That’s from the avalanche center in the Tetons, and here is a current web-cam view up Yosemite Valley towards still-closed Tioga Pass (in the left background):
AP has a nice roundup of late snow and snowpack news (including the Teton quote). Just weather. No mention of climate. Nothing this time about snow and cold being caused by global warming. Now if we could just get the press to do the same when there is a regional hot spell. Still, it’s progress. Remember the spinning on last winter’s snowzilla?
Most amusing was Al Gore’s quote from “the scientific community“:
A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.
A click on Gore’s link showed “the scientific community” to be Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page. Gore should also have quoted Page’s credentials, which Page listed in his next line:
That’s simple science even for me, a guy whose scientific education pretty much ended with the old “Watch Mr. Wizard” TV show and a subscription to Popular Mechanics.
Unfortunately, Gore could have quoted some actual scientists to the same effect, as Andrew Bolt quoted the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research:
The overall warming of the earth’s northern half could result in cold winters… Recent severe winters like last year’s or the one of 2005-06 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it.
But as Bolt also quoted, the Potsdammer’s IPCC bible had predicted the opposite:
Fewer cold outbreaks; fewer, shorter, intense cold spells / cold extremes in winter” as being consistent across all model projections for Europe
What, are there no takers this time around? Are they tiring of the ridicule?
The cooling is getting more and more difficult to deny.
People are noticing and waking up. It’s almost June and poor people have to buy additional wood to heat their houses! It’s unprecedented (in their lifetime). If the cooling continues (and it very likely will continue), AGW will be dead and forgotten very soon!
I think they’re finding the whole global-warming-induced-freezing-winters idea to be a harder sell with Joe Public than they thought.
Al Gore, Harold Camping, etc.
The prophets of doom. I guess it pays well.
“Tiring of the ridicule”! I like it. They have no sense of humour and hate people ridiculing them. But they can’t see how ridiculous they appear to normal folk.
And yet in Australia “climate change” is still being spun as a problem leading to no snow, machines to do the job instead.
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/whitemountain-promise-20110527-1f7oc.html
But these last 3-4 years snow has come early to the ski regions, no need for machines.
I one day last week there were no less than 5 climate change/carbon tax articles at the SMH. God loves a tryer, Gillard certainly is trying, but in the face of well below average temperatures, coldest May day in 40 years recently in Sydney and coldest May day in 74 years in Canberra, maybe the “heat” is leaving the debate on CO2 warming.
Are they tiring of the ridicule?
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. (Independent 20th Match 2000
“The overall warming of the earth’s northern half could result in cold winters”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13567903
Seems the Catlin arctic survey team have a theory as to why our northern winters are getting colder.
“As warm water evaporates, the salinity increases and temperature falls resulting in a mass of denser water, which sinks and drives the current.
“If the Arctic gets a lot warmer, we will see a slowing down of the current,” she said.
“If that happens, we’ll see the climate in places like England change subtly, getting colder because the warmer waters from the south won’t be pushed north.”
AGW will be dead and forgotten very soon!
JK: The Gore crowd will just switch to “we have to turn over society to central authority and go back to the stone age to save us from another ice age.”
They have one solution to every problem!
Thanks
JK
Jim, I agree. As I love to say:
The herd will swing around but it will still be a firm and arrogant herd.
But this time the herd is HUGE and heavy and it will have to change direction 180°. When it does, it will be explosive.
They said some years ago that melting ice would reduce salinity and stop the Gulf stream. Now the opposite. Come on you alarmists get your story straight and stick to it.
Oh! Sorry, you are unable, by default, to go down that route.
John, the entirety of their brainpower and efforts are dedicated to finding reasons that it must be warming, and why it’s our fault. It’s hard, dirty work, but someone’s got to do it!
Two days away from the onset of “flaming” June and my central heating is on and has been for a couple of weeks now. Temperatures in NW England are struggling to break through a ceiling of 12 degrees celsius that feels much colder thanks to the wind chill factor. And yet the noddies at the Met Office insist that we are going to have a warm and sunny summer and a mild winter. I’m currently stocking up on logs and coal…
In stryn, norway.
Base. 7 meters of snow.
Top station. 5.5 meters.!!
Summer Will be Good!!!!
will be the coldest may since 1942 in sydney and the gooses in GOVT are going to put our heating cost up to save the world
Alec,
Been hearing the same reports in Canada that we are going to have an above average heat this summer and dryer.
So far it ain’t happened yet.
Tons of rain and lower than normal temperatures.
These folk are exactly like the crank who predicted the world would end on 21 May and now says actually the date is 21 October…
Come what may they will demand ‘action’ to avert catastrophe, blisfully unaware of the impact and unintended consequences for everyone else of their demands. Does it matter that we are experiences a cooling period? No. They’ll just find something else in this basket of pseudo-scientific apples and pears that is the Greenpeace, Fiends of the Earth, Earth First mantra and the IPCC “science” with which to scare the uninformed and hysterically inclined foot soldiers they rely on for their “Rent-a-mob” demonstrations and bun fights.
@Gray Monk:
“…blisfully unaware of the impact and unintended consequences for everyone else of their demands.”
The know EXACTLY what the consequences are and they are fully intended.
As noted many times here on WUWT, greater snowfall and rainfall are generally associated with warmer, not cooler climates. This is demonstrated clearly in ice core records. Now, if this seasons snow does not melt before the next winter, and then we get more snow on top of it and then that is repeated for several years, it would get interesting, but as it stands, this snowfall is just variations in weather more likely related to ENSO than any long term cooling and trying to relate it to anything long term at this point is like trying to connect the tornado outbreak to AGW.
Worrying signals from the nature scarce us all the time.Specially those who are studying nature and watching the erosion over the time and the pollution that is affecting the earth at large.
It is like playing a game with a child where the rules are always changing so that the child wins. At first it was global warming would be the end of snow. Now it is global warming causes more heavy snow. If there is a warm winter in the future, it will once again become global warming causes less snow. The rules always change, they always $win$, we always lose.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/northeast-us-blizzard-proves-global-warming/#comment-559890
Scottish Sceptic says:
May 29, 2011 at 12:59 am
This is a good place to add Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s comment saved at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/02/robert_kennedys_fantastically.html :
Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a sled.
That may have been true, and may still be true, but a few months later there was too much snow for sledding.
My Freezer is getting colder with a lot more frost. Is this due to global warming?
The UK has been particularly chilly for the last few days – night temperatures around 9degC in London suburbs, overcast skys. I put the central heating on last night, and we’re nearly into June…
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?… The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
– George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 5
I know it’s just a dystopian fable, but . . . .
@edim on size of herd…. Important point!
The previous phase change in 1976 involved only a few hundred insiders who knew each other. Now, if they want to switch back to Global Cooling, they’ll need to turn all the governments in the world, all the corporations, all the churches, all the media, all the schools, and half of the people.
The institutions will be easy. Groupthink, bribes, bonuses, and blackmail will turn them on a dime. But the persuaded half of the people will be harder. The only thing that keeps them in line is blind trust of the leaders plus partisan hatred of the other half. When these believers have to choose between (1) admitting those awful fascist Deniers were right all along, versus (2) continuing to follow the leaders who are suddenly singing the opposite tune, it will get interesting.
Uneditable history on the Internet is our best friend in this war.
In view of the fact that global warming is accelerating, and is already running at about 0.2C per decade, we can expect the long-term trend of warmer winters to continue. This is especially true at high latitudes where polar amplification means that the warming trend is 2 or 3 times greater than the global average.
The magnitude of global warming is still exceeded by interannual variability, especially on local and regional scales, and the same applies to metrics of snow depth, snow cover etc., but the warming trend in the data is undeniable. It would unfortunate if people lost sight of this fact in focusing on localised and short term weather phenomena.
Very off-topic…but very forgivable if you’ve eaten there….(Anthony, you have, haven’t you?)
When Tioga Pass opens, and you’ve got the opportunity to hit the Mobile gas station at highways 120 and 395, next door to Lee Vining and overlooking Mono Lake…Don’t pass up eating at the Whoa Nellie Deli at the gas station. Seriously.
Where else could you feast on lobster taquitos and mango margaritas after witnessing the majesty of this year’s waterfalls in Yosemite?
http://www.whoanelliedeli.com/
Icarus says:
May 29, 2011 at 6:20 am
In view of the fact that global warming is accelerating, and is already running at about 0.2C per decade,
0.133 from where I’m sitting:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980.5/plot/uah/from:1980.5/trend
but the warming trend in the data is undeniable
Data from when? The flatness of the decadal trend is undeniable:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997.5/plot/uah/from:1997.5/trend
Too bad the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers didn’t know about all this snow out west. If they had, they could have started releasing water from the Missouri river dams much sooner. Now when they get an unusually heavy rain, the scramble begins. Reservoirs on the river are nearly at capacity, releases are approaching, and will soon exceed, record flows and flooding is guaranteed. Flooding and high water levels are predicted to remain for several months. 150,000 cubic feet per second release from these dams is nearly double previous records.
Icarus says:
“In view of the fact that global warming is accelerating, and is already running at about 0.2C per decade” ….. “It would unfortunate if people lost sight of this fact in focusing on localised and short term weather phenomena.”
Are you saying the 0.2 C tend in warming is due to the addition of human CO2?
If yes, please show your proof.
If not, what is your point?
It would be good if this was a Berlin Wall coming down moment.
They have probably realized the public is not as stupid and gullible as they thought and are now pausing to figure out a new approach to sell the fraud.
Advertisers are still keeping it going but selling something because it is advertised as green will soon wear off as the economy tanks and people avoid the pitch.
The attribution of global warming/climate change is dead in the water; but the sinister fact remains that AGW chiefs have gotten their people to the top of the greasy pole in education, environment and economics posts, often unelected ones. How do we get them out?
The pro-AGW set has done their best over the past two decades to ignore the effects of the ENSO (they do bring it up all the time when it is convenient but they never take into account the large climate effects that it has).
Temperatures are down over the past year (due to the La Nina).
Water vapour levels are down over the past year (due to the La Nina).
More rain occurred in Australia, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Amazon, south-east Asia, the mid-east US and more rain and snow in north-western North America (due to the La Nina).
Drought occured in equatorial Pacific and the south and south-east US (due to the La Nina).
http://imageshack.us/m/692/5586/ensovstcwv1948apr11.png
http://imageshack.us/m/221/9702/ensotempsvstcwvapr11.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/impacts/cold.gif
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/209479main_elnino1_080128_HI.jpg
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/olr/olr.anom.90day.gif
Ah, the next Ice Age! I remember back in the Sixties when an Ice Age was the climate threat du jour! I didn’t believe we were doomed then, and I don’t believe we are doomed now. But it might be fun to see the climate consensus do a 180 so I can return to the days of my youth.
First R Gates says “greater snowfall and rainfall are generally associated with warmer, not cooler climates”. Then he says “as it stands, this snowfall is just variations in weather more likely related to ENSO than any long term cooling”.
In other words, greater snowfall comes from warning except for this particular snowfall which comes from temporary ENSO cooling. Did I get that right?
To R.Gates:
Replace “snowfall” with “AGW” and “cooling” with “warming” (above the long term trend) and I’ll believe your logic, What’s the old saying? “Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?”.
Here on Vancouver Island people are openly wondering what happened to spring.
Warm causes cold we learn that in that movie, An Inconvenience Day After Tomorrow, floods, hurricanes, droughts, fires, ice ages, and tornadoes, all at the same time and same place are the inevitable result of humans increasing CO2 past 360 ppm.
In 1999, Tioga pass didn’t open till July 1st. I drove it that day. It was glorius.
Back then, that record setting winter was just known as an EL Nino weather event. To the warmists’ point, that was a very warm year, however, this one is not.
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 5:38 am
“As noted many times here on WUWT, greater snowfall and rainfall are generally associated with warmer, not cooler climates. ”
Is the 25% sceptic in your head gaining or losing ground? You sound pretty ultra-orthodox today. Somebody show me a warmer climate that gets more snow than a cooler climate. Maybe you wanted to say “Moister/dryer” but that’s not the same thing.
R. Gates, once again you are wrong. Anthropogenic climate change cannot be THE cause of current conditions. The historical ENSO record is quite clear on this. La Nina and neutral Pacific winter conditions leads to more winter moisture (picks up water vapor from choppy seas and left over El Nino warm pools), more snow, and lower temperatures over much of the upper states and along the length of the Cascades.
