Record Snow in Sierra – Near 200% of normal at Boreal Ski resort

“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms,” says the IPCC in 2001.

Recent snows suggest much for AGW induced snow worries, but still the hype continues:

“Heavy snowstorms are not inconsistent with a warming planet,” said Jeff Masters, director of meteorology for www.wunderground.com (source Breitbart)

Heavy snow would be tragic if it weren’t so funny. Memo to Dr. Masters: with the current mindset, nothing is inconsistent with global warming. – Anthony

By Joe D’Aleo, ICECAP

It is called “Miracle March 2011” in the Sierra. At Boreal, near Donner Summit, as of a few days ago, they had received 217 inches this March bringing the seasonal snowfall to 762 inches. The previous record was 662 inches in 1994/95. The recent prolonged storm brought 6-7 feet of snow. The normal for the season is around 400 inches. Their snowbase is between 275 and 375 inches (20-30 feet).

The Snow Water Equivalent is well above normal and bodes well for both agriculture and coastal cities which rely on the melting snow for irrigation and drinking water. There have been battles for decades over how much water the farmers should get to use in the long dry growing season.

As show above, and confirmed below, this wet season has brought over 80 inches of water equivalent to some of the higher terrain.

About these ads

188 thoughts on “Record Snow in Sierra – Near 200% of normal at Boreal Ski resort

  1. Bah! This is Weather, not Climate. Climate is when it gets warmer, Weather is when it snows.

  2. We had a very dry, very pleasant January here in the central Sierras, if we had the snow that came in dec, feb and march, shudder to think. I have to say, when you’re up there looking at all that snow… It’s really spectacular.

  3. Of course, California will still say it is in a drought condition.

    I appreciate that California has fantastic growing conditions, but if we’re using sierra-snow-pack water to grow rice in areas too arid for rice and then telling the large population centers they can’t water their lawns, we’re being very dumb (California does this).

  4. Nothing is inconsistent with Global Warming.

    “Everything gives you cancer.” – Joe Jackson

  5. Wow, we talk about snow a lot here on WUWT. Greater accumulation is generally a sign of warmer, not cooler climate:

    And if we around to measure the snowfall during the next glacial period, we will see snow not melting in the late spring and summer, but staying around and providing a based for the next winter snow to accumulate. As it is, our NH snowcover in the late spring and early summer has been declining:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch4s4-2-2-2.html

    It seems AGW skeptics want to point out heavy snowfall in the winter as a sign the world’s not warming, but 100,000 years of ice-core data shows a different story. Now, if snowcover starts to stick around into the late spring and summer months, then we might have something for the skeptics to hang their collective hats on. Generally though, warmer winters can lead to greater snowfall in areas prone to snowfall because a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, until such time as the world warms enough that the snow will fall as rain.

  6. I am to old to get any of it but my son says his Burton Joystick is still in full use! As an old Brit living in Cyprus with my lad living in San Fran and going to Lake Tahoe every weekend I can only imagine he is water ski-ing!

    Help!

  7. I’ve come to the conclusion that AGW causes male pattern baldness.
    Now to go back to grad school and apply for a grant…

  8. I’m not familiar with the spring time pattern of snow melt on the west coast, but in many cases this much snow can lead to catastrophic floods. Is that a concern in this case?

    Mike.

  9. I’m waiting to see how they pivot to excessive heat being a sure sign of runaway climate catastrophe after claiming extreme cold and heavy snow are also signs of runaway climate catastrophe. Will they decide to claim moderate weather is also a sure sign of runaway climate catastrophe? I wonder what does not cause runaway climate catastrophe?

  10. OK. Now get ready for the next crisis. Although peoples attention has been focused on the San Andreas fault due to the recent 9.0 quake in Japan, pay attention to the levees in the Sacramento Delta. They’re old, and probably won’t be able to handle the massive amount of snow melt that will be coming off the mountains this year.

  11. I blame CO2 for all the crabgrass in my lawn and the fact I have to cut the fool thing. No CO2, no lawn and no crabgrass. Of course no me either, so I guess I wouldn’t notice.

  12. While it is not a record, the Rockies that feed into the Colorado River above Lake Powell and Lake Mead are also above average (as are many other parts of the Rockies).

    At the USDA site the Upper Colrado River is 126% of normal for today and 115% of the average peak (April 15):

    http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/reports/UpdateReport.html?report=Colorado&format=SNOTEL+Snowpack+Update+Report

    The site at snowpack.water-data.com is reporting 119% for today and 116% of the average peak

    http://snowpack.water-data.com/uppercolorado/index.php

  13. Good story. The prediction was less snow. The actual observation is more snow. Whatever else can be said about it, the prediction was wrong.

  14. “Heavy snowstorms are not inconsistent with a warming planet”

    Lemme see if I’ve got this right, by his thinking, the warmer it gets, the deeper it snows in the mountains… Howzatt?

    At this rate there’ll still be some of this year’s snow left on the ground in the fall. And if we can expect a few more years of this, it would seem that a whole bunch of California is warming up to another ice age.

    As a local boy who grew up in California’s high Sierra, I can tell you it gets really hard to take the idea of global warming seriously when you’re digging out from under more snow than you’ve ever seen. But there’s a good side too. If you are a fan of places like Yosemite, or Kings Canyon National parks, this year’s spring runnoff also promises amazing water falls the likes of which we’ve never seen as well.

  15. There is some talk that some of the Utah ski resorts may be able to stay open through the 4th of July weekend.

  16. Chris Smith says:
    March 29, 2011 at 7:45 am

    Bah! This is Weather, not Climate. Climate is when it gets warmer, Weather is when it snows.

    The total sum of weather IS climate. The components of climate IS weather. It’s all a matter of time frame with critical climatic factors set by weather extremes (temperature minimums and maximums, wind velocities, precipitation amounts, etc.).

  17. Well just wait till you see some other rocket scientist decide to let water go from our very few Califonia reservoirs, to make room for the great runoff we are going to have; and then we will have a prolonged winter/spring, and the water will run normally and those reservoirs will all be empty.

  18. Ok, so Boreal got 200+ % of snowpack.
    In 1982-3 winter, Donner Summit got 880″ of snow.
    That summer, much of the high country never melted off.
    Sounds like a repeat of 82-83 for the Sierra, but the prospect still lies on the table for a repeat of May 1955 flash flood rain hitting it.
    Don’t forget that the dam operators are hot to store as much water as they can get away with.

  19. Wow! 94-95 was terrific for skiing. Mammoth was open until August 13 that year. This whole “water shortage” meme which justifies putting thousands of small farmers out of business is reminiscent of the movie “Chinatown”. For those who are not in the know, the central story of Chinatown was loosely based on the history of water use in Los Angeles. Out west, water is money. It is the difference between productive agricultural land and a desert. In the movie the alleged water shortage was being used to force farmers in the San Fernando Valley out of business by depriving them of water.
    Now the alleged water shortage, totally created by the federal government, is being used to force small farmers in California’s central valley out of business. And Jeremy, you can’t eat grass. But you can eat rice. A large percentage of the food we eat in this country is grown in the Central Valley of California. And the Western Sierra watershed is more than adequate most years to supply the water needed to grow the crops which include just about every fruit– oranges, kiwis, lemons, peaches, avocados, grapes, many vegetables and even wheat and corn. Nut and fruit trees — which represent an investment that will normally last for years, are dying for lack of water. Yet our representatives look the other way. It isn’t about water. It’s about power. And I’m not talking about electricity. We need another Jake Gittes to find out who is really the beneficiary of this deception.

  20. This is a surprising. Take a look at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
    (warning: weekly updates)
    On pages 32 and 34 is shown the precipitation anomalies during La Niña years (like this year) and freqency of occurence for Feb-Apr and Mar-May. The area near Donner Summit is in an area with fairly high probability of large negative precipitation anamoly during both these time periods. So why is this year different than typical for a La Niña?

  21. With all this water coming down into Sacramento river, will they turn on the pumps for the Central Valley? After all we don’t want to flush all those Delta smelts out sea!

  22. The folks down in Central CA are happy about all the rain-

    http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/03/29/central-california-lake-fills-to-capacity-for-first-time-in-decades/

    I can’t tell how much official rain fell in my area- outside of Placerville, CA, during the last series of storms as PG&E decided not to keep track of the rain details anymore- formerly reported in our local paper.

    Our rains have been steady for about 2 and a half weeks. Per my rain gauge we have gotten .2″ on the lightest rain day and a combo of rain and snow equaling 1.7″ as the max for a day. My data recorder, my wife, hasn’t totaled up series of storms totals yet…. We didn’t reach a max rain event day at our location with this series of storms. That was a bit bit over 5 inches over a 24 hour time period.

  23. RGates said “It seems AGW skeptics want to point out heavy snowfall in the winter as a sign the world’s not warming,”

    I think the snow stories are merely being compared to the past predictions of less snow.

    Falsifying predictions is just basic science.

  24. R. Gates said:

    It seems AGW skeptics want to point out heavy snowfall in the winter as a sign the world’s not warming, but 100,000 years of ice-core data shows a different story.

    So, does that 100,000 years of ice-core data show snow fall diminishing constantly during lowering temperatures or staying the same?

    Or does it show a cyclic behavior?

  25. @ R Gates.
    Your comment “Greater accumulation (of snow) is generally a sign of warmer, not cooler climate:” is a gross oversimplification. In areas where the winter temperature hovers just below freezing, a warmer climate means rain and not snow.
    Here in my small area of the world, my pond is frozen solid, the first time in 6 years this late in the year. It has been a colder winter for sure. Yes, just weather, although 1998 was the warmest year on record lest we forget. Or was it 2003? Oh wait, they’re changing the graphs again…

  26. R. Gates says:
    March 29, 2011 at 8:02 am
    Wow, we talk about snow a lot here on WUWT. Greater accumulation is generally a sign of warmer, not cooler climate:

    Greater accumulation means warmer climate? I can’t believe you actually posted that. Any fool knows that the ground has to be cold to get snow accumulation.

    Also, aren’t you tired of saying this same thing over and over on here, only to get slapped down? I’ve lost count of the number of times you’ve said this absurdity, only to have someone post a reply documenting how wrong you are, and you then mysteriously vanish into the either, never to reply again. Is your whole purpose to simply troll early-troll often?

  27. Donner Pass, huh? I seem to remember some story about a pretty cold, snowed in winter there once. About 165 years ago, I think.

  28. “”””” Jeremy says:
    March 29, 2011 at 8:00 am
    Of course, California will still say it is in a drought condition.

    I appreciate that California has fantastic growing conditions, but if we’re using sierra-snow-pack water to grow rice in areas too arid for rice and then telling the large population centers they can’t water their lawns, we’re being very dumb (California does this). “””””

    Let me Guess, Jeremy, you are NOT a central valley farmer ?

    Those folks have two sources of water, besides the not too plentiful rain. One is that Sierra snow pack melt water; which isn’t too dependable, and the other is the underground “water”, actually a solution of all sorts of chemical salts. If you tell the farmers that you need that Sierra snow pack melt water, to water all the golf courses in Southern California; all built where Mother Gaia, never wanted to have a golf course in the first place, then those farmers have little choice but to pump that saline solution up from the depths, and spread it over their valuable croplands to turn it into a salt marsh. As the soil gets saltier and saltier, they have to rotate their crops from desirable valuable nutritious food crops, to less desirable and nutritious, but more salt tolerant crops; inevitably ending up with the one thing which will still grow;which is cotton. So California grows a lot of cotton, in exchange for watering the greens on those out of place SoCal goof courses.

    Once in a great while; Mother Gaia shines on California, with a bountiful supply of Sierra snow pack melt; enough for all the silly game holes, and for the CV farmers.

    So the Farmers flood their land with the plentiful snow melt water, and turn their lands into a paradise for migratory birds, to come and wade and feed in the rice fields, that they plant in that flooded land. The flood waters kill off all the weeds so the farmer doesn’t have to put poisonous chemicals on his land; and at the same time, the excess flood water, slowly seeps back down to the primordial depths, taking all those destructive salts with it, back out of harms way. A season (or maybe two) of valuable rice production gives the farmer the boost that he needs so he can go back to growing more market valuable and nutritious foods, and start the cycle all over again.

    And California, can produce rice a lot better, and cheaper, that they can in say Japan.

    It’s those goof courses Jeremy, that are screwing up the natural system; not the rice farmers.

    Those “large population centers” wouldn’t be a euphemism for that anomalous spread built in a known arid desert bowl; where grass was never normally groing; aka Los Angeles; or would it ? It’s those large population centers that are built in arid dry areas that were never intended to grow anything besides sage brush and cactus, that are the problem; not the rice farms.

  29. I’m reminded of the joke, if the facts don’t conform to the theory, the facts must be ignored.

    IF increased heat causes more cold an snow, then you should be able to make ice by putting a pan of water in the stove and turning up the heat!!! ;-)

  30. “Generally though, warmer winters can lead to greater snowfall in areas prone to snowfall because a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, until such time as the world warms enough that the snow will fall as rain.”

    Then why were the snow levels in New England significantly below the average for the last 30 years, prior to 2009 (at which time they recovered)?

    This is an example of Warmists always being right.

  31. NoAstronomer says:
    March 29, 2011 at 8:17 am
    I’m not familiar with the spring time pattern of snow melt on the west coast, but in many cases this much snow can lead to catastrophic floods. Is that a concern in this case?

    Yes. Rain on snow can create a serious flooding problem. And if the reservoirs are already nearly full, we have a problem Houston.

    Current reservoir levels [1] indicate that the reservoirs that matter most for the Sacramento River, Shasta, Oroville and Folsom have some capacity remaining, but perhaps not enough to handle a big warm storm. All of these are above historic average levels now.

    Dam operators are releasing water now [2]. If snow melts rapidly, and reservoirs fill quickly, dam operators will have no choice but to let the water flow over the dams unchecked. California has attempted to implement flood control measures without construction of more reservoir capacity [3]. One day, maybe sooner rather than later, these systems will be tested.

