the possible coming Amazon rainforest destruction. The issuance of these erroneous IPCC reports does much damage. They should be terminated.

See full detailed analysis here.

This Mann-made global warming lawsuit could backfire on the Penn State alarmist. Support science, energy and freedom - donate to Dr. Tim Ball’s legal defense fund

Lewis Carroll died too soon. Just imagine the fun he’d have with the cliquish clan of climate catastrophe researchers who seek to control science, debate and public policy on global warming and energy - and then get outraged when someone challenges their findings, methodologies or integrity.

On October 1, Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and “hockey stick” fame published an angry riposte in Colorado’s obscure Vail Daily Voices (circulation 15,000), expressing his umbrage over an article that had appeared in the free coffee shop newspaper a day earlier. 

“An individual named Martin Hertzberg did a grave disservice to your readers by making false and defamatory statements about me and my climate scientist colleagues in his recent commentary in your paper,” Mann began. (Hertzberg is a research scientist and former US Navy meteorologist.) The thin-skinned Penn State scientist then ranted:

“These are just lies, regurgitation of dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science.” [emphasis added]

Meanwhile, NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen, recipient of huge monetary awards for strident climate disaster claims, wants oil and coal company CEOs prosecuted for “crimes against humanity.”

So Mann and Hansen are honest scientists, trying to do their jobs. But Hertzberg and anyone else who questions the “imminent manmade climate change catastrophe” thesis are dishonest crooks, liars, Holocaust deniers, hired guns for fossil fuel interests, criminals threatening all humanity.

Hertzberg’s views were defamatory, but Mann’s and Hansen’s accusations are mild, rational and truthful.

(Readers can find Mann’s letters and lively discussions about them and Hansen on Dr. Anthony Watts’ WattsUpWithThat.com climate change website. Hertzberg’s letter appeared, mysteriously disappeared, then reappeared in the Vail Voices online archives as the controversy raged and ebbed.)

The bizarre saga gets even stranger when viewed alongside Dr. Mann’s kneejerk lawsuit against Dr. Tim Ball, a Canadian scientist, historical climatologist and retired professor who has frequently voiced his skepticism about claims that hydrocarbon use and carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of climate change and present an imminent risk of widespread planetary cataclysms. Dr. Ball has analyzed Canadian and global climate history, and does not regard computer models as much more than virtual reality scenarios that should never be the basis for real-world public policy. 

Dr. Ball had poked fun at Dr. Mann, playing word games that suggest the computer guy should not be at Penn State, but in a similarly named state institution. Unfortunately, Mann is not easily amused, as Dr. Ball should have known from the PSU professor’s testy reaction to the “Hide the decline” animation and other spoofs that various AGW “deniers” posted online.

Mann insisted that Dr. Ball’s little joke was libelous and took him to court. Mann’s legal principal seems to be that libel is fine only when he and Hansen practice the craft, albeit with far less good humor than others display. More importantly, Dr. Ball does not live or work in the United States.

US libel cases are governed by the First Amendment, “public figure” rules and other safeguards that ensure open, robust debate, and make it difficult and expensive to sue people over slights, affronts, insults, disagreements and jokes.

Canada, unfortunately, has more limited free speech protections. So Dr. Mike sued Dr. Tim in Canada, assuming victory would be rapid and sweet. Surprise! Dr. Ball decided to slug it out.

In Canada, the principal defenses against libel claims are that the alleged defamation constitutes “fair comment” or was in fact “the truth.” Ball chose the latter defense.

Doing so means the penalty for losing could be higher than under “fair comment” rules. But arguing that his statement was based on truth allows Dr. Ball to seek “discovery” of evidence that Dr. Mann’s actions reflect a use of public funds to alter or falsify scientific data, present highly speculative results as solid facts, or otherwise engage in something that a reasonable person would conclude constitutes dishonest activity or criminal culpability, undertaken moreover through the use of taxpayer funds.