While NOAA drinks warm-aid, their ENSO models (statistical and dynamical) are pretty good at forcasting these conditions, and some without the need for CO2 contributions. They forcasted lots of snow precip and lower temperatures using similar year comparisons and nailed it, based on similar years. The colder/neutral conditions will lead to a mixed bag of dry/wet and cold/warm this summer depending on on-shore flow of weather systems. Maybe you could keep track of it better if you read the ENSO update posted every Monday.
While you attribute these conditions to CO2, the natural systems are entirely capable of driving these conditions. Therefore your statement is unprovable, no matter how often you state it. However, if you wish to continue to stick to your guns, go right ahead.
The North Cascades Highway in Western Washington remained closed more than a month later than “normal”, due to incredibly heavy snow and avalanches. I’ve heard reports that snow was as high as 75 feet in some places.
Some pics of the clearing effort: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/sets/72157626170712679/
Other passes, Stevens, Snoqualmie (I-90), were similarly affected, requiring studded tires or chains well past the usual April 1 date.
@RGates.” As noted many times here on WUWT, greater snowfall and rainfall are generally associated with warmer, not cooler climates. ”
I don’t know about that dude, here in Sarasota Florida (a warm climate to be sure) there wasn’t any snow at all this winter (or any other winter that anyone or their great great great grandparents can remember) . Up in Vermont (a cold climate, ask anyone) there was plenty of snow and often is. I think you ‘ll tend to find that the tropics (warm) tend to have less snow than the non-tropical areas (cold).
What you are talking about are at the very extremes. The difference between say -30°F and -45°F Yeah there you might see less snow the colder it gets. but it does take ice core records to see that it snows more in Vermont where it is colder than it snow in Washington DC where it is warmer. It doesn’t take ice core records to see that it snowed more in Vermont in the 60s and 70s than in the 90s and 00s, colder more snow.
I want some of the global warming to come back to my location. It must be warmer somewhere on the planet by about 15 degrees F as it’s that much cooler in my location this month! My propane fueled furnace is cranking away at the end of May. In terms of useful metrics I prefer looking at Heating and Cooling Degree Days- vs the rather forced metric of global average temperature.
Data from my area is as follows-
Heating Degree Days:
Today: 5.6
May: 239.4
2011 to Date: 2341.5
Cooling Degree Days:
2011 to Date: 11
Snow on the ground this am here in Utah, and still snowing in the higher elevations
Oh and R.Gates:
How many years does a pattern have to repeat for it to be interesting to you? Is no warming since 1998 starting to get a bit interesting to you? If you have anything like an open mind it should.
R. Gates May 29, 2011 at 5:38 am
Snow doesn’t last into May because it’s warmer. Snow doesn’t fall in areas where it’s normally not cold enough because it’s warmer.
Eric (skeptic) & Sam Glasser:
I go by what the long term data tell us and could care less about any taking points on either side of the AGW issue. Ice core date unequivocally show greater accumulation of snowfall during warmer, not cooler climates. Why this fact bothers some people I just don’t fully understand. I have no problem with seeing the phases of the ENSO cycle as having all sorts of effects around the globe, as surely there are, just as I have no problem with seeing the multiple inputs to create earth’s climate, from the long term astronomical Milankovitch cycles to short term ENSO cycles, volcanoes, long and short term solar changes, GCR flux, and yes, even anthropogenic factors such as GHG’s, urban heat islands, black carbon, land use, etc.
A few years do not a trend make – This said, from what we can see here in Japan, the last 2 winters have been rather cold and the summers hot as they usually are, but more importantly spring is almost gone. April was rather very cold and May is… different. A very early typhoon today followed by an early rainy season. It is actually rather unpleasant. Conversely, in Europe is seems to be very nice this year if rather dry.
Is that change? Hard to say. Still, changes made by humans, as far as I have seen, are more and more obvious, massive forest burnings in Indonesia, permafrost melting in Russia, unbelievable levels of pollution in China… all of which scale is huge. Difficult to think there will be no global effects in the end since mankind is relentless; we probably simply won’t give up until there is but by then, it will be late and we will have to live with the mess we created… think radioactivity, for example.
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 5:38 am
“…. Etc.”
Bill Sticker says:
May 29, 2011 at 7:20 am
Here on Vancouver Island people are openly wondering what happened to spring.
Look no further than the temperature of the waters off your coast. The Pacific Ring of Fire looks like the Pacific Ring of Refrigeration at sea.
Pamela Gray,
Where did I say anthropogenic factors were THE cause of current conditions? I surely don’t believe it, so I surely would not have said it. I never said what was causing anything, but rather made the generally point about the long term well established ice core record the show a warmer, not cooler climate leads to greater snowfall accumulations. A general point that many would do well to understand is that when the next glacial advance begins it will not be marked by increasing snowfall accumulations, but rather, lower accumulations that simple won’t completely melt in the cooler summers. The ice core record is quite clear on this.
“Icarus says:
May 29, 2011 at 6:20 am
In view of the fact that global warming is accelerating, and is already running at about 0.2C per decade,”
Icky, is it OK if I call you Icky? I think you will get a better reception here if you are a bit more meticulous in your choice of numbers. Defensible values might be somewhere in the range 0.11C to 0.17C And you’d do well to explain where the numbers came from and why they are superior to more modest estimates.
Cherry picking high values to suit your preferences isn’t good science and it is probably going to get you roundly bashed in this venue. Deservedly so perhaps.
Also, you seem to be under the impression that the rate of change of temperature is accelerating. Presumably that would be because rate of change is a direct function of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or the injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is accelerating significantly. It might not be surprising that you believe that as “Climate scientists” have been less than completely candid about many aspects of climate change. In fact, neither they nor the IPCC seem to believe either of those things. (Although at times, it is a bit hard to figure out what they do believe).
Joe Lalonde says:
May 29, 2011 at 4:33 am
Alec,
Been hearing the same reports in Canada that we are going to have an above average heat this summer and dryer.
So far it ain’t happened yet.
Tons of rain and lower than normal temperatures.
Yup. 1C last night when I got home from my gig in Calgary. But at least we are seeing some sunshine after a week of Newfoundland weather.
Just weather:
http://www.arapahoebasin.com/ABasin/snow-conditions/web-cams.aspx
91 inch base
There be June snow ski reports coming from the rockies.
Pamela Gray says:
“While you attribute these conditions to CO2, the natural systems are entirely capable of driving these conditions.”
That is true, not that Gates can ever be convinced. He has the ultimate true believer’s closed mind. As Prof Richard Lindzen explains the situation:
“For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.” [my bold]
Everything we observe today can be fully explained through natural variability without resorting to the extraneous variable of CO2.
Tom t:
Everything is interesting to me, except those who regurgitate talking points without thinking for themselves. There is virtually no facet of climate study that does not interest me and you shouldn’t mistake me for one who is blindly faithful to any point of view. I go where the facts and data lead. The decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on instrument record. If the decade of 2010-2019 is not warmer than the previous one, that will be interesting to me and might indicate that a quiet sun is more potent than any amount of AGW can counter, but this would not mean that there is no effect from human activites, for we can’t say how much cooler still a quiet sun period would be if we didn’t have 40% more CO2 then we had just a few hundred years ago.
On my post above about the North Cascades Highway, I meant to add that temps in ghe region have been lower that average by 10-15 degrees all fall, winter, and spring. So no, the snow in the passes and lowlands here was not due to warmer conditions, either on the ground or at altitude.
Gates says:
“The decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on instrument record.”
Word games. Look at the trend.
I am sitting here in SW Albera at 1143m elev…a few km to the north is fresh snow about 100m higher. My son drives a one-ton, 4 by 4 and yesterday nearly got stuck in several inches of gloppy snow trying to get to a popular campground that should have been open for a couple of weeks now…and is still closed. The official snowpack across SW Alberta is HUGE and we just came thru “high streamflow” advisories. When all of that snow melts, it will get dangerous with new advisories. BUT it is also silly cold here and the melt could be slow. I predict in 2011 there will still be snow in the mtns in usually clear places by the time of the first snow next September.
The snow pile in Lethbridge Alberta (from street cleaning) will last until August 2011. I can’t wait for the year that the street snow pile (from last winter) last until the first snowfall of the next winter. Might actually happen. ☺
R. Gates, I love that you are certain about what ice cores are saying. It makes my job so much easier.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/reports/trieste2008/ice-cores.pdf
A general note: some of you would do yourself a huge favor by studying what the ice core data really say about colder and thus more dry periods of glacial advance and warmer periods that see greater snowfall accumulations. For example, England had record snows this past winter but now is warm and in a drought. Think outside the talking points folks…
tallbloke: What’s remarkable is that the world has still been warming even during the deepest and longest solar minimum for 100 years –
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1980/mean:12/offset:-1365.6/plot/uah/from:1980/plot/uah/from:2001/trend
That has rather distubing implications for the warming we can expect to see over the next few years as solar irradiance rises again, and the consequences of that warming, don’t you think?
Smokey, I guess when the facts are not what you like they are simply word games. If that’s your brand of science, count me out…
Bill Sticker says:
May 29, 2011 at 7:20 am
Here on Vancouver Island people are openly wondering what happened to spring.
2011 might be considered a “Lizzy” May. VI’s lone greenie must also be wondering quietly, but not aloud.
The last couple of years we have seen snow packs at about the 30 year norm after several years of below normal. The below normal years had the alarmists crowing – now they are silent about snow pack.
This year in Washington the snow pack is 250% of normal.
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/data/water/wcs/gis/maps/wa_swepctnormal_update.pdf
The normal (1971-2000) doesn’t capture known deep snow years in the late 40’s and early 50’s, but it does include the 70’s when we had a few big snow years with persistent late season snow. Those years made the folks at Whistler in BC happy as they had just opened the resort.
Similar snotel based maps for the western US are found at the NRCS site below:
http://www.co.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/snow/state/current/daily/maps_graphs/index.html
“ Icarus says:
May 29, 2011 at 6:20 am
. . . at high latitudes where polar amplification . . .”
Someone has suggested that attenuation is the opposite of amplification. Either way, the polar region is sufficiently small compared to the ocean between the Tropics that it is hard to believe the Arctic controls the world. Nonetheless, snow in the middle latitudes (for example, the Yosemite area) affects albedo and deep snow lasts longer and the attenuation extended. Such might also be called a negative feedback.
Others (tallbloke @6:35; Ed_B @ 6:38) have previously commented on “your facts.” You are, of course, entitled to your opinions but you are not allowed to have your own facts. Stating that warming is accelerating says you think this is a fact. When questioned about this you need to provide proof. With none forthcoming the rest of what you say is nonsense.
Our own similarly scarred mountain is also covered in snow. The following picture (if the link works) is a summertime shot taken in the Eagle Cap Wilderness (Wallowa Mountain range section of the Blue Mountain range in NE Oregon).
http://blog.oregonlive.com/terryrichard/large_EagleCap.jpg
We’ve needed the central heating back on the last few days, and the woodstove lit in the evening. My feet are freezing cold as I type this. I think we must have had our summer back in April. I believe ‘flaming June’ is supposed to be just around the corner.
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 7:57 am
Eric (skeptic) & Sam Glasser:
I go by what the long term data tell us and could care less about any taking points on either side of the AGW issue. Ice core date unequivocally show greater accumulation of snowfall during warmer, not cooler climates. Why this fact bothers some people I just don’t fully understand. I have no problem with seeing the phases of the ENSO cycle as having all sorts of effects around the globe, as surely there are, just as I have no problem with seeing the multiple inputs to create earth’s climate, from the long term astronomical Milankovitch cycles to short term ENSO cycles, volcanoes, long and short term solar changes, GCR flux, and yes, even anthropogenic factors such as GHG’s, urban heat islands, black carbon, land use, etc.
You keep on justifying the more snowfall when it is warmer by reference to ‘ice cores’,
Now you may have noticed that these ice cores can only exist in areas where it remains below freezing ALL year – otherwise there is no ice to core.
So what you are really saying is that at the arctic and antarctic circles when it gets colder (really much colder) there is less snow fall. As at the poles there is generally descending very very dry cold air this is to be expected and it is only when warmer more humid air moves in that snow precipitates out.
This is NOT the case in the temperate zones of the planet where the air is always humid enough for precipitation if it cools, and the normal Ferrel cell circulation and fronts ensure that there is humidity and it snows when the lower atmosphere is cold enough. if the lower atmosphere is warm – precipitation will be as rain. (Strange to have to explain this to an adult).
Your logic of using polar ice cores to indicate whether it is snowing more in temperate regions when they are warmer is flawed.