    See:
    1) http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.action
    2) http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/03/16/wet-weather-causing-mudslides-flooding-worries-and-toppled-trees/
    3) http://www.safca.org/floodRisk/index.html

  32. R. Gates says:
    March 29, 2011 at 8:02 am

    Wow, we talk about snow a lot here on WUWT. Greater accumulation is generally a sign of warmer, not cooler climate:……

    Remind how warm it was during this winter in the United States, UK and the rest of Europe in December? There was near panick in the UK over the snow AND cold. Crabs died off the coast. Where was the warmth you talk about?

    I have also read that Scotland and many ski resorts in the European Alps had a terrific season which was entirely consistent with the new Warmcold Theory.

    BBC – January 13 2011
    Thousands of dead crabs have been washed up on Kent’s beaches after being killed by the cold weather.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/8456514.stm

    ScienceDaily March 22, 2011)
    The Pacific oyster was discovered in large numbers along the west coast of Sweden in 2007. The mortality rate in some places during the past two winters has been 100%, but………

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110322105738.htm

    Cold on land and sea. Where was your heat?

  33. R. Gates says: (March 29, 2011 at 8:02 am)

    Your own link shows a world cooling since the start of this interglacial. Why don’t you believe it?

    Aside from that, a warm, wet world is much better than a cold, dry one. Ask anyone who lives elsewhere in our Solar System.

  34. We have 60cm snow in Helsinki area in Finland today. It melts away on average that 30.3 we dont have snow. Last year we get snow allmost month earlier than average and now it last’s month later because this much snow won’t melt in a day. Is this global warming?

  35. Lake Shasta is essentially full, in draw down and will be spilling most of the spring runoff.
    It is currently 12 feet below the Dam crest and spilling 55% more than is coming in.

    http://www.shastalake.com/shastalake/

    Shasta Lake Water Level
    Measured on: March 28, 2011
    Shasta Lake water level (daily): 1054.08 feet
    (Elevation above sea level – Full lake elevation and dam crest is 1067 feet)
    Distance from dam crest: 12.92 feet

    http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/queryDaily?SHA

    Daily inflow/outflow March 28th, 2011
    Outflow 38975 cfs
    Inflow 25296 cfs

  36. George E. Smith says:
    March 29, 2011 at 9:26 am

    Let me Guess, Jeremy, you are NOT a central valley farmer ?

    Nope.

    …If you tell the farmers that you need that Sierra snow pack melt water, to water all the golf courses in Southern California; all built where Mother Gaia, never wanted to have a golf course in the first place,

    Interesting point to try to make since all golf courses in LA county are required to use reclaimed wastewater for their grass.

    So the Farmers flood their land with the plentiful snow melt water, and turn their lands into a paradise for migratory birds, to come and wade and feed in the rice fields, that they plant in that flooded land. The flood waters kill off all the weeds so the farmer doesn’t have to put poisonous chemicals on his land; and at the same time, the excess flood water, slowly seeps back down to the primordial depths, taking all those destructive salts with it, back out of harms way. A season (or maybe two) of valuable rice production gives the farmer the boost that he needs so he can go back to growing more market valuable and nutritious foods, and start the cycle all over again.

    It’s nice to see it goes in cycles. The problem is that the cycle of drought never ends. So if the CV farmers are so cyclical in their needs, why is it every other living thing in CA is always told they can’t wash their clothes too much?

    And California, can produce rice a lot better, and cheaper, that they can in say Japan.

    Not really a fair comparison since Japan is 8th on the world rice supplier list, with less than 6% of the world exports, and only a 1000 metric tons more than the entire U.S production.

    It’s those goof courses Jeremy, that are screwing up the natural system; not the rice farmers.

    I’m sure New Yorkers would not share your opinion that central park screws up the natural ecosystem. And no, I don’t think that’s putting words in your mouth. Golf courses are a more natural setting than urban sprawl.

    Those “large population centers” wouldn’t be a euphemism for that anomalous spread built in a known arid desert bowl; where grass was never normally groing; aka Los Angeles; or would it ? It’s those large population centers that are built in arid dry areas that were never intended to grow anything besides sage brush and cactus, that are the problem; not the rice farms.

    Actually they’re a euphemism for industrial centers that make up most of the State’s economy.

  37. R. Gates says:
    March 29, 2011 at 8:02 am

    Wow, we talk about snow a lot here on WUWT. Greater accumulation is generally a sign of warmer, not cooler climate:……

    This explains why the UK nearly ran out of grit there. Aiports closed down due to snow accumulation.

    The UK has just had its COLDEST December for 100 years. What part of cold don’t you understand. Europeran COLD records also fell. Play another record sunshine!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/05/december-coldest-uk-month-100-years

  38. Gates,
    When the US and Europe has a shortage of snowfall was that consistent with a warmer climate? You can’t have it both ways.

  39. Until such time as a knowledgeable and respected warmist goes on record and states exactly what is inconsistent with their precious global warming theory, I cannot consider that the theory of global warming has any validity at all as until it is falsifiable then it cannot be considered proven or disproved and thus we should spend nothing at all to prevent some fantasy fairy tale that doesn’t even pass the first basic rule of a scientific theory.

  40. Karen D,
    No, no, the prediction was right and the observation was wrong.
    I mean, you can’t have people going outside and measuring things; they might hurt themselves or find out inconvenient things.
    Much better to predict things and then just tell people that that is what has happened.

  41. If it keeps going like this, when world temperatures really start climbing,
    the winter roads up there will be covered with Glaciers !

  42. Jeremy says:
    March 29, 2011 at 8:00 am

    I appreciate that California has fantastic growing conditions, but if we’re using sierra-snow-pack water to grow rice in areas too arid for rice and then telling the large population centers they can’t water their lawns, we’re being very dumb (California does this).

    You can’t eat your lawn (or the greens or fairways at the golf course for that matter), while sales of rice bring in taxes. And, after all, in most of California you are growing your lawn in “areas too arid” for lawns as well, and the lawns cumulatively use up a LOT of water, don’tcha know.

  43. The Northern Hemisphere snow extent has also been of record size the past two years.
    For the area of snow cover to increase, temperatures must be cooler than normal. The snow extent can only grow in extent for one primary reason, it is cold enough to snow in areas where it normally rains.

    Snow extent increases due to cooler temperatures and not ‘global warming’.

  44. Ok Gates. Tell us why reality does not match the words of the IPCC in 2001? Did the railroad engineer who runs it change his mind?

  45. @ R. Gates

    He is getting too much flak. He is not a troll. He has a point. The previous record snowfall was 1994. I was hoping it would be 1944 or 1920 or something.

  46. Karen D says:
    March 29, 2011 at 8:35 am

    Good story. The prediction was less snow. The actual observation is more snow. Whatever else can be said about it, the prediction was wrong.

    ##############

    really. The science as it stands does not make very finely grained predictions about “snowfall”. People who havent read what the science actually predicts, should prolly do some reading.

    Want to know what the theory ACTUALLY projects?

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

    Since the TAR, there is an improving understanding of projected patterns of precipitation. Increases in the amount of precipitation are very likely in high latitudes, while decreases are likely in most subtropical land regions (by as much as about 20% in the A1B scenario in 2100, see Figure SPM.7), continuing observed patterns in recent trends. {3.3, 8.3, 9.5, 10.3, 11.2 to 11.9}

    INCREASES in the amount of precipitation are likely in the high latitudes.
    not CERTAIN. Not highly probable. LIKELY. That is, given the current state of the science the best projections show that increases in precipitation are LIKELY.

    More detail here as to what the state of the science really is

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-3-1-2.html

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-3-4.html

    Models are improving, but still have wide confidence bounds, especially for precipitation

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-3-5.html

  47. Looking at the discussions on California and water, it seems that there are a lot of misunderstandings. The California Department of Water Resources has been conducting studies of rainfall for decades and the common conclusion of those studies is that there simply is not enough rainfall to support even the current population if the extreme droughts of the MWP were to return, not if every river in the state were dammed.

    The MWP is very visible in the dendrochronological record in the Sierra, and the picture is not pretty. There’s no way to say how hot it might have been (and the heat isn’t even relevant), but the drought state is very evident. Lake Tahoe ceased to spill into the Truckee River for extended periods (long enough to leave a geological signature) and yellow pines rooted in stream channels on the east slope and grew to significant ages (they don’t like their roots wet); pollen evidence from the Sacramento – San Joaquin delta shows that salt water marsh expanded inland significantly prior to the Little Ice Age when it retreated. Historic USGS topographic maps show relict aeolian lunate and seif dunes in the San Joaquin Valley, where grasslands grew historically and which are now irrigated orchards. There are no active aeolian landscapes in Central California, but that have been multiple periods over the last 5,000 years, including the MWP, when there were. What this means is that California has not had a significant drought in the last two centuries, not if we understand the available data. Yeah, we have had short-term dry spells, but not a real serious drought as measured against the geological and paleobotanical records. The only true water issue we have is the sheer number of people in the state that want to drink, wash their clothes, grow crops and water lawns. It isn’t a climate problem, it is a people problem.

  48. Another factor that will contribute to higher springtime flows in the western rivers is the massive pine beetle infestation. With so many pines dead from the beetles they do not absorb any of the snow melt, meaning it all becomes runoff. I would estimate 60-70 percent of the pines in the area (SE Wyoming/Northern Colorado) have been killed off over the last 5 years. Hopefully the extreme cold we experienced in January killed these little suckers off.

  49. Jeremy says:
    March 29, 2011 at 9:23 am
    R. Gates says:
    March 29, 2011 at 8:02 am
    Wow, we talk about snow a lot here on WUWT. Greater accumulation is generally a sign of warmer, not cooler climate:

    Greater accumulation means warmer climate? I can’t believe you actually posted that. Any fool knows that the ground has to be cold to get snow accumulation.

    Also, aren’t you tired of saying this same thing over and over on here, only to get slapped down? I’ve lost count of the number of times you’ve said this absurdity, only to have someone post a reply documenting how wrong you are, and you then mysteriously vanish into the either, never to reply again. Is your whole purpose to simply troll early-troll often?
    ____

    I don’t recall being “slapped down” at all around here–except by Anthony, who put me in “time out” a few times for bad behavior.

    Be that as it may, rather than take a party-line on snowfall accumulation, I rather just see what the science research and basic physics tells us, and ignore the models.

    In general, colder periods on earth were dry, not wet, and snowfall accumulation was lower not higher. The coldest place on earth, Antarctica is also one of the most dry in terms of precipitation. 100,000+ years of ice core data shows that when the planet began to warm, accumulation increases and when it begins to cool (as in going into a a glacial period, accumulation decreases. The thing about glacial periods is not that it is snowing much more, but rather, the spring and summers are much cooler so the snow doesn’t melt, and then when the next winter comes, it snows on older snow, and guess what, you get glacial growth. That’s the way it happens.

    Big snows in the winter don’t necessarily mean anything other than we’ve had a warm enough atmosphere to transport and hold all that moisture. It takes a lot of energy to move all that moisture and warm atmosphere to hold it while it is being moved. You don’t get big snowfalls EVER in the middle of Antarctica– basic physics tells you that.

    Now, as far as “predictions” by the AGW community as to whether there will be snowier or less snowier winters– yes, there will be. But in a system like the climate, that exhibits spatio-temporal chaos, it is a crap shoot to say when and where it will be snowier or less snowier and there is not a consensus opinion among the experts about any of this, but for some reason, AGW skeptics want to paint it that way.

  50. Geoff says:
    March 29, 2011 at 10:37 am
    The Northern Hemisphere snow extent has also been of record size the past two years.

    ____
    When the planet really does begin to cool into the the next glacial period, it won’t be record snows that we’ll see, but whatever snow does fall will stay around all summer, at higher elevations and latitudes at first, but then, as the glacial period advances, it will be south and down the mountains.

    Big snows in winters are generally a sign only of warmer atmospheric temps and greater evaporation from the oceans. 100,000 years of ice-core data makes this very clear…

  51. peter2108 says:
    March 29, 2011 at 10:57 am
    ###

    He is a troll ….

    And we aren’t laughing at him because we think “snow disproves CAGW” and he says differently; we are making fun of him because he does not get it that what we are commenting about is the fact that the Global Warmists themselves said that the snow was going to go away and it did not. His comment is irrelevant and the product of deliberate misdirection in an attempt to channel the narrative onto “defensible ground” or, the product of his greeny thought processes.

  52. And we aren’t laughing at him because we think “snow disproves CAGW” and he says differently; we are making fun of him because he does not get it that what we are commenting about is the fact that the Global Warmists themselves said that the snow was going to go away and it did not. His comment is irrelevant and the product of deliberate misdirection in an attempt to channel the narrative onto “defensible ground” or, the product of his greeny thought processes

    ############
    the science never said the snow was going away. where do you get this nonsense.
    read the ar4 links i provided

  53. If it’s too cold you don’t get precipitation and hence no snow. If it is too warm then you get no snow. A great deal of snow means it is Goldilocks temperature – just right – which anyone will tell you means it’s weather and not climate unless it supports warming then it’s climate. Whether or not warmer means more snow is not really the point and is why R. Gates is a Troll (he throws comments in hoping to get a bite and sits back enjoying the aftermath). The point is you can’t have it both ways. Everything can’t be attributed (or consistent with) warming. SOMETHING has to be able to prove it is not warming and, as Sarah says above, until sceptics are ‘allowed’ one thing that doesn’t prove warming there is no point entering into a conversation on the subject (well, other than the fact that anyone with a lick of logic can’t stand the inconsistencies and has to say something or explode). I just wish I was there to enjoy the skiing. It’s been a long time since I lived in Sacramento and went skiing nearly every weekend in winter. 4th of July party on the slopes anyone?

  54. Mosh, is “likely” the same as a 50% chance……..

    …and we all know a 50% chance means nothing

    I predict that there’s a “likely” chance of rain tomorrow.
    Doesn’t matter where you are……….

  55. Greetings from the High Sierra.

    We got an entire winters snowfall in December. Then we got an entire winters snowfall again last week.