Proving that will not be easy, especially since Mann has steadfastly refused to provide such potential evidence to anyone, including Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. That evidence might include Climategate emails; computer codes and data used, misused or used selectively to generate global warming spikes in historical graphs; and questionable research or proposals used to secure additional government grants, misinform citizens or lawmakers, or promote costly or harmful public policies.

The US government alone spent an estimated $79 billion on climate, renewable energy and related research between 1989 and 2009 - and many billions more since then. Obviously, there is a lot at stake for scientists, universities, government agencies and other institutions engaged in trying to demonstrate a link between human greenhouse gas emissions and climate, weather, agricultural, sea level and other “disasters.” The reputations and credibility of researchers and their institutions are likewise at stake.

Keeping people alarmed, insisting that numerous disasters will soon result from carbon dioxide emissions and a few degrees of planetary warming - and silencing anyone who questions climate chaos claims - are essential if this money train is to be kept on the tracks.

Dr. Mann is likely aided by Penn State lawyers, largely paid for with climate research taxpayer dollars the university wants to safeguard, by preventing criticism or scientific disclosure and transparency.

A judge and jury will decide the Mann vs. Ball case, after carefully weighing all the evidence on whether Dr. Ball’s allegations and insinuations were factual, accurate and truthful.

Dr. Mann’s research was conducted primarily with public money. It is being presented as valid, peer-reviewed science. It is also being used to champion and justify major policy recommendations at state, national and international levels. And those recommendations call for carbon taxes and other penalties for using hydrocarbon energy; the replacement of affordable, dependable fossil fuel energy with expensive, unreliable wind and solar facilities; a roll-back of living standards in rich developed nations; and limited or minimal energy and economic development in poor countries.

Therefore, as I have argued previously, the public has a right to demand that Mann & Comrades show their work, not merely their answers and policy demands. Thus far, serious questions about Mann’s research remain unanswered. The public also has a right to require that Mann, Penn State & Company provide their source material, not just their results - along with anything else that may be relevant to gauging the validity, accuracy and honesty of the work and its conclusions and policy recommendations.

We the People have a further right, duty and obligation to protect free speech, robust debate, the integrity of the scientific method, our personal freedoms, and our access to the reliable, affordable energy that makes our jobs and living standards possible. One way you can do this is by supporting Dr. Tim Ball’s legal defense fund. Just click here or go to http://DrTimBall.com/

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

First estimate of global land temperature trends from the RUTI project , recently presented at Joanne Nova for the Coastal-Noncoastal issues.

... Between 1950 and 1978, the BEST results for global land temperatures have 0.55K more warming than RUTI. Otherwise, the 2 datasets are strikingly similar ....

Fig1. First estimate of global land temperature trends (enlarged). As always in the RUTI project, data are unadjusted GHCN and the main efforts in the RUTI project is to identify areas of similar temperature trend before averaging - this due to limited data periods made available from GHCN (see more). As will be the case for all data sources, older data, especially before 1900 has limited data as foundation. All RUTI data in the present article use 1961-90 as base period.

Results:

1) Temperature peak in the latest decade appears to be around 0,22 K warmer than the 1940´ies heat peak.

2) We see a strong temperature decline 1940-78 around 0;55-0.6 K.

Lets compare with the Berkeley’s BEST project:

Fig1a. Recently, Berkeley released data for land temperatures as shown (enlarged).  Lets compare Undajusted GHCN/RUTI with Berkeley:

Fig1b. (Red RUTI graph is 10 yr avg.) (enlarged).

1) Temperatures recent decade is

RUTI:  0.2-0.25 K warmer than warm peak around 1940

BEST:  0.75-0.8 K warmer than warm peak around 1940

2) Temperature decline after 1940-1978 is

RUTI:  Approx 0.55-0.6 K

BEST:  Approx 0.1-0.15 K

BEST has around 0.55 K more heat in their results than RUTI, and that this difference mostly occurs between 1950 and 1978.

Fig1c. The difference in temperature trends 1950-78 is best illustrated by setting temperatures 1940-50 for the two datasets to be equal (enlarged). 

Read much more with continent by continent comparisons here.