Tornadoes, snow, hail the size of baseballs. We have serious mid-atmosphere cooling. don’t know if a trend has commenced (last winter was also very snowy), but it was not modeled.
It doesn’t matter whether it is wetter or drier, colder or warmer, windier or calmer, higher water levels or lower, or even stuck in normal. Whatever the case may be, it’s bad, and it’s caused by global warming.
Does that apply to temperate climes? As I mentioned above. It’s been colder and wetter in Western Washington since last Fall. I think the colder=drier situation applies in extreme cold conditions, like one sees in Antarctica, but not in lower latitudes.
Icarus
You switched gears so fast you may want to stop in at an Aamco.
What happened to “accelerating” temperature trends?
Tioga Pass Road Opening and Closing Dates.
http://www.monobasinresearch.org/data/tiogapass.htm
R. Gates says:
“…Ice core date unequivocally show greater accumulation of snowfall during warmer, not cooler climates. Why this fact bothers some people I just don’t fully understand.”
You’re right. I don’t understand either. Why is the State of California so worried about a warmer climate if it means more water? California has been plagued by drought, and the San Joaquin feeds from Sierra water. In cooler periods, it’s drier, and that’s when we tend to have decadal or even century long droughts, resulting in severe water restrictions for irrigation. Comes now some much needed water, and California should be rejoicing!
http://www4.nau.edu/direnet/publications/publications_m/files/Mensing_S_Smith_J_Norman_KB_Allan_M_Extended_drought_Great_Basin.pdf
….But wait…..I hear warmer = wetter, yet we have this: “….Model-based explanations for the shift in d18O values suggest a transition to a colder and wetter climate at this time….” This is referring to the Sierra and Great Basin climates, and over long time scales!!
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1374&context=usgsstaffpub&sei-redir=1#search=%22sierra+droughts%22
So I’m confused. Now I’ve got 2 diverse arguments, one for a warmer, wetter climate, and one for a colder, wetter climate. Both over long time scales, and both arguing for some rather severe conditions.
What is clear, all the hand-wringing aside, is that in either case, the effects of natural variability are so remarkably powerful that a human-induced change in temperature of a portion of a fraction of a degree is barely in the noise of whatever climate…or weather…we’re experiencing.
Icarus says:
May 29, 2011 at 8:34 am
tallbloke: What’s remarkable is that the world has still been warming even during the deepest and longest solar minimum for 100 years –
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1980/mean:12/offset:-1365.6/plot/uah/from:1980/plot/uah/from:2001/trend
That has rather distubing implications for the warming we can expect to see over the next few years as solar irradiance rises again, and the consequences of that warming, don’t you think?
The world hasn’t been warming, the surface has been warming (barely). Ocean heat content has been falling slightly. The top two metres of ocean contains as much heat as the entire atmosphere above it. The oceans start releasing more heat into the atmosphere as the atmosphere cools more quickly due to less incoming solar. SO ocean heat content supports the surface temperature for quite a while after the sun goes quiet. I anticipate we’ll start to see the effects of the solar slowdown more strongly in the next few years. If y9ou think last winter was cold, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
As for solar activity increasing much in the near future, fingers crossed, but I think we’re out of luck there.
Gates,
I don’t have a ‘brand’ of science. CAGW believers cherry-pick their random facts to support their beliefs, and you are a prime example. The ice cores you’re referring to show that the current mild warming cycle is well below previous natural warming cycles. And it is warming because the planet is still emerging, in fits and starts, from the LIA.
So then you try to limit your cherry-picking to “the instrumental record.” FYI, here is the oldest continuous instrumental record in existence. The trend from the LIA is clear, and so is the fact that nothing unusual is occurring. What we are observing is natural variability.
Of course, that won’t convince those afflicted with cognitive dissonance. They are beyond logic, and into true belief; reality has been suspended and facts don’t matter.
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 8:34 am
general note: you would do yourself a huge favor by studying the weather for the whole of England. The northern half of the country has had a plentiful supply of rain. In Cheshire we have recorded over a centimetre in the last 4 days alone. My vegetable and fruit crops are verdant and abundant, and my lovely green lawn has to be cut regularly. The only thing preventing the weather being perfect from an amateur gardener’s point of view has been the lack of warmth for pretty much the whole of May – but then I recall this is pretty normal for May in the UK. The cause of the unseasonal warmth in April was apparently a blocking high over the west of mainland Europe.
I would also point out that the cold of the last two winters has destroyed a fig tree (which has cropped reliably for nearly 20 years) and numerous decorative shrubs of varying vintages. The more tender plants which I grew because we were promised a “Mediterranean” climate stood no chance!
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 8:06 am
the long term well established ice core record the show a warmer, not cooler climate leads to greater snowfall accumulations.
It ain’t necessarily so. It can be cooler at the surface and yet with much increase in precipitation.
How?
Well, when the solar system passes through dense interstellar clouds, the sun get brighter due to getting free fuel, and the Earth gets cloudier at lower altitudes due to more nucleation. So, cold surface, warm mid troposphere, much snow on the ground.
RE: Jeff Alberts @ 7:40 and the opening of the North Cascades Highway
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/winter/passdates.htm
“Openings and Closings” for Chinook, Cayuse, and North Cascades are given in the link above. Note ‘yellow’ highlights.
Chinook Pass opening for 2011 is still in question as of May 27 . . .
“Maintenance crews are close to clearing the summit area and expect to make good progess next week.”
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/traffic/passes/chinook/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_Pass
Coordinates: 46.871868, -121.515722
Near the top of the Pass the Pacific Crest Trail crosses over the road.
Ian W.,
Here in Denver, (not Greenland), our snowiest months are not our coldest. The ice core record is a good proxy for the advancement of glacial periods over the whole hemisphere. Colder climate periods on earth are more dry than warmer periods. When the next glacial period comes, it will not be marked by record snow but cold summers where whatever snow fell does not melt. During the so-called Little Ice Age the ice core data show less accumulation but colder temps. These are basic facts.
Memorial Day weekend (the “official” kick-off to the summer season, lol!) and it’s cold and raining. Here in SLC, UT, it’s barely stopped raining or snowing for 8 months. It’s been a ridiculously wet year, yet the weather channel predicted warmer than average temperatures and dryer than average precipitation. It’s snowing in our mountains and the ski resorts have reported that they will be open until at least July 4th. I have lived here my entire life and have seen warm winters and cold summers, however, I cannot remember a time when a true possibility existed where the mountain snow didn’t melt before the next seasons snow fall began. In recent memory, this seems to be the trend. Im almost wishing for global warming at this point. Im tired of the cold! =)
Ian has made a great point. What the Arctic snow fall does depends on the oceanic and atmospheric systems impinging upon the unique topographical features of the Arctic. Natural short and long term weather pattern variation exists in the Arctic and adequately explains the mechanism behind snow behavior there.
Where you go wrong Gates is to extrapolate Arctic ice core snow depth pattern to lower latitudes. Your extrapolation ignores the existence of a very large pond and its warm/cool oscillations to the West of our coastline, continental topographical land features, on-shore flow of weather pressure systems from the Pacific, and jet stream behavior.
R. Gates, your logic regarding teleconnections between Arctic ice cores and our current snow depth defies a logical explanation for your logic’s existence.
However, you seem insistent that the Arctic ice cores are speaking to you in no uncertain terms. I would like you to post your links to the ice core “certainties” you have stated here. I have linked to a very good source outlining ice core uncertainties. Now cough up.
What is the current situation re global temperature? Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans and the lack of any UHI effect the best indicator of recent trends is the Hadley – CRU Sea Surface Temperature data. The 5 year moving average shows the warming trend peaked in 2003 and and a simple regression analysis from then to the present shows a global cooling trend since then . The current phase of the PDO and the decline in the Solar magnetic field strength suggest his may possibly continue for 20 – 30 years. The warmest year was 1998 -13 years with CO2 up 6.3% and no net warming completely at odds with the IPCC models.
Everyone should have a look at this chart:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
What is shows is snowfall accumulation rates compared to temp from ice cores, which have been shown to be an excellent proxy for hemispheric climates. Besides general warmer temps lining up with greater accumulation, you can spot some individual periods that are very interesting. The much discussed MWP period for example, saw greater accumulations than the Little Ice Age. This seems contradictory if you don’t fully understand the true dynamics of snow accumulation and glacial periods. Getting beyond the talking points is good for your mind…
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 9:27 am
When the next glacial period comes, it will not be marked by record snow but cold summers where whatever snow fell does not melt. During the so-called Little Ice Age the ice core data show less accumulation but colder temps.
=====================
True to form, R continues to spurt forth just enough “knowledge” to get by, such being couched in naive overstatements and generalizations.
Glaciation Epoch = Less snow in Greenland.
Cyclone tracks shoved farther south by strong polar anticyclones.
Duh.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
John F. Hultquist says:
May 29, 2011 at 9:23 am
Wow, must be REALLY warm up there. /sarc
Savesthesharks,
Once more you seem to have a desire to twist what I say to meet some predetermined outcome. Ice core data from Greenland is a good proxy for what happened over the hemisphere during a period of time. During periods of glacial advance less snow falls, but that which does fall doesn’t melt.
For all those who thin that heavy snowfall is a sign of any impending glacial advance, you should recalibrate your thinking, and for those who live downstream from the heavy snowfall area…get some sandbags because June will bring some flooding sorry to say. But look on the bright side…heavy snow and rain is the planet’s long term feedback to cleanse the atmosphere of excess CO2 through rock weathering. All that snow will melt and carry carbon rich sediment that will eventually wind up in the ocean and some of it will become limestone someday, sequestering some CO2.
I saw a small story in the Oregonian this morning
http://tinyurl.com/snoshow
that mentioned,
“The Columbia Basin is bracing for worse conditions as June arrives along with what’s expected to be the runoff from an unusually large snowpack still poised on the Rocky Mountains.”
In searching for more I ran across this. What a hoot. It’s all things related to concocted snow pack loss caused by human climate disruption.
Blah blah blah
http://www.rockymountainclimate.org/website%20pictures/Less%20Snow%20Less%20Water.pdf
“With all that the West has at risk, the region has good reason not only
to do its share to deal with climate disruption, but also to be a leader
in showing the rest of the nation and world what can be done.
Encouragingly, there are growing signs of new western leadership and
action in addressing climate disruption. Much more needs to be done,
but these first steps suggest that Westerners are beginning to choose
a new path to keep the region such a special place.”
“Taken together, these results emphasize that the West’s snow resources are already declining
as Earth’s climate warms. (Philip Mote and others, “Declining
Mountain Snowpack in Western North America”46)”
In the American West, climate disruption is under way
New Findings
For this report, the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization
(RMCO) conducted a new analysis of government temperature
and snowpack records for the upper basins of the
the timing of snowmelt.
Projections of Future Changes
Scientists believe that the changes in climate observed so far are just
a mild foretaste of what is likely to come if global-warming emissions
continue to increase. “
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 10:11 am
Savesthesharks,
Once more you seem to have a desire to twist what I say to meet some predetermined outcome. Ice core data from Greenland is a good proxy for what happened over the hemisphere during a period of time. During periods of glacial advance less snow falls, but that which does fall doesn’t melt.
====================
No. I don’t need to twist what you say. You twist yourself.
Doesn’t the NOAA chart you present is show the snow accumulations AT THE ICE CORE SITE (not global, or “hemipheric”)??
Again…it is common knowledge that glaciation epochs are windier and dustier (and hence drier) from the ice core samples. We all know that during such epochs, climates tend toward the extreme. Duh.
Understanding that snowfall accumulations over Greenland are probably less during glacials is common sense.
Extrapolating those ice core readings, to fit the rest of the globe with respect to snow accumulations, is complete NONsense.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Pamela Gray says:
May 29, 2011 at 8:30 am
“R. Gates, I love that you are certain about what ice cores are saying. It makes my job so much easier.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/reports/trieste2008/ice-cores.pdf ”
Pamela,
Thanks for the ‘backgrounder’ on uncertainties of ice core analyses!
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 9:48 am
Everyone should have a look at this chart:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
The much discussed MWP period for example, saw greater accumulations than the Little Ice Age. … …Getting beyond the talking points is good for your mind…
============================
Well, of COURSE Greenland apparently saw more snow in the MWP than it did in the LIA.
There really is no reason to elaborate on this.
If you can’t get that one…then getting past YOUR talking points, R…may be next to impossible.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 9:48 am
Everyone should have a look at this chart:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
What it also shows is a very suspect temperature calibration.