    5 out of the top 6 snow years are in the last 7. That means out of the last 7 years only 2 of them were not in the top 6.

    And R Gates is an idiot. In the last year it has snowed every month except July. The 2004 season, the previous number one season behind this year, we started the year with 7 feet of snow in October. It did not stop snowing until May. Again, last season we were accumulating snow until May. All of our lakes were still frozen over for the start of fishing season!

    Take a look at the blue line on this graph and tell me again about early snow melts ;)

    http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp013390.pdf

  56. steven mosher said:

    really. The science as it stands does not make very finely grained predictions about “snowfall”. People who havent read what the science actually predicts, should prolly do some reading.

    Want to know what the theory ACTUALLY projects?

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

    Since the TAR, there is an improving understanding of projected patterns of precipitation. Increases in the amount of precipitation are very likely in high latitudes, while decreases are likely in most subtropical land regions (by as much as about 20% in the A1B scenario in 2100, see Figure SPM.7), continuing observed patterns in recent trends. {3.3, 8.3, 9.5, 10.3, 11.2 to 11.9}

    INCREASES in the amount of precipitation are likely in the high latitudes.
    not CERTAIN. Not highly probable. LIKELY. That is, given the current state of the science the best projections show that increases in precipitation are LIKELY.

    (My emphasis.)

    Steve, you eliminated the intensifier very in your interpretation above which changes the meaning, I believe …

    The “science” would look more like science to me if I could find their falsification criteria …

    At the moment, climate “science” looks like creationism to me, what with anthropogenic global warming being the all-purpose boogie man and the cause of all bad things to come and the cause of every single bad piece of weather for the last few years.

    Did you see how it was claimed (by some) to be the cause of the 9.0M earthquake off of Japan?

  57. DesertYote says:
    March 29, 2011 at 11:39 am

    (Regarding the fool R. Gates) “we are making fun of him because he does not get it that what we are commenting about is the fact that the Global Warmists themselves said that the snow was going to go away and it did not…”

    ____
    And my point is that it’s funny that AGW skeptics bring up this particular issue (greater snowfall in the winter) as proof that warmist can’t accurately predict the spatio-temporal chaos of the climate system, when this particular issue shows an effect consistent with a warmer– not cooler, climate. The AGW skeptics might as well make fun of the GCM’s for not predicting the dramatic sea ice loss in 2007 correctly, as that would somehow be proof that warming in the arctic is not occurring.

    Again, if the N. Hemisphere snow cover was increasing in the late spring and summer, the AGW skeptics might have something of interest (i.e. the approach of the next glacial period)

  58. R. Gates says:
    “… there is not a consensus opinion among the experts about any of this, but for some reason, AGW skeptics want to paint it that way.”

    No one here is suggesting there is a consensus. The original point of this post was to point out the conflicting statments being made by the alarmists – some who predict less snow with warming while others indicate more snow is consistent with warming. They along with the MSM are painting themselves into a corner by attempting to make every extreme weather event (no matter what it is) consistent with increasing CO2. No painting required by skeptics.

  59. mosh,

    Desert Yote pointed out the fact that Gates was attempting to re-frame the argument. I think you’re doing likewise. If you look again at the chart Gates posted…

    …you will see that the cooler the Holocene has become, the greater the snowfall.

    When there is a discrepancy between observations and models, which one are you going to believe?

  60. Anthony, I can’t get the tips blog to work….

    Steven Goddard posted this on his blog, can you check to see if it’s true.
    If it is, what in this world is their reason for retroactively warming Jan, two months later?

    “HadCRUT February data is out. Not only did February warm up, but January also warmed up retroactively.

    Last month the January anomaly was .204, and this month the January anomaly is .216. February is listed as .277.”

  61. Dave Nash says:

    “SOMETHING has to be able to prove it is not warming…”

    ____

    Many things would. Cooler temps in summer, especially nighttime temps. Increasing Arctic sea ice over a long-term period. Glacial growth worldwide (the majority of glaciers would be growing). Ice-mass gain in Greenland. Lower global humidity levels. A record coldest decade on instrument record (2000-2009 was the warmest)…etc. etc. etc.

  62. R. Gates says:
    March 29, 2011 at 11:25 am

    Be that as it may, rather than take a party-line on snowfall accumulation, I rather just see what the science research and basic physics tells us, and ignore the models.

    So, you still think that a warmer surface temperature means more snow accumulation?

    In general, colder periods on earth were dry, not wet, and snowfall accumulation was lower not higher. The coldest place on earth, Antarctica is also one of the most dry in terms of precipitation. 100,000+ years of ice core data shows that when the planet began to warm, accumulation increases and when it begins to cool (as in going into a a glacial period, accumulation decreases.

    What an interesting way to completely ignore the effects of jetstream movement of moisture through the atmosphere. Antarctica is dry, not because it is cold, but because there is no prevailing wind direction that brings moisture from an ocean over land. Every other land mass on Earth generally deals with storm systems blown in a prevailing direction by the jetstream. There is no jetstream on the south pole, hence, there is no easy method to get storms far inland on a consistent basis. I’m not a climatologist, but I do know that changes to earths climate usually include changes in the amplitude of the jetstream. I think you should consider what happens to the movement of moisture around Antarctica when the temperature changes. I think you’ll find that the warmer the planet, the more air movement occurs at higher (absolute) lattitudes.

    Big snows in the winter don’t necessarily mean anything other than we’ve had a warm enough atmosphere to transport and hold all that moisture. It takes a lot of energy to move all that moisture and warm atmosphere to hold it while it is being moved. You don’t get big snowfalls EVER in the middle of Antarctica– basic physics tells you that.

    No, basic physics tells me how energy moves around. An understanding of polar air movement tells me that you don’t get big snowfalls because there are no high-altitude winds to carry moisture from an ocean into the antarctic continent. Oh wait, we already covered this.

    Now, as far as “predictions” by the AGW community as to whether there will be snowier or less snowier winters– yes, there will be.

    ^^ This is hilarious ^^

  63. Here’s an aggregation of all the pressure plate snow sensors distributed throughout the Sierra Nevada, that report the snow water content, with this year, last year, average, min and max plotted. Provided by the California Department of Water Resources, California Data Exchange Center. Looks to be about a week behind. This is as official as data gets. A very useful plot, it should go somewhere in one of the sidebars. Information like this is what CA DWR uses to make yearly water allocation decisions.

  64. @R Gates
    Why we ROTFLOAO* is that ‘nothing is inconsistent with global warming’ ©Anthony.
    I presume ‘nothing’ includes ‘nothing’.

    * the first ‘O’ is for ‘our’ rather than the normal ‘M’ for ‘my’ and the ‘A’ is plural.

  65. R. Gates says:
    March 29, 2011 at 11:25 am
    Now, as far as “predictions” by the AGW community as to whether there will be snowier or less snowier winters– yes, there will be. But in a system like the climate, that exhibits spatio-temporal chaos, it is a crap shoot to say when and where it will be snowier or less snowier and there is not a consensus opinion among the experts about any of this, but for some reason, AGW skeptics want to paint it that way.
    ==================================================

    thank you for clearing that up……………..

    Can we just say there’s a 50% chance………..and it’s “likely”

  66. Prof Richard Lindzen writes:

    “If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, then the derived sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 is less than 1°C. …There is ample evidence that the Earth’s temperature as measured at the equator has remained within +/- one degree centigrade for more than the past billion years. Those temperatures have not changed over the past century.” [source]

    As one approaches the poles  the Earth’s temperature begins to vary more and more from one region to another, and from summer to winter. The closer one gets  to the Arctic or Antarctic, the larger the regional temperature cycles. 

    This is normal, and has always been so.  Greenland has very wide temperature swings, while Egypt is very uniform from year to year.

    The  Earth’s overall temperature is extremely constant, despite Gates’ beliefs. Natural variability is sufficient to explain all what is happening, while the CO2 conjecture has no supporting evidence.

  67. R Gates:
    Ok I get it only is cooler if snows stays in summer. Maybe you haven’t noticed but it is not winter anymore so more snow now is not consistent with your claim. So when there are record snows in places like Washington DC where the average winter temperature is above freezing it isn’t because colder weather drop the temperature below freezing so that it can snow, it is because it has gotten warmer so there is more participation that must be as snow, because it is warmer.
    But really this silly notion of warming causing snow has been disproved many times here. That you refuse to acknowledge that it has been disproved is your fault not ours.
    It would be one thing if people had been going around saying “remember those large snow storms of the 1970s, well you can expect more of them, due to global warming,” but until last year when we got more snow they were saying that we would have less snow.

  68. @ R. Gates

    Unfortunately, your graphs do not even show what you are trying to say they show. On top of that, we already know that this winter the water content of the air was DOWN, not up.

    Now, let’s go into BASIC physics. There are two factors, absolute humidity, and relative humidity. Precipitation only occurs when the relative humidity (how much water is in the air verses the amount of water it can actually hold) goes above the point needed for nucleation and condensation of water droplets by particles in the air. This is a function of TEMPERATURE. But any temperature can have a relative humidity of 100%. Any temperature can be completely “wet” for the amount of water the air can hold at that temperature.

    The absolute humidity values decrease with temperature. As the atmosphere cools, less water can remain as gas within it, and the extra condenses out (very special conditions can create super saturation, with extreme consequence). So, for it to snow, for it to rain, you need moist air that cools down fast enough to cause precipitation.

    Again, ANY temperature can have precipitation. It is dependent on the air cooling down and driving moisture out of it in the process.

    This is simple stuff!

    So, why would it precipitate less during a glacial period? The reason is because less cooling occurs — the temperature is more stable across the globe, and more wet. Hotter temperatures do not mean more precipitation, but in fact, as the air would warm, the threshold of water required to cause precipitation would increase.

    Therein, the only way to greatly increase precipitation is to either greatly increase evaporation and circulation of moisturized warm air into cool air areas to drive condensation, or cool down globally. Once you’ve bottomed out, precipitation would greatly decrease, as again, it’s the ACT OF COOLING AIR (or filling it with nucleating particles that can reduce the water content precipitation threshold) that drives precipitation if you are not in super saturation conditions.

    All the stuff you’re spurting is incorrect, and defies physics. It is unscientific and already disproven. Now, that does not mean the record snows lately have much to do with global temperatures, but rather, have to do with global atmospheric circulation and inhomogenies of temperature throughout that mixing atmosphere.

    The greater the local temperature gradients, the greater the precipitation events; pure and simple.

  69. >>steven mosher says: March 29, 2011 at 11:47 am
    >>The science never said the snow was going away. where do you get
    >>this nonsense. read the ar4 links i provided

    The science may not have, but the cheerleaders of the AGW movement certainly did. Take this UK Independent report as an example:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/climate-report-predicts-snow-and-ice-will-be-thing-of-the-past-2442959.html

    Now the Independent is a cerebral and influential newspaper amongst liberals, teachers, politicians and Greens, this is where they get their ‘science’ from. This is what is being taught to our children. They deserve better, but the UK teaching profession has been taken over by left-leaning female idealists who have no concept of independent and rational thought.

    .

  70. A relevant news item doing the rounds in Australasian newspapers a while
    back was this: that “global warming” in the Snowy Mountains area in Australia
    had resulted in a diminution of snow cover, thereby incidentally benefitting
    the NZ snowfield tourism industry, as more Australians were heading to NZ
    to do their skiing.

    Two points:

    1. It was not sufficient that the assumed cause was ‘warming’ in the Snowy
    Mountains area, or even ‘warming’ in New South Wales, or yet even ‘warming’
    in Australia … no, it had to be “global warming”.

    2. That being so, how come the NZ snowfields were not affected by this
    “global warming”, since they are ‘only’ 1,300 miles away from the affected
    areas in the Snowy Mountains?

    And of course the idea that the GW was causing a lessening in snow is
    contrary to the latest nonsense that it is causing increasing snow.

    It is correct to hammer the point (“until the cows come home”) that now
    there is NO climatic event that is inconsistent with the GW theory.

    I wonder what Karl Popper would have said about that.

  71. Rex said:

    2. That being so, how come the NZ snowfields were not affected by this
    “global warming”, since they are ‘only’ 1,300 miles away from the affected
    areas in the Snowy Mountains?

    Teleconnection is limited to 1200 miles. See, it’s like Super Man who can only be harmed by kryptonite.

  72. Should also point out, that ice cores which suggest lower precipitation amounts during glacial periods come from, of course, glaciers currently surviving our inter-glacial period. So, what would happen to such constantly cold, constantly covered in glaciers, areas of the world during a glacial period? Would they tell us how much precipitation was occurring around say the equator? Or areas where the glaciers extended and then retreated before the present day?

    Indeed, the best that can be said is only for those areas during those periods. And it should be no wonder those areas get less precipitation, as for the warm atmosphere to circulate up to their locations, it has to already pass over the extended, lower latitude ice fields which would rapidly cool that air and drive out its moisture before it has the chance to reach where the ice cores are.

  73. The world is warming and winters will become a thing of the past.
    Expect more earth quakes, tornadoes and hurricanes.
    Expect more droughts in some areas but catastrophic flooding in others – like Australia.
    We could lose our glaciers within 30 years.
    Looking at multi-century climate patterns such as the onset of glaciation is a good proxy for year over year weather patterns.
    Expect more tsunamis.
    Expect more extreme variations in the weather.
    CO2 is the dominant factor in global warming.
    Warmer weather will result in more snow because of increased moisture in the air.
    And all of this, is very very likely to occur, because the science is settled.
    R. Gates – did I miss something?
    It’s hard to embrace global warming when you’re cold.

  74. DO any of WUWT´s readers have info on Scandinavian snow levels? BBC weather maps would suggest they have had an awful lot of snow this year.

  75. To R Gates, I do not remember any predictions of heavy snowfall do to global warming before the heavy snowfall. You have any examples? I do remember that ski resort owners where told to find another occupation as warming will mean less to no snow. But when the big dumps of snow came the tune changed to warming causes snow. Oh I am getting so confused, now reaching for head ache medicine.

    Please please unconfuse me.

