Glacier wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:59 am
How are they deriving 119 years worth of data when no station in the Vancouver area has been around that long? The general trend is true, but the magnitude is way off. I mean, if they are comparing YVR to an further inland station prior to YVR, then the data would be skewed.
In 82 years the snowfall has decreased by 21.8 cm (0.266 cm/ year) according the YVR graph. Your graph shows a rate of almost double this amount!
BTW, the amount of snowfall at YVR has been increasing at a rate of 0.26 cm/year since 1997, mind you, that's only 23 years, so only 6.1 cm more snowfall at YVR today than 23 years ago, which doesn't make up for massive drop in the 1970s.
yvrsnow.png
The general trend is still pretty obvious though. Snowfall has decreased by a significant amount in the period of record.
You could do another one with # of days with a temp below -10C at YVR and you'll probably see another significant decrease per year.
How about Agassiz? Data goes back to 1889( no station change unlike Vancouver).
Ps...I don't think your graph is correct. YVR got around 30cm in 2016 but the graph shows close to 0cm. On the flip side, the graph shows around 80cm in 2017 when the true amount was around 40cm.
Typeing3 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 2:26 pm
Ps...I don't think your graph is correct. YVR got around 30cm in 2016 but the graph shows close to 0cm. On the flip side, the graph shows around 80cm in 2017 when the true amount was around 40cm.
It could be that they were going Jan to Dec. I was defining a year as August to July.
Typeing3 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 2:26 pm
The general trend is still pretty obvious though. Snowfall has decreased by a significant amount in the period of record.
You could do another one with # of days with a temp below -10C at YVR and you'll probably see another significant decrease per year.
How about Agassiz? Data goes back to 1889( no station change unlike Vancouver).
The really frustrating thing is that the data quality has really sh** the bed starting in the 1990s, so many long term stations have too many missing datapoints to accurately graph showfall. For agassiz, the data quality went downhill starting in around 2010, so I can only graph to about that point.
The interesting thing about the decline in snowfall is that it was declining before climate change kicked in. It's hard to tell just by looking at the graph how much is human caused and how much is natural.
P.S. I know the graph says to 2020, but I had to delete the past 10 years off the chart because it was missing a lot of the snowfall amounts. I didn't notice this at first.
snowfallAgassiz.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Glacier wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:54 am
The really frustrating thing is that the data quality has really sh** the bed starting in the 1990s, so many long term stations have too many missing datapoints to accurately graph showfall. For agassiz, the data quality went downhill starting in around 2010, so I can only graph to about that point.
The interesting thing about the decline in snowfall is that it was declining before climate change kicked in. It's hard to tell just by looking at the graph how much is human caused and how much is natural.
P.S. I know the graph says to 2020, but I had to delete the past 10 years off the chart because it was missing a lot of the snowfall amounts. I didn't notice this at first.
snowfallAgassiz.png
Thanks!
And agreed re. the station data quality. It's too bad a station going back so far has so much missing data these days. I remember checking the data for Dec 2016 and more than half the days were missing if I remember correctly.
FWIW I believe the other (newer) Agassiz station is a lot better through.
Typeing3 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:18 pm
FWIW I believe the other (newer) Agassiz station is a lot better through.
Better on temperature, but terrible with precipitation. Plus, no snowfall data.
BTW, Same problem at Fort St. James, the longest running station the interior. The station started in the 1890s, with good data, but then suddenly they stopped recording precipitation and temperature on the weekends, so it's now totally useless. At least the automated station works more often.
Interesting. The obvious answer is that YVR is sitting right on the water so is moderated by the ocean a lot more. From 1945 to 2011, YVR warmed 1.1C and YXX warmed 1.8C.
yxxyvr.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Glacier wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:54 am
The really frustrating thing is that the data quality has really sh** the bed starting in the 1990s, so many long term stations have too many missing datapoints to accurately graph showfall. For agassiz, the data quality went downhill starting in around 2010, so I can only graph to about that point.
The interesting thing about the decline in snowfall is that it was declining before climate change kicked in. It's hard to tell just by looking at the graph how much is human caused and how much is natural.
P.S. I know the graph says to 2020, but I had to delete the past 10 years off the chart because it was missing a lot of the snowfall amounts. I didn't notice this at first.
snowfallAgassiz.png
Thats weird the ipcc says that considering that ghg levels started upward at the dawn of the industrial revolution, so therefore the 1800s. Ive seen climate change linked to warming a lot earlier, even dating back to the dustbowl years and further. Makes sense considering how much coal was burned, forests slashed and things like ww1.
The cooling period of the 60s has been linked to a temporary aerosol cooling effect on caused by rapid economic expansion, but thats very difficult to prove.
PortKells wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:27 pm
Thats weird the ipcc says that considering that ghg levels started upward at the dawn of the industrial revolution, so therefore the 1800s. Ive seen climate change linked to warming a lot earlier, even dating back to the dustbowl years and further. Makes sense considering how much coal was burned, forests slashed and things like ww1.
The cooling period of the 60s has been linked to a temporary aerosol cooling effect on caused by rapid economic expansion, but thats very difficult to prove.
The IPCC says that the amount human emission weren't enough to make a measurable difference in temperature until 1950. The previous warming was recovery from the Little Ice Age. That's why we can look at the rate of warming, and see that warming from 1880 to 2050 and compare it to 1950 to 2020 and see that the warming was slower before 1950. The conclusion being that the increase in the warming rate is from GHG emissions.
I wondered what happened to David Jones, I recall him from years ago on global.
Interesting that he is not spouting the party line for climate change causing the heat dome but taking a longer term view of the event.
I d/l the paper he referenced, should be an interesting read (assuming I understand it )
)