Here in Denver, (not Greenland), our snowiest months are not our coldest.
Sorry R. Gates, but you say some of the dumbest things. Denver’s snowiest months don’t coincide with the coldest months, not because a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, but because of where the jet stream is located. Buffalo’s snowiest month is also its coldest. Gee, how does that happen?
Ian W says:
May 29, 2011 at 8:49 am
“R. Gates….. Your logic of using polar ice cores to indicate whether it is snowing more in temperate regions when they are warmer is flawed.”
A very good point! Thanks, Ian!
Perhaps Mr. Gates will respond with data/analysis showing a correlation between polar ice core data and temperate regions snowfalls, to support his conjecture?
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 9:48 am
Everyone should have a look at this chart:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
What is shows is snowfall accumulation rates compared to temp from ice cores,
===============================================
It shows from 10,000 years ago to present, temperatures have gone sightly down.
From 10,000 years ago to present, snow accumulation has been going slightly up.
….it shows that as temperatures go down, snow accumulation goes up
But that’s accumulation not snowfall.
Lake Powell is getting ready for a huge snow melt. And very happy about it also. For those that get absorbed in detail, it is worth noting that the outflow from Hoover Dam has been increasing throughout May.
http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/cs/gcd.html
California reservoirs are all filled and in a flood control pattern of operation. Been quite a while for both of these events.
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 8:34 am
“For example, England had record snows this past winter but now is warm and in a drought. ”
Not where I am, it isn’t.
For the record, April and the first week in May were unusually warm and dry, but since then the weather has regressed to cool, damp and windy. Summer has arrived!
It seems some would like to doubt the basic physics of evaporation and even the accuracy of the ice core record, as well as perhaps, the fact that higher CO2 levels correspond to an acceleration of the hydrological cycle (meaning more snow and rain in areas that are prone to them). Ask yourself this: If CO2 didn’t lead to an acceleration of the hydrological cycle (meaing greater rock weathering and the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere) than why would that feedback process exist in the rock carbon cycle? And more interestingly, what would it mean if it did not exist? Some of you may need to read up a bit on the carbon cycle and rock weathering as it pertains to CO2 levels to fully grasp the signficance of this question, but your research will pay off…
Latitude says:
May 29, 2011 at 10:56 am
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 9:48 am
Everyone should have a look at this chart:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
What is shows is snowfall accumulation rates compared to temp from ice cores,
===============================================
It shows from 10,000 years ago to present, temperatures have gone sightly down.
From 10,000 years ago to present, snow accumulation has been going slightly up.
….it shows that as temperatures go down, snow accumulation goes up
But that’s accumulation not snowfall
______
Uh…we are talking about snowfall accumulation, not glacial growth…two very different…very very different things. Think of of this way…during warm periods, it might snow (i.e. accumulate) 15 inches, but all 15 inches melt. During cooler periods, it might snow 13 inches, but only 10 inches melt, thus, we would see three inches of potential glacial growth for the season. This is roughly what the ice core data show us quite clearly happens over very long periods. Perhaps some are confusing accumulation with glacial growth, but they are very different things.
Gotta love R Gates. Present out of context talking points with no credible scientific explanation behind them, and then defend them by calling everyone else’s responses just talking points with no science behind them. Repeatedly says he is 25% skeptic and 75% warmist, yet never takes a skeptic position on anything, seeming to believe that claiming to be part skeptic will lend credence to his warmist talking points.
I can only suggest that he must not be very good at what he is doing. Most warmists who produce talking points ad nauseum with no credible science behind them seem to have degrees, grant money, movies, books and all sorts of revenue streams in return for their talking points.
Still waiting for a link to peer reviewed studies dealing with “certanties” in ice core measures. I showed you mine, now show me yours.
Jeff Alberts says:
May 29, 2011 at 7:40 am
The North Cascades Highway in Western Washington remained closed more than a month later than “normal”, due to incredibly heavy snow and avalanches. I’ve heard reports that snow was as high as 75 feet in some places.
==================
Awesome pics, thanks.
davidmhoffer says:
May 29, 2011 at 12:02 pm
“Gotta love R Gates.”
_____
You can just stop there.
No? Darn. Well, the truth is that you need to define your terms a bit better. I find few skeptics willing to admit that the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700’s could have any effect on the climate at all, and yet I freely maintain that there are multiple influences on climate…from Milankovitch cycles, to solar, and even microbiological. So, yes, I am a warmist, in the sense that I think it is more likely than not that the 40% rise in CO2 and related feedback effects are affecting the earth’s climate, but I’m also a skeptic in that if someone presented paper tomorrow showing that it has be pretty much all GCR’s, Milankovitch, solar irradiance, volcanoes, geomagnetic, and CO2 has been along for the ride as an effect, rather than a cause, it wouldn’t completely shock me. I actually think, for example, that there lot’s more to the GCR/climate relationship than I did just a few months ago (and I was pretty keen on it then). But I see no reason to think that increasing the noncondensing GH gas CO2 by 40% might not have some effect on the climate as well…
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 11:53 am
Uh…we are talking about snowfall accumulation, not glacial growth
==================================================
Gates, a lot of times I don’t know why you say what you say.
I did not say a thing about glacial growth.
You said that the chart you posted showed as temperatures go up, snow accumulation goes up. That is not true if you are using the chart you posted to show that.
The chart you posted shows that temperatures have been going slightly down for the past 10,000 years and that snow accumulation has been going slightly up for the past 10,000 years.
=======================================================
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 9:48 am
Everyone should have a look at this chart:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
What is shows is snowfall accumulation rates compared to temp from ice cores, which have been shown to be an excellent proxy for hemispheric climates. Besides general warmer temps lining up with greater accumulation
=======================================================
The chart you posted does “not” show that general warmer temps lining up with greater accumulation.
The chart shows that as temperatures have gone down, accumulation has gone up.
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 12:21 pm
I find few skeptics willing to admit that the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700′s could have any effect on the climate at all
======================================================
From 1700-1800 the temperature graphs/charts show a steeper slope (faster rise in temperature), than the next period of temperature rise from 1900-2000.
Since the rise in temperatures that could be attributed to CO2 is slower than the rise in temperatures that could not be attributed to CO2 (which would be considered natural rise in temperature)…..
…how much is CO2 really contributing to the slower temperature rise?
R. Gates,
How much of that 40% rise is due to warming, in your opinion? You said it wouldn’t shock you if all of it was just an effect of warming.
Am I correct in my assumption that Gates pointed to ice core certainties to explain our huge amount of snow pack in our local mountains (it’s warmer, therefore we have lots of snow, because the ice cores tell us this).
The biggest leap (of faith because there still hasn’t been a reference or body of work cited) is to say that there is a teleconnection between ice core layers and temperature in one area (ice cores from the Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland, China, etc), and snow amount and temperature in other places (like what I see out my kitchen window, showing boatloads of snow).
However, I’m still waiting for a link to ice core “certanties”. Then I will be asking for the link demonstrating that ice cores tell us that if it is warm with lots of snow in one area, it can predict warm and lots of snow in another area.
While I’m waiting for those links, I need to stoke up the fire. All this warmer weather and snow accumulation has put a chill in my bones.
Here just east of Yosemite, it is 38F and snowing right now. 5 inches of fresh snow over in Mammoth Lakes. The high country has not even started to melt. Take a look at the snowpack:
http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp013390.pdf
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 5:38 am
R.Gates as usual you have no idea what you are talking about. What you say may hold true for extreme N and S latitudes from whence these ice cores originate, but not for mid latitudes, and certainly not for California. Take a look at the picture above. That’s California.
According to the NCDC our winters are cooling at 1F per decade, our springs are cooling at 2F per decade, and the lovely month of May is cooling here in California at 3.7>F per decade. Winters are getting wetter at the rate of over 1 inch of water per decade. Only 2 winters in the last 10 have even been below average.
In Greenland, yes. What does the NCDC/NOAA chart have to say about the Rockies?
Let me venture a WAG on that – Diddly Squat!
R. Gates says: “As noted many times here on WUWT, greater snowfall and rainfall are generally associated with warmer, not cooler climates….”
And, as noted many times here on WUWT, you’re speaking nonsense. If warmer climates are associated with greater snowfall, how come there are so few ski resorts in Panama and the Philippines?
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 12:21 pm
I find few skeptics willing to admit that the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700′s could have any effect on the climate at all, and yet I freely maintain that there are multiple influences on climate…from Milankovitch cycles, to solar, and even microbiological.
What happened to the lagtime that is so apparent in the Ice Cores?
I’ll admit you excel at getting the cart in front of the horse.
The Ice Cores indicate (if they indicate anything at all about CO2 and Warming) that warming and cooling are the horses that pull the CO2 cart, not the other way around.
Looks like Ely Nevada and White Pine County in general there, is going to have a “White Memorial Day.”:
“… Winter Storm Warning for heavy snow in effect until 11 PM PDT
this evening… The National Weather Service in Elko has issued a Winter Storm
Warning for heavy snow… which is in effect until 11 PM PDT this
evening. The Winter Weather Advisory is no longer in effect. * Snow accumulations: 4 to 8 inches below 7000 feet with locally higher amounts possible… the Schell creek mountains and Great Basin National Park could receive over a foot of new snow.”
All that extra CO2 must be up on the Trinity Alps that I see every day, because snow was stuck to trees all week long. In the last week of May, mind you.
Nobody was out here in California in 1816, but we might be joining the NE in a year without a summer.
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 9:27 am
Ian W.,
Here in Denver, (not Greenland), our snowiest months are not our coldest. The ice core record is a good proxy for the advancement of glacial periods over the whole hemisphere. Colder climate periods on earth are more dry than warmer periods. When the next glacial period comes, it will not be marked by record snow but cold summers where whatever snow fell does not melt. During the so-called Little Ice Age the ice core data show less accumulation but colder temps. These are basic facts.
Where do these glaciers come from then? It is snow falling and building up that causes glaciers. No snow no glaciers.
Did we not just read an article pointing out that Greenland glacial ice retreat was a result of snow being at a 10% historical deficit? Are these gents aware that snowfall is a positive indicator of AGW?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/25/filling-lake-erie-one-headline-at-a-time/
Because they came to the opposite conclusion. (And are still trying to obfuscate around that pesky glacier that increased its mass).
This whole dialog with Gates and the silly minutae is maddening!
All it proves is how little we actually KNOW. We have accumulated mucho data, but we are generations away from being able to synthesize it, if ever.
We will never KNOW what the impact of CO2 contributed by humans will be or is at any given time.
Most likey, the major climate developments will be driven by “Black Swan” events (Toba, meteor, celestial happenings, etc.) that will so greatly outweigh human impact that is frankly hardly worth talking about except to continue to advance scientific understanding for the purpose of advancing human engineering to make humans more resilient to natural phenomena.
Socratic Maxim: Knowledge of one’s ignorance is the beginning of wisdom.
The climate system and universe are so chaotic as to be entirely beyond the realm of humans to ever make meaningful predictions about the long-term future… a few days, weeks, months or years is the best we will ever do, and so far we are at the “few days” level of meaningful predictive capability.
So can we just admit that none of us know squat in the big picture?
The problem with Gates is that, while professing an open mind, is suggesting we are moving in on knowing the unknowable. This open mind to future developments is really only useful in the context of extreme humility in what we will ever know.
It is really juvenile to keep talking about what ice cores mean, because no one is close to knowing what they possibly mean for the long-term future. It is most likely that they are completely irrelevant because they will never provide us with actionable information.
Gates, in a non-ad hominem way, is a fool for not knowing what he can’t know.
I don’t care about the impact of CO2 because it is such a small component of the total inputs, most of which are completely beyond our knowledge and certainly beyond our control, as to be irrelevant in the scheme of truly long-term events in the climate and solar system and the well-being (or lack thereof) of mankind.
Engineering is our only hope, if we have one, which we don’t know. But we are genetically endowed with belief in our own future and the future of our kind. Hence we will always try.
Mr Gates: Wisen up!
This whole debate centres around greenhouse gases. You only need a “greenhouse gas” theory to explain why the earth is 33 defrees warmer than the “maximum” blackbody temperature they calculate.
Have you seen the way the IPCC calculate it ?
Kiehl & Trenberth – “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget ”
“Here we assume a “solar constant” of 1367 W m-2 (Hartmann 1994), and because the incoming solar radiation is one-quarter of this, that is, 342 W m-2, a planetary albedo of 31% is implied.”