  76. Here in central Calaveras County about 90 miles SSW of Lake Tahoe at 2500′ my Davis weather station recorded 12.59″ of rain for March and 42.53″ for the season to date. That’s about 140% of an average years rainfall.

  77. Jeremy said:

    “Antarctica is dry, not because it is cold, but because there is no prevailing wind direction that brings moisture from an ocean over land.”

    _____
    You flunk Climate 101. Please go back to remedial studies and try again later.

  78. Ged Darkstorm said:

    “So, why would it precipitate less during a glacial period? The reason is because less cooling occurs — the temperature is more stable across the globe, and more wet.”

    ____
    You also flunk Climate 101. Cooler period (i.e. glacials) on earth have always been more dry on average. There is less evaporation of water from the oceans and the atmospshere can hold less. I would love to believe your wishful thinking on this, but I’d rather trust basic physics and 100,000+ years of ice-core data.

  79. steven mosher says:
    March 29, 2011 at 11:47 am
    the science never said the snow was going away. where do you get this nonsense.
    read the ar4 links i provided
    =====================================================
    My guess would be they predicted it would decelerate………(opposite of acceleration)
    =======================================================
    Union of ‘Concerned Scientists’ says global warming means less snow

    2006, “Consequences across the region,” Climate Choices, Union of Concerned Scientists

    “Across the globe, and here in the Northeast (US), the climate is changing. Records show that spring is arriving earlier, summers are growing hotter, and winters are becoming warmer and less snowy. These changes are consistent with global warming, an urgent phenomenon driven by heat-trapping emissions from human activities. Explore the impacts of climate change on coasts, fisheries, forests, wildlife, water, agriculture, winter recreation and health…”

    =========================================================

    IPCC
    Climate Change 2001:
    Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

    Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms………………..(I think they are saying that warming will decrease heavy snowstorms)

    ===========================================
    Now we know that they were wrong, just 10 years ago…
    ..and now we know that warming makes more snow

  80. steven mosher says:
    March 29, 2011 at 11:02 am

    “really. The science as it stands does not make very finely grained predictions about “snowfall”. People who havent read what the science actually predicts, should prolly do some reading.
    Want to know what the theory ACTUALLY projects?
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

    So, what does this mean? Stating the science in a clear, concise paragraph is beyond your ability? That is a shame. I would just love to debate you on these matters but you cannot debate someone who does nothing but give you references to articles.

  81. R. Gates says:
    March 29, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    You flunk Climate 101. Please go back to remedial studies and try again later.

    You have a better reason for lack of thermal/pressure-gradient moisture being generally available across the south continent? I’m all ears. Until then, continue to believe, as you stated, that warmer ground temperatures mean more snow accumulation. And of course the choice quote from you today:

    Now, as far as “predictions” by the AGW community as to whether there will be snowier or less snowier winters– yes, there will be.

    …but of course, I’m the one who is supposedly failing Climate 101.

  82. Isn’t this the point where the AGW’s would say, ‘yes, there’s more snow, but it’s all rotten snow!’

  83. They said global warming causes less snow before they said it causes more snow.

  84. Theo Goodwin.

    You want to debate me. My point is this.

    If somebody wants to claim that “the science” predicted “less snow” Then that person has an OBLIGATION to cite a source where “the science” says such a thing.

    To help you guys find such a quote, I’m giving you some links to a summary of the science. AR4.

    In general the science says effectively what R Gates says. I’ll dumb it down for you.
    1. The predictions of changes in precipitation are very broad. This means it is not
    completely understood. You have wide error bands. Models are getting better since
    the TAR, but there is still some scatter.

    2. The LIKELY response we will see depends upon the region of the earth you are looking at. This is called likely because it is not certain.

    3. In the higher latitudes you are LIKELY to see more precipitation. Think about
    polar amplification.

    4. in the subtropics you are likely to see decreases.

    If you read through the literature you will also find bits and pieces here and there about lake effect snow. Likely to increase.

    Theo, my point is this. There is a BETTER case against the science when you actually cite it directly and accurately. That case is focused on the reliability ( error bands) of models. Folks should note that models that perform well on temperature hindcasts perform poorly on precipitation. To see this you have to look at taylor diagrams.
    dont make me educate you on those. read more and comment less.

    Stupid skeptcism says “the models predict less snow, and we had 600 inches in tahoe”
    That’s stupid because the models said no such thing.

  85. “”””” Jeremy says:
    March 29, 2011 at 10:01 am
    George E. Smith says:
    March 29, 2011 at 9:26 am

    Let me Guess, Jeremy, you are NOT a central valley farmer ?

    Nope.

    …If you tell the farmers that you need that Sierra snow pack melt water, to water all the golf courses in Southern California; all built where Mother Gaia, never wanted to have a golf course in the first place,

    Interesting point to try to make since all golf courses in LA county are required to use reclaimed wastewater for their grass. “””””

    Well Jeremy, if there is one thing you should not try to hoodwink me on, it is Southern California Water supplies; of which they produce virtually none.
    I drive down Hiway-5; or “The 5″ as they say in SoCal, on a regular basis, so I know every bump in the road going over the grapevine; and I know also exactly how high the water level is in Pyramid Lake, and I know exactly where all the Pipes are at Wheeler Ridge, pumping that water up over the Mountains, into that canal, that feeds Northern California Water into Pyramid Lake; and there is never a time, when you could add a thimble full of water to Pyramid Lake; meanwhile all of the lakes in Silicon Valley, and Santa Clara Clounty in general, will be empty or dry, except for a pair of mercury contaminated lakes, that they keep non-drinkable water in to use for the annual forest fire season to bail out all the green weenies in the Santa Cruz Mountains, when their still or pot factory gets out of control, and sets their forest Eden on fire.

    And I also go by Lake Perris off the 215 on the way back via the Tehachapi Route, so I know that you also can’t put a thimble fullof water in that either; well they have a lot of water skiers in SoCal, and those people get mighty riled up, when they can’t jump into their pick-em-up truck, and tow the boat to Pyramid, or Perris for a beer party.

    So I don’t care whether they use sewage water to make the fairways greener, or not; they still don’t produce much of their water usage locally; well it is still a natural desert isn’t it.

    Oh my MIL lives over there in Temecula just down the road from the East Side Reservoir. Now just how on earth did they find any water around there to fill a thimble; let alone a humungous lake.

    Well I suggest that LA can get its water needs from Lake Arrowhead; and then there is always the Pacific Ocean that they could desalinate. I don’t really have a lot of empathy for the golf course needs of LA; it’s kinda the New Orleans of Southern California, isn’t it; except it was built in a desert basin by the Spanish, rather than underwater by the French.

  86. Jeremy says:
    March 29, 2011 at 2:36 pm
    R. Gates says:
    March 29, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    “Until then, continue to believe, as you stated, that warmer ground temperatures mean more snow accumulation.”
    ____
    Jeremy, please don’t put words in my mouth. Precision is important in these matters and I never said anything about warmer GROUND temperatures. Also, the accumulation of snow during warmer climate periods is not a matter of belief, but a matter of record and pure science– 100,000+ years of ice-core data and basic physics.

    The primary reason that the central part of Antarctica is a desert is because the air so cold and dry. Yes, circulation is a factor, but not the prime one. Even if storms could begin to head towards region, its so cold that the moisture would be wrung out of the storms long before they made it to the central Antarctic.

  87. Isnt it strange that Seattle gets so much more rain (and snow) than most parts of California (its so much warmer where is the moisture laiden air)? Also, all the COLD weather Florida had this winter, snow in Texas, Thailand is warm – but no snow, Alaska is cold – but lots of snow, global warming is assaulting St. Louis – but it was FREEZING this winter, etc.

    I have also noticed a strange trend this winter with very little rain on the warmer days, but a lot of snow when the cold fronts are pushing down.

    Isnt the world just backwards sometimes, Gates??
    Strange

  88. R. Gates says: (March 29, 2011 at 8:02 am)

    The issues with such statements are…

    1. (Reliable) satellite temperature are now back to average. Temperatures off the Californian cost are particularly low and the increased moisture mantra just doesn’t make sense. Snow fall appears to be related much more to La Nina than anything else.

    2. When snow levels were low, same people told the opposite story in the past.

    3. During droughts, you never hear warmists talking about increased moisture in the air and increase of precipitation. The greening biosphere and the greening Sahara is another unconvinient truth.

  89. nc says:
    March 29, 2011 at 1:46 pm
    To R Gates, I do not remember any predictions of heavy snowfall do to global warming before the heavy snowfall. You have any examples? I do remember that ski resort owners where told to find another occupation as warming will mean less to no snow. But when the big dumps of snow came the tune changed to warming causes snow. Oh I am getting so confused, now reaching for head ache medicine.

    Please please unconfuse me.
    ____
    Richard Alley, one of the leading experts on ice-core data published his findings on snowfall accumulation in 2000, which showed quite clearly that, at least for Greenland, as the climate warmed, snowfall accumulation rates increased, and as it cooled, they decreased. But some seem confused about what this means. It means that more snow was falling on a year-to-year basis as the temperature increases, even though, on a year-to-year basis, the continental glaciers were retreating as the temperature increased. This seems paradoxical to some at first glance, but it is really not. The key is this: NOT how much snow falls in the cold months, but how much sticks around and doesn’t melt during the normally warmer months. If the climate is cooling, even if it snows less, much less melts during the colder spring, summer, and fall, and thus, it begins to build into glaciers, beginning at the highest peaks and northern latitudes first, and then moving down the mountains and to more southerly latitudes.

  90. R. Gates says on March 29, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Ged Darkstorm said:

    “So, why would it precipitate less during a glacial period? The reason is because less cooling occurs — the temperature is more stable across the globe, and more wet.”

    ____
    You also flunk Climate 101. Cooler period (i.e. glacials) on earth have always been more dry on average. There is less evaporation of water from the oceans and the atmospshere can hold less. I would love to believe your wishful thinking on this, but I’d rather trust basic physics and 100,000+ years of ice-core data.

    So how did all that water get up onto the land? IIRC, there were glacial shields a mile or so thick covering North America at least to New York, and similar such shields on Europe and Russia … and the sea level was some 100+ meters lower than today.

    How did it all get there? Was there a burst of non-Anthropogenic Global Warming followed by sudden cooling?

    Have you thought about how that had to play out from a scenario like the present if cooling leads to less moisture in the atmosphere?

    Please give us more details and less hand waving.

  91. Time for a new descriptive AGW acronym to enter the climate debate;
    “PEP’s” ie; “Post Event Predictions”

  92. JJ says:
    March 29, 2011 at 3:23 pm
    Isnt it strange that Seattle gets so much more rain (and snow) than most parts of California (its so much warmer where is the moisture laiden air)? Also, all the COLD weather Florida had this winter, snow in Texas, Thailand is warm – but no snow, Alaska is cold – but lots of snow, global warming is assaulting St. Louis – but it was FREEZING this winter, etc.

    I have also noticed a strange trend this winter with very little rain on the warmer days, but a lot of snow when the cold fronts are pushing down.

    Isnt the world just backwards sometimes, Gates??
    Strange
    ____

    One thing I try not to do is try and compare apples and oranges, and to take any basic principal to an extreme. It tends to be snowier in Greenland when it is -40C on average than when it is -55C.
    (see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif)

    But some would like to “mock” this basic science and claim that means it would be even snowier if it was 10C versus -55C, which is of course absurd.

    Each region of the world needs to be compared to its own history and climate to see any meaningful trends. March is normally the snowiest month in the Denver area where I live, but this year, we’ve had very little snow in March and a series of forest fires in the area. If this continues into the summer, we’re going to be in big trouble along the front range in Colorado. I attribute this year’s weather more to La Nina than any global warming, but I don’t discount that global warming could play some role in the longer-term weather changes I’ve seen in Denver over my lifetime here.

  93. R. Gates says:
    March 29, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    Climate has 4 states:
    1.) Warm & wet
    2.) Warm & dry
    3.) Cold & wet
    4.) Cold & dry

    For the greater part of the Earth, the climate has shifted to #’s 3 & 4.
    Global cooling now predominates in definace to the amount of a certain trace gas in the atmosphere. The globe will continue to cool until it is darn good and ready to warm back up.
    And, by the way, High Pressure Cells like to sit over Ice Sheets.

  94. Mosh, I’m pretty sure these two things are “science”.
    They might not be convenient science, but it’s things like this that led to all the predictions of less snow.

    2006, “Consequences across the region,” Climate Choices, Union of Concerned Scientists
    “ and winters are becoming warmer and less snowy. These changes are consistent with global warming,”

    IPCC
    Climate Change 2001:
    Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
    “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms”
    =================================================

    but it really doesn’t matter…..

    …truth is, there really has not been more or less snow, it’s all within “normal”

    As far as precipitation, until we have another decade long drought, like the dust bowl 1930′s-1940′s, everything else is above normal precipitation and we should be glad for it………….

    As far as “normal”, since everything has been trending below “normal” ever since they declared what “normal” was, it might be time to readjust what “normal” is…………
    …there’s a distinct possibility that “normal” is wrong

  95. Manfred:

    “2. When snow levels were low, same people told the opposite story in the past.”

    Please find that in Ar4. You won’t. Remember what Ar4 said. its likely to see increase precipitation in the higher latitudes and likely to see LESS in sub tropical. Also, they noted that precipitation is highly variable. More extreme events. More intense droughts and more intense precipitation events. That’s what the science says. Again, note that these findings are not listed as the most robust findings.

  96. latitude:

    I’ll suggest that you stick to the best document we have Ar4. That gives you what the considered belief is. AND it gives you a liklihood. A 2001 document is UPDATED by a 2007 document. In fact, one of the things that got revised was precipitation.
    Science moved forward between 2001 and 2007. Also, a 2006 report on the northeast US says nothing about Tahoe. The regional skill of models is not very good.
    Anything is consistent with them. that WHY you dont see these kind of claims made in the robust findings of AR4.