Wow – did you see that ? Missed it ?
Well think about it – why do they reduce incoming solar radiation to one quarter of the “solar constant” BEFORE applying the albedo to calculate Earth’s blackbody temperature.
Because if they don’t there is no temperature anomaly to explain by “greenhouse gases” – in fact what needs explaining is why is it so cold ?
Interesting argument isn’t it – the “greenhouse theory” in reverse if you like.
The foundation stone of their analysis is flawed – simple Physics as discussed by Dr D Sweger blows their hypothesis out of the water – and water is what saves us from the seeming paradox of why it is so cold not too hot and heating.
R. Gates says: “As noted many times here on WUWT, greater snowfall and rainfall are generally associated with warmer, not cooler climates….”
====================================================
temperatures go up:
http://www.mountaineers.org/nwmj/images/071/071_Glaciers_AT_ChartLg.gif
snowfall goes down:
http://www.mountaineers.org/nwmj/images/071/071_Glaciers_SWE_ChartLg.gif
Human well-being = resistance to chaos (entropy) = order (proportional to energy input)
Therefore, human well-being is directly proportional to the amount of non human energy we can harness to order our surroundings.
There is, for all intents and purposes, infinite energy in our system relative to the plausible human population. Therefore, the imperfection of energy, matter, order exchanges (ineluctable increase in entropy) is not really relevant to the ability to indefinitely increase the order in our immediate systems so as to be better able to resist the forces of chaos that are responsible for our individual and collective demises.
Get it? It is self-defeating not to use all the stored energy, and incoming energy, to order our systems to the maximum extent possible. CO2 is a tiny by-product (in the same way that the infitesimal increase in entropy is) in the scheme human well-being.
I sure wish some people would get some perspective on this. It is much more important to monitor our morals and decency than it is our use of fossil fuels. The danger from succumbing to nihilism (the origin of the CAGW falsity) is billions of times more dangerous than CO2 emissions. What little we know, we know that!
Of coarse, it is just weather, but I can not find anyone in the Mammoth/Mono Lake area that has been so increasing late in the snow season. I have been up all weekend watching the snow fall and trying to figure out when to BBQ. No one here can recall this weather behavior (both May and April). Maybe more AGW can bring more water to the Death Valley area (It must be consistent to “The Theory” as rbateman and others may have it, more heat, more precipitation.). MORE CO2! This is an awesome batch of oxymorons.
R Gates: Has anyone besides me ever told you that you are full of [snip]? What? You don’t keep score.
Marc says:
May 29, 2011 at 3:33 pm
I sure wish some people would get some perspective on this.
====================================================
Exactly right…………
We’re talking about 1/2 of a degree, and almost all of that occurred between 1700 and 1800.
“muckdog says:
May 29, 2011 at 12:44 am”
While Camping is indeed out there he doesn’t have the potential to harm the economy the way Gore and his ilk do.
Having considered many, if not most, of your posts over the last few months – and the responses to them – may I politely suggest that your above post could best be summarized as: “Corvus corvo nigredinem objicit”?
The only thing deeper than the snow is global warming b.s. And it’s shovel ready! (yes, that kind of shoveling)
;O)
Last night ll the local (LA) weather forecasters mentioned ‘February’ weather in late May, but none dared bring up the idea of its rarity, less alone how incompatible it is with the AGW religion.
As the Little Ice Age strengthens, look for such winter storms to become the So-Cal norm for May and even June.
Then look for the warmists to double down on their shrill alarmism as their re-adjusted models blame it on CO2.
“R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 10:11 am
But look on the bright side…heavy snow and rain is the planet’s long term feedback to cleanse the atmosphere of excess CO2 through rock weathering. All that snow will melt and carry carbon rich sediment that will eventually wind up in the ocean and some of it will become limestone someday, sequestering some CO2.”
As someone who has a passing knowledge of chemistry I decided to try and think through this statement. So here goes.
1. Does some amount of carbon dioxide dissolve into liquid water in the atmosphere? Yes. Some of it will even be converted to CO3(2-) based on principles of chemical equilibrium
2. Can that be carried to the to the earth while dissolved in snow/rain? Yes
3. Can that be involved in the processes of chemical and physical weathering of rocks?
Yes. But given that it is the chemical weathering of the rocks that is of interest we would already be forming carbonate sediments prior to them be washed into the ocean. And some of that weathering would be occurring to carbonate sediments reversing the equilibrium and freeing CO2 into the atmosphere. Also rock weathering by rain is an accidental by-product not a cause (maybe I am just in a foul mood and misinterpreting what you mean).
4. Is this a feedback mechanism of the atmosphere to cleanse CO2? The only thing I see going on is that the laws of chemical equilibrium and physical and chemical solubility are being followed. That will happen as regardless of the state of the atmosphere. So attributing it to a feedback state is a stretch as I see it. If you define a feedback as what I talked about then fine it is a feedback.
Current warming trends according to four main temperature series:
HADCRUT3: 0.22C per decade
GISTEMP: 0.19C per decade
UAH: 0.19C per decade
RSS: 0.24C per decade
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/offset:-1365.2/scale:0.5/to:2006/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1986/to:2006/mean:60/plot/gistemp/from:1986/to:2006/mean:60/plot/uah/from:1986/to:2006/mean:60/plot/rss/from:1986/to:2006/mean:60/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1986/to:2006/mean:60/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1986/to:2006/mean:60/trend/plot/uah/from:1986/to:2006/mean:60/trend/plot/rss/from:1986/to:2006/mean:60/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:132
Including the exceptionally long and deep solar minimum of recent years gives a slightly misleading cool bias to three of the four trends –
HADCRUT3: 0.19C per decade
GISTEMP: 0.2C per decade
UAH: 0.18C per decade
RSS: 0.18C per decade
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/offset:-1365.2/scale:0.5/to:2011/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1986/to:2011/mean:60/plot/gistemp/from:1986/to:2011/mean:60/plot/uah/from:1986/to:2011/mean:60/plot/rss/from:1986/to:2011/mean:60/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1986/to:2011/mean:60/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1986/to:2011/mean:60/trend/plot/uah/from:1986/to:2011/mean:60/trend/plot/rss/from:1986/to:2011/mean:60/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:132
Unfortunately global warming is showing no sign of any deviation from its accelerating trend –
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/GISTEMP-with-trendline-v2-39958758927.jpeg
We’re on course for exceeding 2C of warming by 2050, and possibly by a large amount as land and ocean carbon sinks become sources in the next few decades, and ice albedo declines (it appears that the Arctic ocean will be essentially ice-free in September by 2015, give or take a year or two).
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/GISS-C21-projections-46692507757.jpeg
It looks likely that we will be left with no alternative to massive carbon sequestration and albedo restoration efforts, as well as reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions essentially to zero, if we are to have any chance of averting many degrees of warming by the end of the century.
Pilkington Bros developed a low iron glass, followed by other companies such as Guardian.
This is a whiter glass, not having the green tinge that earlier glass did. The theory is that it lets more SW light in to a house but, with low E coatings lets less IR out.
A few problems.
1) The silica required is found in very few places, one being Spain.
2) The temperatures required to melt the silica & form the glass is about 1000°C higher than to make normal glass
3) More layers of glazing have more effect than low Iron glass + low E coating
3 suggests that conduction is a bigger loss than radiation, 1 & 2 mean wasting energy to no real effect
DaveE.
Oh yes, the real point.
Multi-layer glazing has a very distinct point. 20mm seems to be the optimum gap but why?
Up to 20mm losses are minimised, thereafter convection starts to play a rôle and losses increase!
Who’da thunk that?
Conduction & convection are the major players, radiation, not so much.
DaveE.
Damn! Didn’t close the bold properly. Can a kindly mod fix that please? Thanks in advance. 🙂
DaveE.
[It wasn’t you, it was a WordPress glitch. Fixed. ~dbs, mod.]
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 11:44 am
…..”Some of you may need to read up a bit on the carbon cycle and rock weathering as it pertains to CO2 levels to fully grasp the signficance of this question, but your research will pay off…”
==
I agree, let’s send all our elected officials back to school on the subject.
Maybe even take them on a “field trip”, and show them a rock.
Water absorbs approximately 2400 joules per gram to evaporate. So when the sun heats the tropics – I think you’d have to agree this region is the area where solar radiation is a maximum – it is hitting mostly water – the land mass is far less than the ocean in the tropics.
So water evaporates, taking some 2400 joulses per gram with it and rising in the atmosphere. Some energy is also absorbed by the sea surface setting the currents in motion.
The atmospheric currents caused by the thermals rising carry the energy laden water vapour to the cooler regions of the earth. The energy is released when the water vapour condenses in the upper atmosphere and radiates into the surrounding air and ultimately into space.
Water vapour is 2 % of the atmosphere.
Contrast that energy transmission capability with CO2 which is a gas at all ambient temperatures.
CO2 has a specific heat of about 1 joule per gram. It currently constitutes less than 0.04 % of the atmosphere. For 1 gram of CO2 to transport the same amount of energy it would have to be superheated to some 2400 C – I think we might notice that !
R Gates;
I can stop right there? Really? Are you giving me permission to stop or telling me to stop? Have you been appointed the keeper of the rules for online debate? Or just for Anthony’s blog?
1. Your explanation re snow accumulation vs melting is confusing to the point that I can’t tell if what you said is right or wrong. Snow accumulation can exceed snow melt in warmer than normal years and in cooler than normal years. The opposite is also true. The number of factors that go into if that happens or not, and what is cause and what is effect would be miles long. You can’t just draw simple conclusions from any given year or years without understanding all the other factors.
2. You claim that if someone published a paper showing that the bulk of the warming was due to other factors, you would accept it. I long since lost track of the number of papers that show the warming we’ve seen in the last 100 years is well within natural variability. Each of which you have poo poo’d.
3. You repeatedly point out that the recent years have been the warmest on record. You’ve been hanging around this blog long enough to know that the earth has been in a warming trend for the last several hundred years. It started long before co2 emissions became significant, and EVERY decade would have been the warmest on record up until that decade had we records going back that far. If we had records going back even further, we would have records both colder and warmer than we have now, and multiple times, and no human factors to have caused them, and well beyond the variability we’ve seen since we started shooting up the atmosphere with CO2.
4. I never said that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% would have no effect. I said the effects of CO2 are logarithmic which is why the IPCC et all keep quoting the effects of CO2 “doubling”. Do you understand at all what that implies? It means that if going from 280 ppm (the supposed natural baseline) to 560 ppm (double) results in a one degree C rise in temperature, then to get a 2 degree rise in temperature would require 1,120 ppm. At our peak fossil fuel consumption ever, that would require another 500 years at full bore to achieve. 3 degrees would require 2,240 ppm and would require several millenium to achieve. Which is why all the arm waving and hand wringing about the effects of CO2 are bogus. Whatever the number is (and observational evidence suggests it is a lot less than 1 degree per doubling) almost all the effect that increased CO2 can have on temperature has already been put in place by the 40% increase so far. More is increasingly less significant on temperature, and FAR more beneficial for the biosphere as a whole. Why we would curtail something that can’t do very much more to temperatures than it already has, hasn’t pushed the climate anywhere near beyond natural variability, and has major benefits in regard to everything from quality of living to the abundance of food is beyond me.
As are your petty arguments.
In reply to Icarus:
Icarus says:
May 29, 2011 at 8:34 am
tallbloke: What’s remarkable is that the world has still been warming even during the deepest and longest solar minimum for 100 years –
Icarus the 20th century warming was caused by reduction in low level clouds. Check out the current topic at Real Climate.
The reduction in low level clouds was caused by solar wind bursts that create a charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions by the process called electroscavenging. (Brian Tinsley’s attached review paper for details.)
We will fortunately or unfortunately have a chance to see which scientific hypothesis is correct. The sun is rapidly moving to Dalton or Maunder minimum. There are cycles of warming and cooling of the planet that correlate with changes in cosmogenic isotopes that are modulated by the changes in the solar heliosphere. The solar magnetic cycle was at its highest level in 10,000 years during the later half of the 20th century.
Based on the paleo climatic record the planet will now cool.
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov
We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.
In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.
See section 5a) Modulation of the global circuit in this review paper, by solar wind burst and the process electroscavenging where by increases in the global electric circuit remove cloud forming ions.
The same review paper summarizes the data that does show correlation between low level clouds and GCR.
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
Icarus,
Of course! Accelerating…except for that pesky cooling bias.
Now I feel better about the Cubs. Champions I say! (Except for that pesky recent losing bias.)
And I note that all of your “non-biased” data that purport to show accelerating are from GISS. Amazing how that works. One out of four datasets shows what you want, and that’s the “non-biased” one.
Icarus says:
May 29, 2011 at 5:34 pm
It looks likely that we will be left with no alternative to massive carbon sequestration and albedo restoration efforts, as well as reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions essentially to zero, if we are to have any chance of averting many degrees of warming by the end of the century.
=========================================================
The preceding public service announcement was brought to you by Rosetta Stone….
….Rosetta Stone® Version 4 TOTALe™ is the fastest way to learn Chinese.
Interstellar Bill said: “Last night the local (LA) weather forecasters mentioned ‘February’ weather in late May, but none dared bring up the idea of its rarity, less alone how incompatible it is with the AGW religion.”
Actually this weather pattern is pretty normal for late May in southern and central California. The short cold and snowy blast usually signals the ‘last gasp’ for the winter weather pattern. As a weekend warrior, Memorial Day weekend is usually our first chance to ‘get out’ for a long weekend and we do it almost every year (though not this year for me). Last year it dropped into the 20’s in the mountains of coastal Ventura County. Three years ago it snowed then dropped into the low teens in the mountains east of Bishop, CA (the lowest temp in the conus that day was 8F at S. Lake Tahoe). In the 90’s, we got snowed in in the southern Sierra for a day. For me this just means it’s time to get ready for the inevitable three months of summer bake here in So Cal.
As for the TV weather ‘forecasters’ (and all the other news folk) here in LALA land, I don’t even think they realize their bias. They just don’t know any different. They’re just talking heads regurgitating the AGW party line fed to them by their editors.
If this summer is the same as the last two summers, not a lot of that high snowpack will melt. Last summer I had to wear a light jacket when mowing my lawn, in August.
I meant to say in the PNW…
An acceleration is an acceleration, no matter the direction the vector alters in. It is a change in velocity over time. One can claim acceleration in a car that is speeding up, slowing down, or turning.
One can as easily say that global warming is accelerating even as the vector increases, or decreases. It is only not accelerating if it remains unchanged in its direction, and its speed. The default state is an acceleration, which leaves it an accurate, but misleading term in common understanding.
….and cats and dogs living together…
John M says:
May 29, 2011 at 6:09 pm
“Now I feel better about the Cubs. Champions I say! (Except for that pesky recent losing bias.)”
John, as I’m a Cubs observer (not a fan), that is the funniest thing I’ve read in a while!
I should note that the 2003 “Steve Bartman incident” has its own entry in wikipedia…
F. Ross says:
May 29, 2011 at 4:38 pm
“R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 8:20 am
…
Everything is interesting to me, except those who regurgitate talking points without thinking for themselves.
… ”
Having considered many, if not most, of your posts over the last few months – and the responses to them – may I politely suggest that your above post could best be summarized as: “Corvus corvo nigredinem objicit”?
===========================
Yeah. No kidding! Latin prototype for the “pot calling the kettle black.”
Besides that being 100% true, notice when things start to heat is turned up, R Gates always….ALWAYS….flees the kitchen because he can’t take it!
This is a pattern that happens over and over and over again.
And over and over and over. LOL Like a slippery, spineless eel through the fishing net.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Icarus says . . . “we will be left with no alternative”
At that point, I think, Icarus lists several steps or alternatives that might “. . . avert many degrees of warming . . .”
So, if the meaning is what I think it is then my response as to those alternatives is: Not in my lifetime. With luck that will be another 20 years. I do not see the technology or the willingness of developed civilizations to return to the pre-fire/pre-stone age. With exceptional luck I might still be here 30 years from now. Your alternatives are still not possible in that time frame – if ever.
Pick your sequestration method. Pick your albedo restoration technique. Pick an energy plan that gets you to zero gaseous emissions. Establish all the numbers you need, then do the arithmetic. No magic allowed.
Well, Gates. It think you have been totally and absolutely debunked. The fact that you continue to make the same claims only proves you are stubborn.
So it is necessary, but unfortunately probably won’t be effective, to repeat what another poster said. When I say that there has been no increase in temperature since 1998 what is important is the trend. We are after all talking about climate CHANGE. In what way is pointing this out a sound bite?
Icarus;
Nice cherry picking bub. Let’s put all those graphs in proper context, using the same sources of data. Let’s do a simple comparison of the 90 years post industrial age (1920 to now) in which CO2 emissions became significant, and the 90 years before.
Temp rise over 90 years before CO2 emissions were significant: 0.5 degrees
Temp rise over 90 years after CO2 emissions were significant: 0.6 degrees
If we were to attribute 100% of the difference to CO2 emissions, that’s 0.1 degrees over the last 90 years. Just as smidge over .01 degrees per decade due to CO2, all other factors being equal.
If you extend all the way back to the end of the LIA, you get about the same number. We’ve been in a long warming trend that is absolutely natural, and not a darn thing we can do about it, and the CO2 is at best…insignificant.
Sequester all you want. Just use your own money, not mine.
William says:
May 29, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Nice papers, thanks for the links.
“the long term well established ice core record the show a warmer, not cooler climate leads to greater snowfall accumulations”
I always understood this to be true, to some extent, because there is more moisture when it’s warmer and it’s dryer when it’s very cold.
It certainly seems to be true here in the Denver area. We’re already a semi-arid place and when we get those below-zero temps, we rarely have any snow, there’s just no moisture. In fact, we get most of our snow in Oct and March, when it’s warmer.
Thankfully, La Nina seems to be ending, we finally had some good rain this month. It’s actually be a very cool and wet May with double the average rainfall. Although Memorial Day has frequently meant 90-degree temps, it will be 61 and windy tomorrow, but finally into the 70s and low 80s the rest of the week.
That 91-inch base at A-Basin as reported above? I talked to someone at a graduation party today that said it’s 91 inches of slush. There are diehard skiers that don’t care though.
Overall, it all falls within the range of normal. My greatest concern is that we escape any hail before my son’s graduation party in 2 weeks 🙂
The Total Idiot says:
May 29, 2011 at 6:53 pm
In the PNW, from which regional climate is drawn from the N. Pacific, that climate acceleration got vectored to cold. Being that the rest of the US is downstream from us, this region is a vital vectoring factor. We don’t bogart our climate, we share it.
I’m glad to see my comments have been met with such warmth here on my favorite blog and I you don’t think I’d run away from such insightful responses. I did spend some time with the family on this delightful Memorial Day weekend…hope you all did the same and hope you’re all flying Old Glory proudly in your front yard.
Now then, a few things that seem to be in dispute or unclear to some, but are key to understanding why heavy snows are not indicative of approaching glacial advances, and also why the carbon cycle and the hydrological cycle are so closely related and the connection is CO2 in the atmosphere which acts as the master thermostat.
First, some here actually paid attention to the link I provided that showed a greater accumulation of snow during the MWP versus the so-called Little Ice Age. The cool climate of the LIA, which some would think we’re headed for based on the lethargic sun, was not a period of generally huge snowfalls, but of more cold and dry conditions. Yes, of course there was snow, but that was not the main feature…which was the cold. Ironically, during the MWP, as the Vikings were enjoying the mild weather, if they’d been able to measure snowfall accumulation amounts in fine detail, they’d have noticed them increasing as Greenland warmed. Of course, even though the snowfall accumulation was greater (note: please don’t confuse accumulation, which covers one season, with glacial growth, which spans across seasons) all the snow that did fall in winter would melt, at least along the coasts of Greenland, and so there was no glacial growth. Some of you have questioned the accuracy of the ice core records or the fact that there is some controversy about some of the data. The isotope data used for determining snowfall amounts and general temperature is not in dispute. You can quickly google this yourself and read all about snowfall accumulation and ice core isotope data. The bottom lone here is- every time I see AGW skeptics pointing to record snowfall accumulation as a sign that global warming is not happening or of a pending glacial advance, I simply see ignorance about what the longer term history of the ice cores tell us or how in fact glacial periods actually proceed.
In regards to the carbon cycle and the role of CO2 acting as the master thermostat of the planet via the hydrological cycle, the story is quite an interesting one, but the essence of it is this- CO2 acts via a negative feedback process to keep the earth from getting to cold or to hot. That negative feedback process is only possible because of the non condensing nature of CO2. Here’s how it works. When the planets begins to warm essence a bit through whatever forcing, let’s say for sake of argument Milankovitch forcing, the oceans will naturally outgas CO2 and of course more water vapor as well. This of course leads to even more warming and more outgassing and so you get a positive feedback process occurring where a little change at first can lead to even bigger changes over the long term. This, by the way, goes a long way to explaining why big increases in CO2 often lag initial warming in the ice core data. But let’s get back to the hydrological cycle. Eventually, as CO2 reaches some threshold, the hydrological cycle begins to accelerate as there is also lot more water vapor in the atmosphere. Heavy rainfall and snowfall events increase and it is the increased weathering of rock that begins to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and puts an stop to what might otherwise become a runaway GH event. To understand the basic chemistry of CO2 absorption and rock weathering in the hydrological cycle see:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890496003111
Normally, a forcing such as from a warming period of a Milankovitch cycle would slowly raise temperatures enough to gradually begin the outgassing of CO2 from the oceans. This process would be very slow and the though there would be some positive feedback at first from the outgassing, eventually the negative feedback from the increased hydrological cycle would be stronger and thus we see the well known up and down fluctuation of CO2 as shown in the ice cores over the past 800,000 years. This all is the way it’s been until humans found the means to release far more CO2 and far more quickly than the earth has seen in those 800,ooo years. The real question, at least in my mind, is how sensitive is the earth’s climate to this rather large belch of CO2? And how might the natural negative feedback process of the hydrological cycle respond to this belch of CO2, especially considering that the belch is continuing, and that the rock weathering process as a means to reduce CO2 is far too slow to keep up with the rate at which CO2 is increasing.
Indeed Whistler/Blackcomb has had the second most snow in a season since they kept records.
But it’s only weather trivia really, however when climate alarmists a few years ago said that ski resorts will have to close you have to point these things out.
If more warming means more snow, why were we bombarded for years and years and years with the threat of all the ice melting and sea levels rising to flood cities and islands disappearing and polar bears dying?!
There really is an extraordinary disjunct in thinking to go from this to claiming more warming means more snow.
Marc,
I put no boundaries on what humans can know and even can control. I think one day we will understand the climate more thoroughly than even the most optimistic person might believe possible today. Why one part the universe wishes to understand itself is one of the mysteries of our existence, but yes, climate science will advance and some day future generations will probably look back to the climate debates of today and chuckle at the foolishness, arrogance, and ignorance of both sides.
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Are you seriously trying to tell us that snowfall and temperatures are inversely related? So ice ages are warm periods, and interglacials are colder?
There are limited situations in which warmer temperatures cause atmospheric moisture leading to snowfall. But snow needs cold temperatures. Can you outline for all of us the mechanism by which snow forms at warm temperatures above zero C?
I guess you forgot to add to your explanations the physics behind how the white color of snow actually decreases, rather than increases, planetary albedo.
Last time I looked, there seemed to be relatively little snow around the equator while most of the snow appeared paradoxically at the poles with the lowest temperatures. Odd – these must be unreliable non peer reviewed sources of information. Now of course we know that it’s the other way around- Africa is permanently snow-bound while Antarctica is taking bookings for beach holidays.
Anyway I guess its whatever it takes to keep the CAGW show on the road.
The problem is that Warmists used to blame the lack of snowpack / extent on ………………………global warming. Please show me where you have ever set them straight that the lack of snow was due to a ‘cooler’ climate????
Please reply to this question as I am interesed in your answer.
R. Gates, I really am interested to learn here. What were snow conditions or lack thereof outside of the ice core areas? Did these areas (presumably lacking ice core data) get more or less snow during the warmer climates of the past? Anyone?
“When”? Are you stating that even if we continue spewing out man-made greenhouse gases it won’t be enough to stop the next glaciation? No runaway Venus style warming? Is this your position? Please clarify and I do acknowledge that you are 25% sceptical of AGW.
If you’re wondering where the heat has gone, it’s all here: in New Zealand. Just had the warmest May on record, which came on the back of an exceptionally warm April and a long, golden summer that lasted into March.
Blooming lovely it is. And our power bills are tiny.
Sadly for our friends across the Tasman, it has been the opposite in Australia.