    So basically your sources are off point and dated. next

    “2006, “Consequences across the region,” Climate Choices, Union of Concerned Scientists
    “ and winters are becoming warmer and less snowy. These changes are consistent with global warming,”

    IPCC
    Climate Change 2001:
    Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
    “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms”

  97. evanmjones says:
    March 29, 2011 at 8:02 am
    Nothing is inconsistent with Global Warming.

    “Everything gives you cancer.” – Joe Jackson

    With the abandonment of Falsification, the now irrefutable meme of “Man Made Global Warming” continues it’s march into the realm of pseudoscientific dogma.

  98. rbateman says:
    March 29, 2011 at 4:22 pm
    R. Gates says:
    March 29, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    Climate has 4 states:
    1.) Warm & wet
    2.) Warm & dry
    3.) Cold & wet
    4.) Cold & dry

    For the greater part of the Earth, the climate has shifted to #’s 3 & 4.
    Global cooling now predominates in definace to the amount of a certain trace gas in the atmosphere. The globe will continue to cool until it is darn good and ready to warm back up.
    And, by the way, High Pressure Cells like to sit over Ice Sheets.
    _____
    Well, I can’t speak for what High Pressure Cells “like” to do or don’t like to do, but I do know that physics tells us that it is the ice sheets that create the conditions for the high pressure. Dry, cold, sinking air masses as opposed the warm, moist, rising air masses you find in the warmer regions.

    As 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on instrument record, your notion that the “globe will continue to cool” seems a bit odd, unless you’re talking about the shorter-term cooling which corresponds quite regularly with every short-term La Nina cycle, but that’s of course weather and not climate.

  99. steven mosher says:
    March 29, 2011 at 11:02 am

    There are so many different GCMs making different and contrary predictions about specific phenomena in a given geographical region that you can pick whichever one is best suited to support your claim of accuracy.

    GCMs are expensive toys that produce pretty pictures. I’d put the legislators and regulators using them in the Bernie Madoff category, albeit worse. Arguably, we’ve already lost $trillions due to CAGW propped up by this over-hyped science. And greater losses are on the way.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/six_questions_for_jim_manzi

    “If we introduced a tax high enough to keep atmospheric carbon concentration to no more than 1.5x its current level (assuming we could get the whole world to go along), we would expect to spend about $17 trillion more than the benefits that we would achieve in the expected case.”

  100. steven mosher says:
    March 29, 2011 at 4:37 pm
    So basically your sources are off point and dated. next
    =========================================
    Aren’t you a little too old for this.

    My comment was not off point or dated, you didn’t catch what I said first:

    “They might not be convenient science, but it’s things like this that led to all the predictions of less snow.”

  101. R. Gates, La Nina almost always brings more snow to Pacific mountain regions. If you don’t know why, go find a more basic blog and learn why. I am tired of comments that are at such a sub-par level of understanding. Even the warmest-bent NOAA has info on this.

  102. So according to R. Gates, just about any climate, cold, dry, warm, wet, are consistent with global warming. In which case we have nothing to worry about since the climate has always been cold, dry, warm or wet. We thrive regardless of these changes.

  103. R. Gates says: (March 29, 2011 at 4:47 pm)
    ” As 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on instrument record, your notion that the “globe will continue to cool” seems a bit odd”

    I give you your own evidence supplied in an earlier post by you, yourself.

    Not only does the decade 2000-2009 come no where near being the warmest, but the rate and amount of warming has been greater in the past. Do you not read your own evidence? Now I know you cleverly insert “on instrument record” to be able to dance around what I just said, but as we all know that record only covers the last 30 years. The semantics game you like to play is getting old.

  104. RGates is just having you on. He’s just cutting and pasting response 33B from his list of retorts—too bad we’ve seen that one before though. Almost had us.

  105. With the huge amounts of snow and ice still on the ground over much of North America, I would expect the arctic sea ice to have a slow start to its melt season. This would be similar to what happened last year when the April values for 2010 were the highest since 2002. With this being a La Nina year instead of an El Nino year like last year, I expect a decent sea ice coverage in September.

  106. Watching the snow is interesting, to say the least. and of course the warmists have it completely wrong. Consistency is required in physics.

    One of the things that I prefer to watch for evidence of climate change is the heating degree days, and the cooling degree days. Even here in Los Angeles, an urban heat island of world-class proportions, the heating degree days are increased this year, and the cooling degree days have dropped off. LA normally has 61 cooling degree days on this date, measured since January 1, yet this year we have had only 25. Similarly, the heating degree days normally is 691 since the previous July 1, yet we have 995 on this date. That represents approximately 60 percent fewer cooling degree days, and 25 percent more heating degree days. By any measure, it’s definitely getting colder in Los Angeles. This is so, even with massive urban heat island effect due to many millions of population. Meanwhile, of course, CO2 increases in the atmosphere. The disconnect is obvious.

    It doesn’t snow much in Los Angeles proper, although the surrounding mountains do get quite a bit of snow, so much so that we have ski resorts on some of the mountains.

    Cooling and heating degree days from:

    http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=ICAO:KCQT&almanac=1

    As to the snow in California, tomorrow (March 30) the state will take the final official snow measurements and make the water availability statements.

    See this link for details:

    http://www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/032511snow.pdf

  107. latitude you didnt even read the 2006 report.

    you read a news report about the report.

    the report doesnt say anything about extreme precipitation.

    Its says:

    “Across the Northeast, the number of days with snow on the ground will be reduced by 50 percent in the higher emissions scenario, but only by 25 percent under the lower scenario. ”

    Basically, the report did its own regional study with different emission scenarios.
    It said NOTHING about snow in tahoe in 2010. Made no predictions about that.
    It was focused on long range studies of the northeast. the time period over which it made predictions hasnt even OCCURRED. and then, it makes statements about snow COVER. basically in line with what Gates asserts. generally speaking we expect snow COVER, days with snow on the ground, to shorten OVER THE LONG HAUL.
    Thats the prediction. The actual prediction was concerned with the length of the ski season and the length of the snowmobile season. I find nothing in that report that says anything about extreme events, massive snowfalls. Its more about the length of the season. So warmer air, as R gates notes, would tend toward more precip. If its cold you get big snowfalls, if its too warm, you’ll get rain. And a shorter season.
    Again, these changes are predicted at mid century. not 2011.

  108. Dave Worley says:
    March 29, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    So according to R. Gates, just about any climate, cold, dry, warm, wet, are consistent with global warming. In which case we have nothing to worry about since the climate has always been cold, dry, warm or wet. We thrive regardless of these changes.

    #######

    No dave, For example, the physics predicts that as it warms we will see accelerated warming at the north pole. So if the equator goes up by 1C over 20 years, the theory predicts that you’ll see MORE THAN 1 C at the pole. The planet doesnt respond uniformly.

  109. Hoser says:
    March 29, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    steven mosher says:
    March 29, 2011 at 11:02 am

    There are so many different GCMs making different and contrary predictions about specific phenomena in a given geographical region that you can pick whichever one is best suited to support your claim of accuracy.

    ##########
    You clearly have not read the literature or looked at model outputs. You can go to CA and see the instructions I gave for downloading results of modelE for example. Start there. Here is what you will find. The average of ALL models out performs any given model. So the IPCC averages models to come up with findings. the findings that are robust are published as such. other findings, are less accurate. I would not take them very seriously. Most people don’t. They are tentative, and subject to change as models improve. Sorry thats the state of the science.

  110. Pamela Gray says:
    March 29, 2011 at 6:08 pm
    R. Gates, La Nina almost always brings more snow to Pacific mountain regions. If you don’t know why, go find a more basic blog and learn why. I am tired of comments that are at such a sub-par level of understanding. Even the warmest-bent NOAA has info on this.

    =======================

    Right on.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  111. R. Gates says:

    Well, I can’t speak for what High Pressure Cells “like” to do or don’t like to do, but I do know that physics tells us that it is the ice sheets that create the conditions for the high pressure. Dry, cold, sinking air masses as opposed the warm, moist, rising air masses you find in the warmer regions.

    ============================

    No you can NOT speak for them….and, thankfully for us, that is a good thing. Neither can you generalize the “warm, moist rising air masses you find in the warmer regions.”

    What???

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  112. R. Gates says:

    As 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on instrument record, your notion that the “globe will continue to cool” seems a bit odd, unless you’re talking about the shorter-term cooling which corresponds quite regularly with every short-term La Nina cycle, but that’s of course weather and not climate.

    ========================

    Show us the data. Show the warming, R.

    Can you? You can’t.

  113. R. Gates says
    “Now, as far as “predictions” by the AGW community as to whether there will be snowier or less snowier winters– yes, there will be.”
    ____
    Good one Aaarrgh. I bet your real name is R.U. Kidding.
    Reminds me of my favorite send up of prognostication by Yogi Berra: “Making predictions is really hard, especially about the future.” I feel a song coming on.

    Well it rained so hard the day I left,
    The weather was bone dry,
    With the sun so hot I froze my self,
    Suzanna don’t you cry.

    Q. Where do trolls go for vacation?
    A. Aaargentina
    Q. What is a troll’s favorite salad?
    A. Aaarugula.
    Q. what is a troll’s favorite vegetable?
    A. Aaartichokes.

  114. Why would anyone study Climate 101? The guy that has been teaching that class has been wrong all of his life. Better to just go outside and look around and believe what you see. pg

  115. 82-83 winter in the Sierra was the result of a strong El Nino.
    10-11 winter in the Sierra was the result of a strong La Nina.
    Similar result, yet different factors causing both.

    I was expecting a colder dryer winter here. I am happy to have seen the snow accumulate. April typically gets some significant accumulations as well. Last year we had great back country skiing deep into the summer months, this year might be the same again for different reasons – El Nino last winter/spring, La Nina this past winter/spring.

    I wonder if the Donner Party had an El Nino or a La Nina ? I’d like to live long enough to see another year like that occur around here.

  116. Nothing is inconsistent with Global Warming,
    or to put it another way, and emphasize the religion aspect…

    Global warming worketh in strange ways

  117. Mr. Mosher,

    The head of the US energy department says that 90% of the snow pack will COULD (there’s another weasel word again) disappear due to global warming. See here

    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/04/local/me-warming4

    The alarmists are very much saying that the snow pack in the Sierras will all but disappear, whether AR4 does that precisely or not.

    I could waste a lot of time giving more examples of this, or just about any other subject core to the AGW debate. The alarmists have every possible scenario covered with some study or another that makes their point (The cold is really caused by the warming, don’t you know!). Whatever happens, they have predicted it! It is consistent with the models.

    Wasn’t it you that said to Judy Curry that no one trusted her? I trust her a lot more than I trust you!

    Is that a mole on the tip of your nose?

  118. steven mosher says:
    March 29, 2011 at 4:31 pm
    Manfred:

    “2. When snow levels were low, same people told the opposite story in the past.”

    Please find that in Ar4. You won’t. Remember what Ar4 said. its likely to see increase precipitation in the higher latitudes and likely to see LESS in sub tropical. Also, they noted that precipitation is highly variable. More extreme events. More intense droughts and more intense precipitation events. That’s what the science says. Again, note that these findings are not listed as the most robust findings.
    ————————————————————————————————

    Steven,

    I disagree with this. AR4 findings are not only not most robust, they are proven untrue on this issue.

    The most important effect of droughts – water stress – would be considerably relieved by warming, That is what the science references in AR4 say, though the report represents this in a totally misleading way. AR4 mentions only the people with increased water stress but does not subtract the higher number of people with reduced water stress thus hiding a net beneficial effect.

    Additionally, reduced water stress on a global scale even with fast growing populations is in my view very hard to reconcile with “more intense droughts”.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/18/how-the-ipcc-portrayed-a-net-positive-impact-of-climate-change-as-a-negative/

  119. Jeremy says:
    March 29, 2011 at 2:36 pm
    R. Gates says:
    March 29, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    “Until then, continue to believe, as you stated, that warmer ground temperatures mean more snow accumulation.”
    ____
    Jeremy, please don’t put words in my mouth. Precision is important in these matters and I never said anything about warmer GROUND temperatures. Also, the accumulation of snow during warmer climate periods is not a matter of belief, but a matter of record and pure science– 100,000+ years of ice-core data and basic physics.

    The primary reason that the central part of Antarctica is a desert is because the air so cold and dry. Yes, circulation is a factor, but not the prime one. Even if storms could begin to head towards region, its so cold that the moisture would be wrung out of the storms long before they made it to the central Antarctic.

    …. hmmm, you claim the ice core data, presumably Dome C, Vostok etc, proves your claims about accumulation of snow during warmer periods … correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t the very ice core data you quote as support for your claims about increased snowfall FROM the Antarctic – the place you claim in next paragraph has little or no precipitation because of the local conditions?

    Seems to me there is a reason they are called “glacial” periods. And the ice core and other data show clear well defined “cycles” – appx every 110,000 year we move from warm interglacial to cold glacial periods.

    The ice core record you tout in fact shows the last 12 – 15,000 years of temperatures are extremely and unusually STABLE – we are well overdue for a warm period tipping point peak – which the record shows is usually sharp and quick – witha rapid descent into glacial period.

    The SAME ice core data shows that despite CO2 rising at appx the same pace for the last 5000 years or so temperatures – when reviewed in the context of the last 15,000 years, appx 10% of the total time of ONE climate cycle – are extremely STABLE – moving up and DOWN within a narrow range of natural variability

  120. R. Gates says:
    March 29, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    As 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on instrument record, your notion that the “globe will continue to cool” seems a bit odd, unless you’re talking about the shorter-term cooling which corresponds quite regularly with every short-term La Nina cycle, but that’s of course weather and not climate.

    And a perfect example of the mindless repetition of irrelevant facts – carefully constructed – cherry-picked – to provide the required result.

    “2000-2009 warmest decade on instrument record

    100% completely meaningless … to the point, sorry – no other way to say it, of being simply moronic.

    The “instrumental record” is 1880 or so to present. A little more than a century. A whopping 131 years.

    Big effen (Effen Vodka – a very fine product – since we’re talking ice) deal!

    To put in real world perspective – lets see just how ridiculous the claim “warmest decade during “instrumental record” really is.