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 11:02 pm
First, some here actually paid attention to the link I provided that showed a greater accumulation of snow during the MWP versus the so-called Little Ice Age.
Cherry picker.
Time and again, I keep reminding you that there are four (4) states to climate, not two (2). Just because you have two instances of climate which fit your idea does not mean that cold is dry and warm is wet. Nature is far more capable than you imagine, and your notion is contradicted by data.
This thread is NOT about CO2 rates or belching.
It is about the catastrophic failure of AGW theories to explain what has happened in the real world. The Pacific Northwest is both colder and wetter the past 2 years.
But, there’s more to it than that.
The El Nino should have put more snow down than the La Nina, if we are to believe your warm=wet, cold=dry claim.
In the real world, Nature is stranger than fiction.
Nature rained on that parade, shifting gears and leaving poor AGW stuck in the mud.
Edim says:
May 29, 2011 at 12:22 am
The cooling is getting more and more difficult to deny.
Of course. April months in Holland, ranking since 1706:
1. 2011
2. 2007
3. 2009.
Hottest, of course.
It snows somewhere, thus disproving global warming? How about global snow cover, Anthony?
It’s important for balanced reporting to understand that, just as the Western USA has this huge snowpack, that Europe has had the warmest spring in decades. 32C in Switzerland in April! Drought in France and Germany causing damage to major crops. Drought in SE England too.
Over here, the warmers are playing on the European story.
You are playing on the US story.
The truth is that climatic variations a long way from the mean are currently present, both warmer and drier as well as cooler and wetter.
It takes a fine, honest and analytical judge to determine what that actually means in terms of ‘climate change’……..
Logic:
Premise #1. The best and the worst that additions of CO2 can cause are short and long term weather pattern parameter change (making cold fronts warmer and warm fronts warmer). CO2 cannot directly produce warm air, snow, rain or drought, only weather pattern parameter change can do that.
Premise #2. The mechanism behind CO2’s affects is not strong enough to out-perform, negate, or reverse contradictory weather pattern parameters (not enough energy produced compared to that found in natural variability), but it has been hypothesized that it can produce worsening of weather pattern parameters that would trend in the same direction (the warm fronts are getting worse).
Premise #3. Logically, the only thing you can say about the power of CO2 is that it can only have secondary affects, and only when conditions are favorable to it, not contradictory to it. Warm fronts must then be the place to look for weather parameter change as a result of increased CO2.
Premise #4. Since it is hypothesized that CO2 must cause increased warming in warm air over land temperatures (and to a far, far, far greater degree than it would cause on ocean surface water temperatures), we should see warm front weather pattern parameter change over land masses that slopes with the CO2 measure. Alas we are not seeing that. There has been no change in warm front parameters that are worse than what could be entirely explained by natural drivers. And, as I alluded to earlier, its possible mitigation affects on cold fronts cannot currently be extrapolated from natural variability.
Logic’s Conclusion: Gates, your only recourse is to state that the heavy snow and colder air is related to a natural weather pattern parameter that has out performed CO2’s ability to impose on it. Which logically leads to the only conclusion you can make. CO2’s affects are buried in natural weather parameter variability. So far, it has not been shown capable of making favorable parameters significantly worse (warm fronts are not warmer and storms related to the clash between weather pressure systems are not getting worse), and cannot overpower energy available in natural weather pattern systems to lessen unfavorable parameters beyond the confines of natural variability.
Gates, I would suggest an area of inquiry: look into the possibility of decreasing cold records, and increasing warm records to determine whether or not you have a weather leg to stand on (based on logic, CO2 must affect weather parameters, if it does not demonstrate this, the argument must end).
We are seeing a spate of cold records being made. I wonder what the trends are in terms of these temperature records over the same time period that CO2 has been increasing? (I know what they are so my wonderment is for the sake of the conversation and possible enlightenment continuing).
Don’t make the following error: If you were to say that CO2 will have an affect on the average but not on the extremes, logically you will have proven my point and scored one for the opposing team. A change in average without affecting extremes proves that CO2 affects are confined within natural variability and can safely be ignored.
http://www.weather.gov/climate/getclimate.php?wfo=pdt
…if I can get the link to work
http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=pdt
CO2 Fear is a mental problem.
Anything is possible says:
May 29, 2011 at 11:42 am
____
Quite so…we had our ‘summer’ back in April. It has rained all day here in the Cotswolds and is cold (11C at gone 1pm when we went out in the car). My other half is now lighting the stove. My hands are cold as I type.
Rhys Jaggar says:
May 30, 2011 at 6:21 am
__
It is cold here in southern England, and now wet.
We’re due to drive through Tioga Pass on 28th June. What are the odds it will be open on that date?
This means more snowcover in June leading to increased albedo leading to cooling.
Rhys Jaggar says:
May 30, 2011 at 6:21 am
April is but one month. The snowpack accumulated over 6 months time.
The Western US had a spring….back in February. It did not last.
The snowpack has.
Pamela Gray says:
May 30, 2011 at 6:49 am
It appears to me that CO2’s ability to force climate is drowned in the tsunami of natural variability, and on both ends. The Coming Ice Age and the GW theories both got swept out to sea, and all we got was a trace.
I can only assume that the radiation will get dispersed. Remember the atomic bomb blasts on the delicate Bikini Atoll. Now read how vulnerable corals are to a:
Yor fear mongering won’t work here old bean.
Here is the source:
http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/34672
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X07004523
phlogiston says:
May 30, 2011 at 12:38 am
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Are you seriously trying to tell us that snowfall and temperatures are inversely related? So ice ages are warm periods, and interglacials are colder?
—–
Did you pay attention to anything I wrote and especially my repeated explanation od the difference between snowfall accumulation and glacial advance? You have gotten it exactly 180 degrees wrong.
rbateman says: (to R. Gates)
“Nature is far more capable than you imagine, and your notion is contradicted by data.”
——-
Since you have no idea what I can imagine, your statement is a ridiculous from the beginning.
As far as the data goes, apparently you are also as equally unfamiliar with that as you are knowing what I can imagine.
My comment at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/29/may-snow-depths-are-deeper-than-anything-we-have-seen-in-the-last-45-years/#comment-670333
was meant for the Germany nuclear thread. Sorry. :>(
R. Gates,
A number of us have asked you about snow outside the ice core data areas. We are still waiting.
R. Gates says:
May 30, 2011 at 10:30 am
So, if what you say is true, Global Warming cannot cause Global Cooling.
Actually, RGates, CO2 cannot cause either one.
There’s not enough of it to go around. Like gold coins. You could gold plate all coins, but that doesn’t make them solid gold, does it?
Hmm….CO2 plated Climate Theory.
Jimbo says:
May 30, 2011 at 2:04 am
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 5:38 am
As noted many times here on WUWT, greater snowfall and rainfall are generally associated with warmer, not cooler climates.
The problem is that Warmists used to blame the lack of snowpack / extent on ………………………global warming. Please show me where you have ever set them straight that the lack of snow was due to a ‘cooler’ climate????
Please reply to this question as I am interesed in your answer.
——————
There are many problems with your request…the first and foremost being the fact that outside of occasionaally posting on Realclimate, JC’s site, or Neven’s arctic sea ice blog, I do far and away more postings here…so if some “warmest” was to come on here stating what you suggest, I’d certainly set them straight. Also, it does depend on the timeframe and level of warming they are talking about. At some point more warmth means snow is impossible and will fall as rain or jet stream patterns can shift from warmer temps and wet areas become dry in winter etc. So it depends on what timeframe the “warmist” is talking about.
Jimbo says:
May 30, 2011 at 10:45 am
R. Gates,
A number of us have asked you about snow outside the ice core data areas. We are still waiting.
———–
I am researching this a bit more in detail, but generally speaking we know that during the warmer periods on earth, most glaciers worldwide contract, though there are notable exceptions. I will get back to this question as it interests me as well…
A warmer globe is supposed to hold more water in vapour form so as to provide that positive feedback effect.
That should provide drier conditions overall so when precipitation does occur it tends to be more intense if in convective form but less intense at air mass mixing boundaries.
The opposite for a cooler globe.
However an ongoing process of warming produces less rainfall overall because less is precipitated out than is retained in vapour form.
An ongoing process of cooling produces more rainfall overall because more is precipitated out than is retained in vapour form.
The Earth is always engaged either in net cooling or net warming. Stasis never happens.
So, overall, if we are seeing more high rainfall events at air mass mixing boundaries (rather than from convective events within individual air masses) then the globe is cooling not warming.
Tornadoes occur at air mass mixing boundaries do they not ?
In the 1982-83 Winter in California, during a warm PDO phase and an El Nino, we had much the same snowpack accumulations as we do now.
What’s different now? It’s not melting:
Provided by the California Cooperative Snow Surveys
Report generated: 05/27/2011 10:28
Summary By Section
Section
Today Yesterday
NORTH Number of Stations Reporting 30 30
Average snow water equivalent 30″ 30″
Percent of April 1 Average 106% 106%
Percent of normal for this date 363% 345%
CENTRAL Number of Stations Reporting 35 35
Average snow water equivalent 32″ 32″
Percent of April 1 Average 105% 106%
Percent of normal for this date 259% 252%
SOUTH Number of Stations Reporting 20 20
Average snow water equivalent 20″ 20″
Percent of April 1 Average 79% 82%
Percent of normal for this date 180% 181%
Look at the % of normal for this date.
That’s how darn cold it is in California.
Here in Colorado some communities are preparing for a whole lot of melting in the next few weeks with flooding a real possibility.
R. Gates says:
May 30, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Did you know that the dry heat of the Dust Bowl began in California, then spread eastwards over the years? Regional Climate Dominoes.
An Ice Age scare has this going for it: an Ice Age (Big or Little) is the only real “tipping point” threat that we actually face.
Marc says:
May 29, 2011 at 2:56 pm
This whole dialog with Gates and the silly minutae is maddening!
All it proves is how little we actually KNOW. We have accumulated mucho data, but we are generations away from being able to synthesize it, if ever.
We will never KNOW what the impact of CO2 contributed by humans will be or is at any given time.
Most likey, the major climate developments will be driven by “Black Swan” events (Toba, meteor, celestial happenings, etc.) that will so greatly outweigh human impact that is frankly hardly worth talking about except to continue to advance scientific understanding for the purpose of advancing human engineering to make humans more resilient to natural phenomena.
Socratic Maxim: Knowledge of one’s ignorance is the beginning of wisdom.
The climate system and universe are so chaotic as to be entirely beyond the realm of humans to ever make meaningful predictions about the long-term future… a few days, weeks, months or years is the best we will ever do, and so far we are at the “few days” level of meaningful predictive capability.
So can we just admit that none of us know squat in the big picture?
The problem with Gates is that, while professing an open mind, is suggesting we are moving in on knowing the unknowable. This open mind to future developments is really only useful in the context of extreme humility in what we will ever know.
It is really juvenile to keep talking about what ice cores mean, because no one is close to knowing what they possibly mean for the long-term future. It is most likely that they are completely irrelevant because they will never provide us with actionable information.
Gates, in a non-ad hominem way, is a fool for not knowing what he can’t know.
I don’t care about the impact of CO2 because it is such a small component of the total inputs, most of which are completely beyond our knowledge and certainly beyond our control, as to be irrelevant in the scheme of truly long-term events in the climate and solar system and the well-being (or lack thereof) of mankind.
Engineering is our only hope, if we have one, which we don’t know. But we are genetically endowed with belief in our own future and the future of our kind. Hence we will always try.
Mr Gates: Wisen up!
================
This post was so good I am repeating it for effect. Worth reading in case you missed it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
As for R Gates, beats me how he thinks he can take on the heavyhitters on here….and win…..RBateman and Pamela Gray, et al…..
Must be a genuine case of severe cognitive dissonance disorder.
Even so….R would be the one who would get (and actually deserve) a wedgy EVERY DAY at lunch time.
He is a glutton for punishment and completely brings this on himself.
BTW….R….you never addressed the “snowfall outside of the ice core area” thing….that many on here are pegging you on.
And your lame answer to Jimbo thereto…is not sufficient.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Bar the Gates and shut the Gore! These prophets of doom will be predicting AGW up into their 80s and 90s, all the while shivering in thermal underwear and goose down jackets as they proclaim the cold is due to heat.
“Of course. April months in Holland, ranking since 1706:
1. 2011
2. 2007
3. 2009.
Hottest, of course.”
Source please. If it’s homogenised, I don’t drink that shit. Only raw please.