    If one climate cycle – the appx 110,000 year glacial to inter-glacial period – equals one 24hour climate “day” … if my math is correct the 131 year “instrumental record” equals 1.7 minutes out of one climate “day”

    Even if we ONLY look at the last appx 15,000 years of very stable global temps – and treat that time as one climate “day” – the 131 year “instrumental record” equals a whopping 12.7 minutes out of that one 15,000 year climate “day”

    To make ANY meaningful “climate change” related claim or comparison based on the 131 year “instrument record” is simply silly.

    And therein lies the root of all of the AGW claims – they refuse to look at the entire historical record – instead focusing all of the claims on observing a few minutes of one climate “day”

    That literally is comparable to someone trying to say they can measure data for 2 minutes during the day and make a meaningful prediction of the weather the next 24 hours as a result.

    Ask any warmist – including those at Real Climate and the like – about this glaring issue … that climate occurs over hundreds of thousands of years for EACH single cycle – yet they are basing wild and specious claims of imminent doom on a 100,000+ year climatic scale – on an instrument record that represents a little more than 1/10th or 1% of a single climate cycle … and watch them dance and scurry to avoid the question.

    To a warming alarmist “climate” – all of the effects of AGW – is based on data from the last little over 100 years … and the long term, 15,000, 100,000 400,000 years, record is meaningless.

    I challenge R. Gates or any other warming alarmist to answer the simple question:

    If the increase in global temp during the “instrument record” period is less than the peak and entirely contained within the natural RANGE of temps seen over the last 15,000 years … then where is the “climate change” level warming?

  121. {{{{{R. Gates says: March 29, 2011 at 3:32 pm says:
    The key is this: NOT how much snow falls in the cold months, but how much sticks around and doesn’t melt during the normally warmer months.}}}}}}

    Ummm – you mean like skiing in Scotland during the summer?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10238296

    This has not happened since the early ’90s, so by your argument we must be tipping back into a new period of Global Cooling. Or are you going to change your arguments and assertions once again, in the face of Inconvenient Truths?

    Why not just admit that climate is either cyclical or chaotic, and we are currently unable to forecast it.

    .

  122. Vostok ice-core – where is the warming?

    Greenland GISP 2 ice core – where is the warming?

    The last 1000 years temps:

    The last 1000 years temps overlaid on Vostock 15,000 years temps:

    (a simple appx representation – 1000 year record flipped to match and scaled to appx match Vostok scale)

    Please R. Gates – if the last 1000 year record is well within the natural variability in temps over last 15,000 years and well below the peak, and if the rate of change is entirely consitent with past changes during this period … please point out where is the warming?

  123. And please lets not forget that almost ALL of the temp discussions and claims are NOT based on REAL temperatures.

    They are based on the DEVIATION – or anomalies – from a “mean” period. This mean period is variously chosen to be 1901-2000, and most often 1961-1990 and similar. In other words – once again we do not see how current temperatures com[pare to past historical record on a long term climatic scale … instead we see how the temps compare to the 30 or 100 year RECENT periods

    When a meaningful measure would be to compare current temps to the mean of the last 15,000 years

  124. steven mosher says:
    March 29, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    You clearly have not read the literature or looked at model outputs. You can go to CA and see the instructions I gave for downloading results of modelE for example. Start there. Here is what you will find. The average of ALL models out performs any given model.
    _______________________________

    Averaging is what some honest GCM reviews criticize. The models are fundamentally flawed. To paraphrase, they get the right answers for the wrong reasons. They are able to fit observations retrospectively, but have no demonstrated predictive value. They can’t get basic features of PDO or ENSO right. One review warned that the models should not be used by officials to set public policy because of their uncertainty.

  125. R. Gates says:
    March 29, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    Jeremy, please don’t put words in my mouth.

    No problem, I’ll just repeat what you said then:

    R. Gates says:
    March 29, 2011 at 8:02 am
    Wow, we talk about snow a lot here on WUWT. Greater accumulation is generally a sign of warmer, not cooler climate:

    You said greater accumulation is a sign of a warmer climate. Since you understand physics so well, I’m guessing you have some new energy equations to explain how a warmer temperature overall would not mean warmer surface temperatures (since the surface is generally the warmest part of the atmosphere) and this would thus create more snow accumulation on the ground.

    I’m waiting, but not holding my breath.

    The primary reason that the central part of Antarctica is a desert is because the air so cold and dry. Yes, circulation is a factor, but not the prime one. Even if storms could begin to head towards region, its so cold that the moisture would be wrung out of the storms long before they made it to the central Antarctic.

    Wait, I’m confused. Did you just admit that I was right (even if partially)? You say that the air over the Antarctic is dry in an effort to explain why the antarctic does not get precipitation. That’s a fairly circular argument if I’ve ever seen one. Yes, cold air can hold less moisture, but this says *nothing* about why moisture does not make it there. Moisture does not make it over the antarctic content as much as any other continent because the atmospheric circulation patterns have no prevailing wind direction to blow moisture over it. Why does the ENSO change precipitation patterns over the NH? It does this because it alters the storm track. Alter the air circulation pattern over the south pole, and you’ll see air with more moisture make it over the south pole.

  126. Ralph says:
    March 30, 2011 at 2:00 am
    {{{{{R. Gates says: March 29, 2011 at 3:32 pm says:
    The key is this: NOT how much snow falls in the cold months, but how much sticks around and doesn’t melt during the normally warmer months.}}}}}}

    Ummm – you mean like skiing in Scotland during the summer?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10238296

    This has not happened since the early ’90s, so by your argument we must be tipping back into a new period of Global Cooling. Or are you going to change your arguments and assertions once again, in the face of Inconvenient Truths?

    Why not just admit that climate is either cyclical or chaotic, and we are currently unable to forecast it.
    ______
    First, yes, if over a consistent period the snow in Scotland or anywhere else did not melt in the summer and new snow fell on top it the next winter, then by definition, you’d see glacial growth. Show me this is happening anywhere in the N. Hemisphere over a consistent period, and I’ll take notice..

    Second, climate is not either cyclical or chaotic, for these are not mutually exclusive categories. Deterministic chaos can be cyclical. Certainly the Milankovitch cycles prove that the climate is cyclical, but the details as to exactly how and when any event will unfold within that cycle is quite chaotic. Study the growth and collapse of a sandpile and you’ll see how chaos can be cyclical. Add one grain at a time and the pile grows, but eventually, as some complete unpredictable (yet deterministic point) the pile collapses. Then continue to add more grains to the collapsed pile and it will begin growing again, until at some point it will collapse again, etc. Cyclical and chaotic…just like the climate.

  127. Tom in Florida says:
    March 29, 2011 at 6:22 pm
    R. Gates says: (March 29, 2011 at 4:47 pm)
    ” As 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on instrument record, your notion that the “globe will continue to cool” seems a bit odd”

    I give you your own evidence supplied in an earlier post by you, yourself.

    Not only does the decade 2000-2009 come no where near being the warmest, but the rate and amount of warming has been greater in the past. Do you not read your own evidence? Now I know you cleverly insert “on instrument record” to be able to dance around what I just said, but as we all know that record only covers the last 30 years. The semantics game you like to play is getting old.

    ___
    This does get tiresome, but I know AGW skeptics want to try to refute the science. No matter how you try and get around it, the period of 2000-2009 was the warmest on instrument record, not going back just 30 years, but going back to 1880. Beyond that, you must start relying on proxies:

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

    I play no semantics games, I simply look at the science and the data.

    It is absolutely true that if you go back further in the Holocene, or even earlier still, you can find other periods of warming. Duh. What is important is looking at mechanisms behind that warming. Some people seem confused as to what it means to be a chaotic (yet deterministic system). The climate doesn’t change randomly. Chaos doesn’t mean randomness. There are always reasons why things happen at specific times. The warming of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st can only currently be explained by including the role of the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s. Take away this forcing, and the warming has no known cause. Those are the facts and the science.

  128. Jeremy said:

    “Moisture does not make it over the antarctic content as much as any other continent because the atmospheric circulation patterns have no prevailing wind direction to blow moisture over it.”
    ___
    This is incorrect. Storm systems can and do take direct aim at the center of the Antarctic continent, but their energy and moisture is quickly wrung out of them as they hit the extremely cold air.

    The essence and foundation of the argument is that colder climates on earth are associated with a more dry climate as well. More and heavier snow in the winter time (which is the basis of this entire post) does not tell us anything specific about global warming or cooling, but in generally greater snowfall accumulations have been associated with warmer climates, not colder ones.

  129. Werner Brozek says:
    March 29, 2011 at 6:35 pm
    With the huge amounts of snow and ice still on the ground over much of North America, I would expect the arctic sea ice to have a slow start to its melt season. This would be similar to what happened last year when the April values for 2010 were the highest since 2002. With this being a La Nina year instead of an El Nino year like last year, I expect a decent sea ice coverage in September.
    ___
    Don’t know what you mean by “decent” as far as Septembers low sea ice extent, but you’d be better at looking at the late spring/early summer N. Hemisphere snow cover before making any such judgement. Early indications are that this summer’s minimum sea ice extent could be very close to the modern instrument record low set in 2007. Arctic temps have been running high all winter, and we’ve had lower sea ice all winter, so it will be a very interesting melt season to watch.

  130. R. Gates says:
    March 30, 2011 at 8:53 am

    Jeremy said:

    “Moisture does not make it over the antarctic content as much as any other continent because the atmospheric circulation patterns have no prevailing wind direction to blow moisture over it.”
    ___
    This is incorrect. Storm systems can and do take direct aim at the center of the Antarctic continent, but their energy and moisture is quickly wrung out of them as they hit the extremely cold air.

    It is interesting how you read only what you want to hear so that you can create a strawman. What I said was entirely correct, when you read it with this part:

    …as much as any other continent…

    …but of course, in your biased mind this somehow means I’m saying that *no* storms ever make it into the center. I’ve never stated that. Score one for the person in this argument who is able to recognize logical fallacies.

    The essence and foundation of the argument is that colder climates on earth are associated with a more dry climate as well. More and heavier snow in the winter time (which is the basis of this entire post) does not tell us anything specific about global warming or cooling, but in generally greater snowfall accumulations have been associated with warmer climates, not colder ones.

    So ICE ages are the result of warming then? Glaciers, which rely on snowfall accumulation, advance in warmer climates? Kilamanjaro is defying your miracle-physics by losing its snowcap in a warming climate? The list of jokes you’re creating with this logical inconsistency is breathtaking.

  131. The Sierra Nevada has a history of extreme weather. It’s just weather.

    http://www.sierranevadavirtualmuseum.com/docs/galleries/nathist/weather/snowfall.htm

    There is a tendency to put a great deal of importance in the weather when it reinforces your views of climate. A few years ago, during a multi-year drought in the south east, the alarmists were saying it was a permanent condition attributable to climate change, and we needed to make permanent changes to our water consumption, inter-connect river basins, and ration water for each city. Even while the rivers ran over their banks, there were restrictions on lawn watering. Anyway, the drought ended, everything is back to normal, and the alarmists have gone away until the next unusual weather event that they can blame on climate change.

  132. R. Gates,

    Have you seen these?

    “In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring.”

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7066/abs/nature04141.html

    “Due to global warming, the beginning of the snow-accumulating season (the end of the snow-melting season) will occur later (earlier) in most snow regions, and the snow cover will decrease except for very few exceptions. SWE will also decrease in wide areas, but over the cold regions (Siberia and the northern parts of North America), SWE will increase due to increases of snowfall in the coldest season.”

    http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/1/0/1_93/_article

  133. R. Gates,

    Seasonal Cycle Shifts in Hydroclimatology over the Western United States – 2004
    Analyses of streamflow, snow mass temperature, and precipitation in snowmelt-dominated river basins in the western United States indicate an advance in the timing of peak spring season flows over the past 50 years. Warm temperature spells in spring have occurred much earlier in recent years, which explains in part the trend in the timing of the spring peak flow. In addition, a decrease in snow water equivalent and a general increase in winter precipitation are evident for many stations in the western United States. It appears that in recent decades more of the precipitation is coming as rain rather than snow.

    Is this as a result of a warmer climate or colder climate?

  134. Mammoth Mountain hit 600 inches for the first time since records began in 1969 a few days ago. Mainly due to two monster storms, one in December and one in March. Both those months are record-breakers, otherwise the winter is quite normal.

  135. [snip. Re-posting the entire thread serves no purpose, and wastes my time trying to figure out your motive. ~dbs, mod.]

  136. I would be interested in some calculations on what it would take to remove 100M of the ocean and deposit it as snow, and eventually, as an expanding shield of ice at the poles.

    The ocean surface area seems to be 361,132,000km^2. Multiply that 100M suggests that we are talking about 3.6 x 10^16 m^3 of water, or 3.6 x 10^19 kg of water.

    Over 100,000 years, it would seem we are talking about a need to transport 3.6 x 10^14 kg, or 3.6 x 10^11 tons of water per year to the poles, or approximately 10^9 tones per day.

    I hope my numbers are not screwed up in any way. Perhaps someone can correct me.

  137. Hoser:

    Averaging is what some honest GCM reviews criticize. The models are fundamentally flawed. To paraphrase, they get the right answers for the wrong reasons. They are able to fit observations retrospectively, but have no demonstrated predictive value. They can’t get basic features of PDO or ENSO right. One review warned that the models should not be used by officials to set public policy because of their uncertainty.

    The simple fact is that averaging produces better results. Not perfect, better. The models are not fundamentally flawed. If they were fundamentally flawed, then would predict cooler temps as the result of added GHGs. they dont.

    The features of PDO and ENSO?

    lets see

    Contents88.48.4.7
    8.4.7 El Niño-Southern Oscillation

    During the last decade, there has been steady progress in simulating and predicting ENSO (see Chapters 3 and 9) and the related global variability using AOGCMs (Latif et al., 2001; Davey et al., 2002; AchutaRao and Sperber, 2002). Over the last several years the parametrized physics have become more comprehensive (Gregory et al., 2000; Collins et al., 2001; Kiehl and Gent, 2004), the horizontal and vertical resolutions, particularly in the atmospheric component models, have markedly increased (Guilyardi et al., 2004) and the application of observations in initialising forecasts has become more sophisticated (Alves et al., 2004). These improvements in model formulation have led to a better representation of the spatial pattern of the SST anomalies in the eastern Pacific (AchutaRao and Sperber, 2006). In fact, as an indication of recent model improvements, some IPCC class models are being used for ENSO prediction (Wittenberg et al., 2006). Despite this progress, serious systematic errors in both the simulated mean climate and the natural variability persist. For example, the so-called ‘double ITCZ’ problem noted by Mechoso et al. (1995; see Section 8.3.1) remains a major source of error in simulating the annual cycle in the tropics in most AOGCMs, which ultimately affects the fidelity of the simulated ENSO. Along the equator in the Pacific the models fail to adequately capture the zonal SST gradient, the equatorial cold tongue structure is equatorially confined and extends too far too to the west (Cai et al., 2003), and the simulations typically have thermoclines that are far too diffuse (Davey et al., 2002). Most AOGCMs fail to capture the meridional extent of the anomalies in the eastern Pacific and tend to produce anomalies that extend too far into the western tropical Pacific. Most, but not all, AOGCMs produce ENSO variability that occurs on time scales considerably faster than observed (AchutaRao and Sperber, 2002), although there has been some notable progress in this regard over the last decade (AchutaRao and Sperber, 2006) in that more models are consistent with the observed time scale for ENSO (see Figure 8.13). The models also have difficulty capturing the correct phase locking between the annual cycle and ENSO. Further, some AOGCMs fail to represent the spatial and temporal structure of the El Niño-La Niña asymmetry (Monahan and Dai, 2004). Other weaknesses in the simulated amplitude and structure of ENSO variability are discussed in Davey et al. (2002) and van Oldenborgh et al. (2005).

    PDO?

    Recent work suggests that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, see Chapters 3 and 9) is the North Pacific expression of a near-global ENSO-like pattern of variability called the Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation or IPO (Power et al., 1999; Deser et al., 2004). The appearance of the IPO as the leading Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) of SST in AOGCMs that do not include inter-decadal variability in natural or external forcing indicates that the IPO is an internally generated, natural form of variability. Note, however, that some AOGCMs exhibit an El Niño-like response to global warming (Cubasch et al., 2001) that can take decades to emerge (Cai and Whetton, 2000). Therefore some, though certainly not all, of the variability seen in the IPO and PDO indices might be anthropogenic in origin (Shiogama et al., 2005). The IPO and PDO can be partially understood as the residual of random inter-decadal changes in ENSO activity (e.g., Power et al., 2006), with their spectra reddened (i.e., increasing energy at lower frequencies) by the integrating effect of the upper ocean mixed layer (Newman et al., 2003; Power and Colman, 2006) and the excitation of low frequency off-equatorial Rossby waves (Power and Colman, 2006). Some of the inter-decadal variability in the tropics also has an extratropical origin (e.g., Barnett et al., 1999; Hazeleger et al., 2001) and this might give the IPO a predictable component (Power et al., 2006).

    Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models do not seem to have difficulty in simulating IPO-like variability (e.g., Yeh and Kirtman, 2004; Meehl and Hu, 2006), even AOGCMs that are too coarse to properly resolve equatorially trapped waves important for ENSO dynamics. Some studies have provided objective measures of the realism of the modelled decadal variability. For example, Pierce et al. (2000) found that the ENSO-like decadal SST mode in the Pacific Ocean of their AOGCM had a pattern that gave a correlation of 0.56 with its observed counterpart. This compared with a correlation coefficient of 0.79 between the modelled and observed interannual ENSO mode. The reduced agreement on decadal time scales was attributed to lower than observed variability in the North Pacific subpolar gyre, over the southwest Pacific and along the western coast of North America. The latter was attributed to poor resolution of the coastal waveguide in the AOGCM. The importance of properly resolving coastally trapped waves in the context of simulating decadal variability in the Pacific has been raised in a number studies (e.g., Meehl and Hu, 2006). Finally, there has been little work evaluating the amplitude of Pacific decadal variability in AOGCMs. Manabe and Stouffer (1996) showed that the variability has roughly the right magnitude in their AOGCM, but a more detailed investigation using recent AOGCMs with a specific focus on IPO-like variability would be useful.

  138. Gil Grissom says:
    March 29, 2011 at 11:13 pm

    Mr. Mosher,

    The head of the US energy department says that 90% of the snow pack will COULD (there’s another weasel word again) disappear due to global warming. See here

    ##############

    yes. he said it COULD ( note the admition of uncertainty) disappear in 2100.

    So what does THAT have to do with snow in tahoe in 2011?
    Nothing. Look nobody in climate science in the past 10 years has predicted the DISAPPERENCE of Heavy snowfalls in tahoe in 2011.

    What they do project is this:

    1. IF we continue to follow certain emissions projections (IF)
    2. It is LIKELY ( not certain) that snow cover, the land that is covered by some snow, will diminish DECADES from now.
    3. You might also see increases in extreme precipitation events.

    People confuse the ACTUAL science with the alarmist stories that get constructed from the science. Its far better to bash them for getting their own science wrong, than it is to misstate the science yourself.

  139. Steven Mosher and R. Gates,

    Snow is not consistent with AGW if it occurs repeatedly in areas or in months that usually receive rain. Saying otherwise is simply dishonest (I’m not sure where you stand on this as I don’t have the time or patience to read every post – but just in case … ).

    Cheers

    François

  140. R. Gates says: (March 30, 2011 at 8:45 am)

    First:
    “I play no semantics games, I simply look at the science and the data.”

    Then:
    “The warming of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st can only currently be explained by including the role of the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s.”

    There you go again. You trot out the tired old line of “40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s” as if a 40% increase of very little amounts to something. Why don’t you just say the truth, an increase of 112 parts per million. Not so scary now is it? And that’s exactly what I am talking about.

  141. Jimbo,

    It’s all about effects over ranges of temperatures. In Greenland, for example, we know that there is greater snowfall in winter when it is -40C versus -55C, (100,000+ years of ice-core data prove this), but this does not of course mean there’d be greater snowfall in winter when it is 10C versus -55C. You get rain, or perhaps something else. Extrapolating effects beyond a range is dangerous and usually wrong. For example, we know that in the atmosphere, as you increase elevation the temp drops, but then, it begins to rise again at a certain elevation, and then in drops again.

    So, a world that is 1C warmer might have dramatically different effects than a world that is 2C, 3C, or 6C warmer. It is a chaotic system with nonlinear responses. Hence, why it is wrong to simply extrapolate the effects of an increase in CO2 along some logarithmic curve, expecting effects to follow neatly and predictably along that curve.

  142. Tom,

    You must have missed the whole discussion about the notion given to us from
    Paracelsus, which is: “The dose makes the poison”.

    Percentages are everything when it comes to looking at physical effects. The 40% increase in CO2 (regardless of the ppm) represents the greatest amount of CO2 in our atmosphere in at least 800,000 years. During this time, CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats. Now, in a geologically very short time, we gone 40% above the high point of that range. The key issue now is: how sensitive is the earth’s climate system to this relatively rapid increase?

  143. François GM says:
    March 30, 2011 at 1:59 pm
    Steven Mosher and R. Gates,

    Snow is not consistent with AGW if it occurs repeatedly in areas or in months that usually receive rain. Saying otherwise is simply dishonest (I’m not sure where you stand on this as I don’t have the time or patience to read every post – but just in case … ).

    Cheers

    François

    _____
    I only go by what 100,000+ years of ice-core data say. Warmer meant greater accumulations of snow in winter months, but paradoxically (but factually) retreating glaciers, as the accumulated snow melted in the summer months because, like the winters, they were warmer as well.

    So, if we see the great snows of this winter stick around through the summer because the summers are colder, THEN it’d be an entirely different topic. Right now though, heavy snows of winters are not necessarily indicative of anything, but over the longer run, the facts tell us that warmer temps meant greater snows in winter in areas prone to snow.

  144. Gates says:

    “CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats.”

    The part left Gates out is that CO2 followed those glacial advances and retreats.

    Further, CO2 has been thousands of ppmv higher in the past, during times when the biosphere was healthy and booming [click in image to embiggen]. If any conclusion can be drawn, it is that more CO2 is better for life.

    And of course, CO2 follows temperature, not vice versa. Going back farther [570 million years], it is clear that a drop of 5°C or more can cause a major extinction. But a rise of 5° is harmless [chart courtesy of Bill Illis].

    The entire CO2=CAGW canard has been repeatedly falsified. What we’re observing can be explained 100% by natural variability, with no need for extraneous variables like CO2 to explain these natural cycles.

    “One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. ~William of Ockham, 1285-1349″

    It is completely unnecessary, and scientifically irresponsible because of the total lack of supporting evidence, to attribute an unnecessary entity like CO2 to natural variability.

  145. François GM says:
    March 30, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    Steven Mosher and R. Gates,

    Snow is not consistent with AGW if it occurs repeatedly in areas or in months that usually receive rain. Saying otherwise is simply dishonest (I’m not sure where you stand on this as I don’t have the time or patience to read every post – but just in case … ).

    Cheers

    ###########

    If you want the BEST statement of what AGW is as a science, and what it claims, as a science, then I will suggest that you read the findings in the IPCC that are labelled as robust. These are the only things that I consider as science. The likely results, the very likely results, etc are all not up to par as far as I am concerned. When you look at it that way you will see this:

    AGW says almost NOTHING about extreme snowfall. It would certainly say nothing about a single season. It can only talk about climate, which is averages over long periods of time. To be sure some have taken the less reliable findings as “science”.
    They get what is coming to them.

  146. R. Gates says on March 30, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    The 40% increase in CO2 (regardless of the ppm) represents the greatest amount of CO2 in our atmosphere in at least 800,000 years. During this time, CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats. Now, in a geologically very short time, we gone 40% above the high point of that range. The key issue now is: how sensitive is the earth’s climate system to this relatively rapid increase?

    Why look at only the last 800,000?

    We have seen higher CO2 levels in the past, indeed, considerably higher concentrations, if geologists are to be believed, and yet the world did not end.

  147. Richard Sharpe says:
    March 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm
    R. Gates says on March 30, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    The 40% increase in CO2 (regardless of the ppm) represents the greatest amount of CO2 in our atmosphere in at least 800,000 years. During this time, CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats. Now, in a geologically very short time, we gone 40% above the high point of that range. The key issue now is: how sensitive is the earth’s climate system to this relatively rapid increase?

    Why look at only the last 800,000?

    We have seen higher CO2 levels in the past, indeed, considerably higher concentrations, if geologists are to be believed, and yet the world did not end.
    ____
    Not being a believer in catastrophic global warming, I can’t comment about that. You’re right though, CO2 has been higher in the more remote past…much higher, but then again, our ancestors were tree-shrews at the time.

  148. Smokey,

    Here you go contradicting yourself again. You said:

    “It is completely unnecessary, and scientifically irresponsible because of the total lack of supporting evidence, to attribute an unnecessary entity like CO2 to natural variability.”

    You say CO2 is an “unnecessary entity” and at the same time a few paragraphs earlier, you said:

    “If any conclusion can be drawn, it is that more CO2 is better for life.”

    So which is it for CO2? Unnecessary or better for life?

    Get this Smokey: The Dose Makes the Poison. Your body and the biosphere like things within ranges. Go outside that range and bad things (for your body and the biosphere) can happen. CO2 is both better for life and necessary (within a range) and the only real issue is what is that range? Or said another way: how sensitive is the climate to CO2 going outside the range we’ve seen the past 800,000 years?

    You don’t like this answer Smokey because you’re a die-hard skeptic, but it is the most accurate and scientifically justifiable one there is.

  149. Gates says:

    “You say CO2 is an ‘unnecessary entity’ and at the same time a few paragraphs earlier, you said: “If any conclusion can be drawn, it is that more CO2 is better for life.”

    I didn’t contradict myself. Your reading comprehension is the problem, Gates, not what I wrote. I was quoting Occam’s Razor regarding the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy that says: “since I can’t conceive of anything besides CO2 that could cause climate change, then it must be CO2.”

    The climate null hypothesis has never been falsified, therefore the problem is with the alternative CO2=CAGW conjecture. Every observation of current trends, temperatures, and rates of change have happened exactly the same way before the first SUV rolled off the assembly line. Claiming that this time it’s different violates the unfalsified null hypothesis.

    In fact, it is you who contradicts yourself. You constantly arm-wave over an ice-free Arctic, and claim, without evidence, that it is caused by CO2. Now you claim you’re not a believer in catastrophic global warming. You can’t have it both ways.

    finally, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have approached ≈20,000 ppmv in the past [versus about 390 ppmv today]. The biosphere flourished. The idea that a little more CO2 is a problem has been debunked by the planet itself.

  150. R. Gates says on March 30, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Richard Sharpe says:
    March 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm
    R. Gates says on March 30, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    The 40% increase in CO2 (regardless of the ppm) represents the greatest amount of CO2 in our atmosphere in at least 800,000 years. During this time, CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats. Now, in a geologically very short time, we gone 40% above the high point of that range. The key issue now is: how sensitive is the earth’s climate system to this relatively rapid increase?

    Why look at only the last 800,000?

    We have seen higher CO2 levels in the past, indeed, considerably higher concentrations, if geologists are to be believed, and yet the world did not end.

    Not being a believer in catastrophic global warming, I can’t comment about that. You’re right though, CO2 has been higher in the more remote past…much higher, but then again, our ancestors were tree-shrews at the time.

    Well, what then do you think the problem is?

    Is it some vague “God did not mean for the world to do that?”

    If you think there is a problem (with, say the 40% higher than it has been in the last 800,000 years, but it wasn’t a problem when our ancestors were tree-shrews) then perhaps you should state what you think the problem is.

    We cannot argue with your position if you will not state it.

  151. R. Gates

    I see you have responded to most others but failed to respond to my posts at 2:00am, 2:09am, 2:28am …

    Awaiting your response ….