As far as the 600,000 year Ice Core record goes, the current Interglacial is not the strongest, nor the weakest, nor the longest, nor the shortest.
It’s just plain average.
The Younger Dryas in the rise to it is not unique to interglacials, having happened before.
If we were at the mean Ice Core temperature, we’d still be in caves where the temperature of the rock in mid latitudes is a more comfy 55 F.
Remember to bring the dog.
And here we go again. Today’s front is pretty juicy for this latitude (~38N) this late in the season. Probably a bit higher snow level, though, seems to be some warm advection out ahead of the boundary. I’m guessing snow level will drop later today.
intrepid_wanders says:
May 29, 2011 at 3:37 pm
I had some field work north of Crowley back in the mid 80s. We thought it was a big deal that snow depth stopped us from getting into certain quadrangles in mid April and we did not finish until mid May. This year I’d imagine the same areas will probably not be passable without backcountry skis until mid next month.
AFTER A BRIEF BREAK TONIGHT ANOTHER ROUND OF SHOWERS WILL MOVE ACROSS ON WEDNESDAY AS THE TROF AXIS MOVES ACROSS. LIFTED VALUES WILL BE DOWN TO MINUS 2 WITH CAPES OVER 500 J/KG IN SPOTS PLUS 700 MB TEMPS DOWN TO MINUS 9. IN ADDITION…SOME WEAK LOW-LEVEL DIRECTIONAL SHEER IS DEPICTED. THEREFORE…THUNDER WITH SMALL HAIL AND LOCAL SNOW LEVELS DOWN TO 4000 FEET ARE ALL POSSIBLE WEDNESDAY.
===============================
With those CAPE progs and likely shear, need to also watch out for twisters. I digress …
In the classic depictions of glacials, the main focus in North America is on the Laurentide mass. I’ve often wondered about the actual sequence of events. I’ve wondered if the Cordilleran was not bulked up well prior to the Laurentide? That may set off a global chain reaction.
Forecast 40.75 N Calif. is for rain through tomorrow, followed by showers and ANOTHER one just like the other one come this weekend. It’s pouring. Forecast models are tied in knots as to when this will end.
Forget May.
It’s June.
Prog’ing even further out:
=========================================
BY FRIDAY ALL INDICATIONS ARE THAT AN UNUSUALLY STRONG STORM SYSTEM WILL BE JUST OFF OUR COAST. THIS LOW IS FROM A SYSTEM NEAR THE ALEUTIANS THAT WILL MOVE TO THE NORTH PACIFIC WEDNESDAY NIGHT AND THEN DIVE SOUTHEASTWARD INTO OUR WATERS. RAIN WILL SPREAD ACROSS OUR AREA SOME TIME ON FRIDAY AND SHOULD BE WIDESPREAD FRIDAY NIGHT INTO PART OF SATURDAY. DEPENDING ON HOW LONG THE LOW REMAINS NEARLY STATIONARY WE COULD SEE ANOTHER ROUND OF WIDESPREAD RAIN LATE SATURDAY INTO SUNDAY OR SIMPLY JUST SCATTERED SHOWERS. ALTHOUGH IT IS STILL A FEW DAYS AWAY THE GFS/ENSEMBLE MEMBERS ARE IN GOOD AGREEMENT WITH THE LOW (BOTH SHOW A SMALL SPREAD) PLUS 1″ OF PW WITH UP TO 45 KT OF ISENTROPIC FLOW WILL LIKELY LEAD TO A SUBSTANTIAL VERY LATE-SEASON RAIN EVENT. HPC SHOWS RAINFALL TOTALS THROUGH SATURDAY AFTERNOON OF UP TO 1.5″ FOR THE NORTH BAY MOUNTAINS…CLOSE TO AN INCH AROUND SF BAY…AND 1/2″ OR LESS FOR POINTS FURTHER TO THE SOUTH. THESE VALUES WILL OBVIOUSLY BE ADJUSTED AS THE EVENT NEARS AND COASTAL RANGES FOR MONTEREY AND SANTA CRUZ COUNTIES COULD END UP GETTING A FAIR AMOUNT MORE THAN THESE VALUES.
LOOKED BACK AT OUR PRECIP RECORDS FOR TWO DAY RAINFALL TOTALS FOR THE FIRST HALF OF JUNE AND DATES IN 1964 AND 1967 BOTH JUMP OUT. THIS SETUP HAS SIMILARITIES WITH BOTH OF THOSE AND EVEN HIGHER PW VALUES. ONE OF THEM HAD 500 MB HEIGHTS OF 542 AND ANOTHER HAD THEM DOWN TO 536 DM. IN THIS SITUATION THE LOW IS EXPECTED TO BE AROUND 541.
AFTER THE STORM AT THE END OF THE WEEK…MOSTLY DRY WEATHER IS
FORECAST FOR THE REMAINDER OF NEXT WEEK AS A LARGE RIDGE OF HIGH PRESSURE BUILDS OUT OVER THE PACIFIC. STILL NO SIGN OF A BIG WARM-UP.
==========================================
3 weeks from now, the peak daily theoretical capability for melting and sublimation will be reached. From there, the opportunity will decline daily.
Perusal of the snow pack charts at CDEC shows an interesting trend emerging. The snow melt rate is a lot slower than even the record snow years. The slope looks about 1/2 to 1/3 that of previous years’ for this date.
I wonder what other states’ and provinces’ charts show?
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/snowapp/swcchart.action
From the CA charts, it appears that on average, where we are at now (31-MAY) is where it goes into an exponential decay form. By the time we get into July, the melting / sublimation could really be expected to slow. Fascinating.
@R. Gates,
You are seeing everything backwards, sadly. Ice core data is not showing you what you think it does.
During an ice age, the glaciers extend way down into the continental United States. Obviously snow is accumulating and packing on them very nicely in these COLDER conditions. Snow builds the ice and protects the ice from melting, allowing glaciers to extend. And all this requires much colder temperatures than now.
But what happens during those times to the areas were, during our current warm climate, the glaciers have survived for us to get ice cores from? As glaciers move southward, they scour all the precipitation from the air, due to the sharp temperature gradient, long before that air can reach the site of the ice cores — now miles away from the growing edge of the glaciers. So, of course accumulation DECREASES at the SITE of the ice cores. But this isn’t due simply to temperature, it’s due to the glaciers that are soaking up all the moisture being miles southward now. It’s a SHIELDING effect.
As temperature heats up, the glaciers start to melt. Snow accumulation DECREASES, and can no longer feed, nor protect the glaciers. As they melt, they do things like carve out the entire Pacific Northwest, a place of very little snow accumulation in the present day. But once upon a time, when it was much colder than now, the entire Puget Sound was buried under glaciers, and this requires snow accumulation.
But, also, as temperature heats up, as the glaciers retreat, the moist air can now move northward and once again can reach the site of the present day ice cores in the first place. NOW it can snow there again, whereas before all the snow was happening down south and not much moisture could get up to the ice core sites due to the shielding effects and long treks over glaciated ground the air had to cover.
Cold increases snow fall and snow accumulation, not warmth. Precipitation occurs at a temperature gradient; and those gradients are going to be sharpest at the glacier edges, making them precipitation sponges in comparison to the middle region of the glaciers, well embedded in homogenous cold temperatures with little gradients to drive precipitation of what miniscule moisture has managed to survive its trek up there.
That’s how it works. That’s what the ice cores show.
Snow level’s coming down. They’ve got a Winter Weather Advisory up for the Northern Sierra and other northern ranges.
SteveSadlov says:
May 31, 2011 at 1:39 pm
That makes 3 Winter Storms in the merry month of May. The danger for California now is the full reservoirs. High 90’s percentage-wise. There’s a lot of water content up there just waiting for a warm storm to strike. This being a rather extraordinary and downright weird year, it’s not out of the range of possibilities.
Still doing research on mid-latitude glaciers and snow accumulation and will have more to say about that later, but did come across this which confirms the nearly simultaneous retreat of northern and southern hemisphere mid-latitude glaciers at the end of the last glacial maximum:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5779/1510.full.pdf
What this tells us is that mid-latitude glaciers responded nearly in unison as the last glacial period peaked.
Ged,
I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing here. I’ve not really been addressing the dynamics of glaciers, but rather, the entire issue of snowfall accumulation and its general relationship to temperatures as displaying in the ice core record. Everyone knows it takes snowfall to make glaciers, but it wasn’t until about the year 2000 that it was shown that in fact, during warmer periods, heavier snow falls (i.e. greater accumulation) even though this accumulation doesn’t last an entire year because during these warmer periods, more snow also melts. So that, in simple terms, when it is warmer you might get 100 new inches of snow in the winter, yet because it is warmer, all that new snow melts and perhaps even some of the older ice, so the mass balance of the glacier actually might decline year to year, even though the snowfall accumulation for the season was high. When it is colder, you might get less snowfall accumulation, say 80 inches, but you also have colder temps so less snow melts, so maybe 30 of that 80 inches stays around for the next season and the mass of the glacier actually increases. This surprising results is shown across thousands of years in the ice core data for Greenland (see the link I gave earlier) and I’m doing a bit of research to see if it is true for mid-latitude glaciers as well.
The take-away from all this is simply that increasing snowfall (and rainfall) are generally associated with a warmer planet (in general), so increasing snowfall amounts during a single season are not indicative necessarily of any coming glacial advance, and in fact, the ice core data show the opposite. The MWP, for example, saw greater yearly snowfall accumulations than the Little Ice Age, but because the Little Ice Age was colder, that snow stuck around and we know we saw glacial growth in Greenland and at mid-latitude glaciers during the Little Ice Age, but (at least for Greenland) it wasn’t because of heavier snows, but because of less melting.
Gates, words like “generally” are ‘generally’ a cover-up for lack of data. Go to the NOAA website and look up USA temp and USA precipitation. Cooler and wetter. How much of the earth’s landmass is that “generally”?
R. Gates says:
May 31, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Did it ever occur to you that the accumulated heat from warming will act as extra fuel to make more snow as the climate cools?
Once again, you’ve managed to rule out nothing, and we are left with what we have: progressively colder and wetter winter/spring.
R Gates,
Last time I looked the heat of fusion was a huge barrier to overcome to get snow to fall. The heat loss to produce snow at 32 degrees is about 100 times the heat loss from 33 degrees to 32 degrees. That is a lot of cold air that must be injected into the storm. It has to come from somewhere. Warm years just do not have the cold air to do that.
It takes lots of cold air to drive snowfall and it takes a lot of heat to drive snow melt.
If you do not have cold air advection or strong upper low with cold upper air support, it will not snow. Furthermore, a lot of heavy moisture will tend to warm the cold air causing the snow levels to rise.
At high altitudes, snow melt is driven primarily by solar insolation. If it stays cloudy, then a lot less snow melts versus sunny days. Cloudy winters and cloudy springs mean a delay in snow melt and growth of glaciers. Stable high pressure systems mean sustained snow melt. Unsettled weather means little snow melt.
We’re getting hammered here in Norcal this AM. This would be impressive in January let alone June. June! This is unreal.
Got a twister in Yuba City from yesterday’s event. Today there is weak ridging and poor thermal recovery. Lots of low and mid level moisture with a massive Bering Sea system on its way, prog’ed to start activity here tomorrow. I saw a comment about how a last blast of Winter on or around Memorial Day was normal here. I will grant that in my nearly half century of life I’ve seen the odd cut off or outlier cold front drop rain this late, at these latitudes. But in my life, I have never seen this sort of systemic ongoing “winter” type pattern last this long, so close to the Summer Solstice. It’s a conveyor belt of systems, unheard of in June let alone even late in most “normal” rainy seasons. This would even be abnormal in April. The other notable thing setting this apart from previous late events is the extreme cold aloft.
Someone asked if there is proof that human co2 has an effect on the global clima.. How about during the plague? Temperatures dropped for a long time after the massivly deaths of the plague, sending Europe in to a mini ice age as result. Check in to that
Dan Kevin Johnsen,
The plague was in the 14th century, well before CO2 began to rise. There is no evidence that CO2 causes global harm.
Do you think its the heat from the peoples bodys that had an effect to the clima in the 14th century? 50% of europes population died to it and thats alot of people. One person creates 70kw-870kw. 50 million people that stops emitting this heat suddently. Will this effect the clima?
From the National Park Service website, they state the Tioga Pass will open on June 18 this year. That’s Fathers’ Day here in the US. Happy Fathers’ Day!
“Tioga Road (Highway 120 through the park)
Opens June 18 at 8 am”
http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/conditions.htm