  152. Smokey. You’ve never stated a proper null hypothesis. Care to give it a try?

    The Null for AGW is not what you think it is.

  153. R. Gates says: (March 30, 2011 at 3:42 pm)
    “Tom,
    You must have missed the whole discussion about the notion given to us from
    Paracelsus, which is: “The dose makes the poison”. ”

    No. I read that discussion. Perhaps a better illustration. Take one gallon of clean water. Add 1 drop of chlorine. No problem. Add another drop of chlorine, a 100% increase in added chlorine, still no problem. So it really depends on the actual amount of a substance that is added not the per cent by itself. Your constant referral to a 40% increase in CO2 over the last 300 years obscures the actual amount of CO2 added and I believe you do it intentionally and the reason is deception.

    Here is another example of your deceptive words:

    “During this time, CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats.”

    Here you neglect to mention the reason for glacial advances and retreats, changing climate. Yet your statement seems to acknowledge these climate changes while CO2 existed in a steady, “nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm”. So if climate change occurred without CO2 in the past, why will it be any different now? And you cleverly sneak in the phrase “nice comfortable range” when referring to low CO2 as if it is established fact for that to be the optimum range and Earth would not be happy with any other concentration.

  154. Well, R. Gates, I was thinking you were holding your own fairly well in the discussions, and may actually have some intelligent points, until you wrote, “During this time, CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats.”

    You clearly do not understand the basic need of CO2 to support life if you think the “nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm” is a GOOD thing. A ‘perfect temperature’ (at least by your standards) doesn’t mean too much if most all life is extinct.

    Furthermore, you cherry picked the last 800,000 years wrt CO2 levels, although CO2 levels have been reconstructed for the last several million years. That reconstruction clearly shows that over the last few hundred thousand years there has been an impoverished level of CO2. Moreover, what history – and science – tells us is that the “comfortable range” for life on this planet is around 1000 ppm of CO2.

  155. steven mosher says:

    “You’ve never stated a proper null hypothesis. Care to give it a try?”

    Hi Steven. And sure, I’ll fill you in. As I’ve posted at least a dozen times before, the null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data.

    This takes a while to grasp. The null hypothesis is challenged by an alternative hypothesis, such as CO2=CAGW. If the alternative hypothesis can withstand all attempts at falsification,

  156. Smokey

    The null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data.

    Is not a proper NULL. In fact your’s doesnt even make sense. To state a proper null you have to pick a variable and state a numerical relationship.

    Look at yours: There are no difference between Observed and expected?
    expected? expected what.

    Try writing an equation. Then you will have a testable null. What’s even funnier is that
    the observed values are NEVER equal to the expected. they are always a tiny bit more or a tiny bit less.

    You can’t write the equation. You dont even know what a null is.

    what are your expected average temperatures for the next 10 years?

    Now let me give you a little hint for what a real null is like. An earth with 560 ppm of C02 at equilbrium, everything else held constant will be warmer than a world with 280 ppm at equillibrium, everything else held constant.

  157. Smokey

    “Every observation of current trends, temperatures, and rates of change have happened exactly the same way before the first SUV rolled off the assembly line. ”

    Well first off this isnt true. what is the observation of “current” trends? What do you mean by current? 1979 to present? what?

    Second, AGW says the following. take a world with X methane, y TSI, z aerosols and
    p C02. Now increase the C02. The theory predicts that after the system reaches equilibrium from the force, the temperature will be HIGHER.

    If doesnt say the highest ever. It doesnt say the rates getting there will be unprecedented. It says more C02 (everyting else held equal) will result in higher temps. You and other keep getting hung up on the idea of unprecedented changes.
    These are not strictly speaking part of the argument. the physics says more C02 means higher temps. On average.

  158. steven mosher says:

    [Regarding the current trend being the same as past trends]: “If doesnt say the highest ever. It doesnt say the rates getting there will be unprecedented.”

    [Actually, the claim is constantly made by warmists that the current decade is the "hottest ever." If that were so then the null hypothesis would be falsified.]

    Now, I have never said that more CO2 causes no warming. You’re re-framing the debate to try and paint me into a corner. Won’t work. As Willis is fond of saying: quote my words. Here, you’ve set up a strawman, knocked it down, and say “Aha!” No Fair.☹

    Next, you ask, “what is the observation of ‘current’ trends? What do you mean by current? 1979 to present? what?”

    I mean throughout the Holocene. Phil Jones himself shows that the current temperature trend has repeated. I have more charts showing the same thing if you’re interested. Just ask.

    Finally, your misunderstanding of the null hypothesis comes from confusing ‘observed’ with ‘expected.’ This is clear from your question: “Observed and expected? expected? expected what.”

    The expected hypothesis refers to the alternative hypothesis [which can be any different hypothesis], which is tested against the null hypothesis. The CO2=CAGW hypothesis is one such example. It states that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.

    The null hypothesis states that current temps are within the same parameters, and are no different than past temperatures. In fact, there is no discernable difference in temperatures, trends, or rates of change. The alternative hypothesis expects a change from past parameters due to the large ≈40% increase in CO2, but no such change has ever been identified. There is no evidence supporting the alternative hypothesis. Thus, the alternative hypothesis fails, and the null hypothesis remains unfalsified.

  159. 220mph says:
    March 30, 2011 at 2:00 am
    R. Gates says:
    March 29, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    As 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on instrument record, your notion that the “globe will continue to cool” seems a bit odd, unless you’re talking about the shorter-term cooling which corresponds quite regularly with every short-term La Nina cycle, but that’s of course weather and not climate.

    And a perfect example of the mindless repetition of irrelevant facts – carefully constructed – cherry-picked – to provide the required result.

    “2000-2009 warmest decade on instrument record”

    100% completely meaningless … to the point, sorry – no other way to say it, of being simply moronic.

    ____

    This is the one and only time I shall reply to you. If you expect replies from me, using the term “moronic” in regards to scientific facts isn’t the way to encourage me to reply to you.

  160. jtom says:
    March 30, 2011 at 8:36 pm
    Well, R. Gates, I was thinking you were holding your own fairly well in the discussions, and may actually have some intelligent points, until you wrote, “During this time, CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats.”

    You clearly do not understand the basic need of CO2 to support life if you think the “nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm” is a GOOD thing. A ‘perfect temperature’ (at least by your standards) doesn’t mean too much if most all life is extinct.

    Furthermore, you cherry picked the last 800,000 years wrt CO2 levels, although CO2 levels have been reconstructed for the last several million years. That reconstruction clearly shows that over the last few hundred thousand years there has been an impoverished level of CO2. Moreover, what history – and science – tells us is that the “comfortable range” for life on this planet is around 1000 ppm of CO2.

    ______

    CO2 levels beyond what we’ve measured in ice-core data are proxy reconstructions at best. However, CO2 levels have certainly been higher in the past, and some forms of life certainly did well in such climates. As for homo sapiens, we’ve pretty much enjoyed the range of 150-280 ppm, and seemed well served by it overall, with the higher part of that range certainly lending itself to a more comfortable existence for humans living in more northerly latitudes.

    We are now well out of the range our species has enjoyed for as long as we’ve been homo sapiens. What a higher range will mean for the climate and for us is the issue, isn’t it? It is also of interest to not that currently, now that we’re outside this range, we are seeing a greater loss of species than seen in many millions of years. This loss I am NOT attributing to the rise in CO2, though the two events (species loss and rise in CO2) certainly may have a common connection.

  161. R. Gates says:
    March 31, 2011 at 9:24 am
    It is also of interest to not that currently, now that we’re outside this range, we are seeing a greater loss of species than seen in many millions of years.

    Source that please. Provide the reference.

  162. R Gates: “CO2 levels beyond what we’ve measured in ice-core data are proxy reconstructions at best. However, CO2 levels have certainly been higher in the past, and some forms of life certainly did well in such climates. As for homo sapiens, we’ve pretty much enjoyed the range of 150-280 ppm, and seemed well served by it overall, with the higher part of that range certainly lending itself to a more comfortable existence for humans living in more northerly latitudes”
    —————————–

    Before making a fool of yourself a THIRD time, please research what happens to photosynthesis in plants when CO2 levels fall below 200 ppm, then consider what happens up the food chain.

  163. jtom says:
    March 31, 2011 at 1:48 pm
    R Gates: “CO2 levels beyond what we’ve measured in ice-core data are proxy reconstructions at best. However, CO2 levels have certainly been higher in the past, and some forms of life certainly did well in such climates. As for homo sapiens, we’ve pretty much enjoyed the range of 150-280 ppm, and seemed well served by it overall, with the higher part of that range certainly lending itself to a more comfortable existence for humans living in more northerly latitudes”
    —————————–

    Before making a fool of yourself a THIRD time, please research what happens to photosynthesis in plants when CO2 levels fall below 200 ppm, then consider what happens up the food chain.

    ____
    Not sure what you’re getting at here. Plants and animals together make up the biosphere, and together we kinda like a range for CO2, and oddly enough, so does the entire background carbon cycle. Seems you get too much CO2 and the hydrological cycle speeds up, more rock weathering occurs, CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere. You get too little CO2, and oddly, plant growth declines as the hydrological cycles slows down as well. This allows CO2 to build-up again. So there is this curious relationship between plants, animals, the carbon cycle, and the hydrological cycle on earth, where they all work together to keep CO2 in an interesting range for the benefit of all…seems an interesting focus on such a “minor” little trace gas..at least, that what the past 800,000 years of ice-core data tell us.

    Make no mistake…CO2 is good…when kept in a range. The Dose Makes the Poison.

  164. R. Gates says:
    As 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on instrument record, your notion that the “globe will continue to cool” seems a bit odd, unless you’re talking about the shorter-term cooling which corresponds quite regularly with every short-term La Nina cycle, but that’s of course weather and not climate.

    220mph says: … a perfect example of the mindless repetition of irrelevant facts – carefully constructed – cherry-picked – to provide the required result.

    “2000-2009 warmest decade on instrument record”

    220mph says: 100% completely meaningless … to the point of being simply silly.

    ____

    R. Gates says: This is the one and only time I shall reply to you. If you expect replies from me, using the term “moronic” in regards to scientific facts isn’t the way to encourage me to reply to you.

    Fixed it for you …

    The fact remains, claiming “2000-2009 warmest decade on instrument record” is first; not even entirely supported by the instrumental record, as the books keep getting “cooked” – the temps in the instrumental record keep getting adjusted.

    And second even IF it was an accurate statement this claim is entirely meaningless – the “instrumental record” is an entirely irrelevant period of time in the historical temperature record.

    The historical record you USE when it benefits you – ie: your reference to the ice core data.

    And turn around and completely ignore when it poses difficult questions you don’t want to respond to, ie: explaining how temps in an miniscule time period are in any way relevant as to establishing evidence of AGW in the context of one appx 110kyr climate cycle or even in context of the last 15,000 years of stable temperature record.

    That is the question every AGW proponent seems to run away from.

    Where is the evidence of warming?

    Where is the relevance of “2000-2009 is warmest decade of instrumental record”? …

    … when reviewed against the last 15,000 years temp record – which shows the last 131, or even 1000 years of temps, including the alleged hockey stick increase – are entirely within the natural variability, nowhere near the peak, and the increase in recent temps is not in any way unusual, when compared to that last 15,000 year temp record?

  165. R Gates, really. The poison is in the dose? Then answer this: How soon will you die if you increase oxygen compared to carbon dioxide in the air you breath? And how soon will you die if you increase carbon dioxide compared to oxygen in the air you breath? Or this: What does your body do if given too much oxygen? What will your body do if given what you think is too much CO2? And how sensitive are you to these changes? Did you know that your body craves CO2 more than it does O2? And did you know that if you increase deep breathing in a mistaken effort to deliver more O2 to your system, it will shut down O2 absorption mechanisms leaving you with less O2 instead of more? Now tell me again, which is more toxic? And what is the preferred range?

    Sometimes the hole in the hat you talk through gets really big.

  166. R. Gates says: (March 31, 2011 at 4:48 pm)

    So, looking briefly at the sources you list in this post it seems you are obsessed with fear of extinction. I always thought there was a driving fear behind your posts. In addition you use MSNBC and PBS as sources. That alone disqualifies you as anything but brainwashed. Good bye.

  167. I’ve noticed that most folks don’t have a good subjective view of the difference between weather, and climate. Not even many experienced climate scientists. But believe it, or not, you get pretty good examples just driving an 18 wheeler. I did that for a few years back in the ’80s, and early ‘90s. And I wore out a pretty nice long nose Peterbuilt doing it.

    One year I hauled a lot of supplies to some mines way up north. One in the Yukon. Another was a little north of Nome, Alaska. That place in the Yukon had to do all of their hauling in the winter on the ice road. Because, up north, many of the routes are impassable if the ground isn’t frozen.

    So a typical trip would be to pick up a load of grinding balls that are used in huge tumblers to crush ore, in Chandler Az. And in 70 degree T shirt weather. And the other end of the trip would be well north of the Arctic circle. And well into Arctic winter conditions. I’d return to Arizona with a load of Ore concentrate. And do it all over again.

    Weather was what was happening at any given location, anywhere along the way. Climate was the whole dang trip, taken as a whole.

    When we hear Canadians complaining of the economical consequences of ice roads that no longer freeze in the winter, then you can believe things are warming up. The ice roads are doing just fine from what I hear. As for me, I don’t see anything here in California that’s not just locally screwy weather.

    And it’s been really screwy here in Ca. The scary thing about all the extra snow is that it has the potential to melt quickly in the spring. Just a few years ago, in ‘97, some unusually heavy snows were followed by heavy rains in the high country. That warm rain accelerated the melting of a lot of the extra snowpack. And all hell broke loose downstream. It got so bad, they had to evacuate Yosemite Valley. There’s a hell of a lot more snow on the ground now, then there was before that ‘500 year flood’. More than twice as much. And the warm spring rains are only just beginning to fall.

    I wonder; would two ‘500 year flood’ events Ca. in less than 20 years, be seen as evidence of climate change?

Comments are closed.