Guest post by Steven Goddard
Global warming has predictably struck again.
White said climate change caused by global warming likely is changing ice conditions and adding to the unpredictability.
Kate White is a civil engineer at the Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H., and one of the nation’s leading experts on ice jams.
“I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating. … If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota, and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there,’ that indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.”
From the Scientific American Blog
River ice generated by global warming in North Dakota
The Red River in Fargo, North Dakota had been expected to crest as high as 43 feet on Saturday, but instead it peaked at less than 41 feet due to freezing springtime temperatures.
The river crested in Fargo at 40.82 feet (12.44 meters) shortly after midnight yesterday, never reaching the 42-foot forecast the weather service expected, which would have put it at the top of some city dikes. The crest broke the record of 40.1 feet set in April 1897.
The river was at 40.27 feet as of 4:15 a.m. local time this morning and was forecast to recede to 38.1 feet as of 1 a.m. on April 5, according to the National Weather Service.
Freezing Temperatures
Temperatures as cold as 7 degrees Fahrenheit froze water running into the river and are responsible for turning back the flood, said David Kellenbenz, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Grand Forks, North Dakota, about 80 miles north of Fargo.
The weather service had said earlier that the Red River could crest as high as 43 feet.
In fact, temperatures in North Dakota have been running about 5-10 degrees below normal for the entire winter and spring.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/hprcc/nd/Last3mTDeptHPRCC-ND.png
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/hprcc/nd/MonthTDeptHPRCC-ND.png
NOAA’s Center for Climate Prediction had incorrectly forecast a warm winter for the region last autumn.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/archives/long_lead/gifs/2008/200810temp.gif
Using AGW logic, it all makes perfect sense. The models forecast a warm winter. The models were wrong, and instead it was extremely cold and snowy. All that late melting snow caused a flood, so the flood must be blamed on the global warming predicted by the models. AGW Commandment #1 : Reality must never take precedence over computer models.
Author’s Note : Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is now known as “climate change” because the scientists were just kidding when they gave it the original name.
it’s la nina, just like in ’96-’97
O/T
I like all the ad hom/strawman I read on this site, gives credence to that whole science thing.
Ben
PFC:
“…engineers should never be allowed to speak in public. :)~”
Hey! I resemble that remark…. 😉
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=speak
Another rather good (Rex is actually VERY good) public speaker, a civil engineer, now CEO and Chairman of the Board of ExxonMobil, is Mr. Rex W. Tillerson. Rex’s speeches are on the web at
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/news_speeches.aspx
Peter Hearnden (10:02:33) :
“The title of this post is “North Dakota Floods Aggravated By “Global Warming”” yet the article you quote has 18 paragraphs only ONE of which even mentions global warming, and does not pin the blamer on global warming.
And that merits a post and a series of oh so predictable comments? ”
Well, yeah. Because we see so many oh so predictable “It’s global warming” comments in the MSM. This is just a tiny, no-influence blog from Anthony Watts. Hardly the epitome of balance for the big time AGW campaign. And note:
The L.A. Times photo caption: “River ice generated by global warming in North Dakota”
???
My data indicates there was a La Nina event from 9/95, ending in 3/96.
I might add that there is less ad hominem on this site (and on CA) than any other climate sites I have seen. The pro-AGW sites, on the whole, seem much worse in that regard. One sees the occasional snipe on skeptic sites, but the prominent pro-AGW sites consist almost exclusively of ongoing, non-stop torrents of personal abuse, and extremely heavyhanded elimination of posts from the other side. You will not find that here.
As for “that science thing”, I can only encourage concentrating on the science and the data issues.
White said officials have tried several methods of predicting ice jams but what scientists really need for the job is a full understanding of various site-specific conditions, because ice jams have unique circumstances and characteristics. Time and money are barriers to that, she said.
Money?
Of course we’d like to give the young man a chance… But here is the President’s statement:
“”If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?'” Obama told reporters at the White House Monday. “That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.”
“Temperatures as cold as 7 degrees Fahrenheit froze water running into the river and are responsible for turning back the flood, said David Kellenbenz, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Grand Forks…”
“The title of this post is “North Dakota Floods Aggravated By “Global Warming”” yet the article you quote has 18 paragraphs only ONE of which even mentions global warming, and does not pin the blamer on global warming.”
Peter, how does this article even deserve “ONE” mention of Global Warming. You really miss the whole point of this posting by a mile. You need to open your eyes and recognize that lately any article on any natural (and even man-made sometimes) disaster somehow has at least “ONE” mention of global warming. It makes me wonder if these writers are working on an AGW commission, with bonus pay for coming up with the most outlandish and creative connection to Global Warming.
evanmjones you are correct, i retract my hastily construed assertion 🙂
As for the ad hom/strawmen, wouldn’t it be nice to just have a discussion about climate without it?
Ben
I can’t argue with that.
I try to avoid the political aspects. Yes, the issue is prominent because of that, but that makes it all the more important to consider the science apart from politics, lest emotions affect the data gathering, itself.
A few commentors appear confused. The WCCO article said :
global warming likely is changing ice conditions
That quote has appeared in news stories all over the Internet. How should it be interpreted? Multiple choice.
1. The record flood is affected by global warming.
2. The record flood is not affected by global warming
Harold,
As far as the river photo caption goes River ice generated by global warming in North Dakota – that is my caption, and could be described as sarcasm. WUWT readers are Internet saavy people who know how to click through the links.
And this is what happens when you build cities, towns, and villages on flood plains. They’re called flood plains for a reason.
Ever notice that on some farms located on flood plains, the farming families have, over time, built up the area where their homes & barns are built.
You all miss the point. AGW has nothing do with science or evidence. It is just a convenient ruse allowing government to take control of your life and your wealth. If AGW and ‘Climate Change’ won’t do it, then there is always a banking scandal or…
Since Ms. White, like most ‘climate scientists’, owes her welfare to the government it is no surprise she sings the party song. Keep those grants and civil service checks coming! The larger government is the hungrier it gets. We are likely past the tipping point and it has nothing to do with CO2.
Jim,
Manitoba made a conscious choice to sacrifice farmland south of Winnipeg in order to protect the city. The floodway has been in place long enough that the farmers have to accept as the price of owning that land. If you brought in a new floodway there would have to be compensation given to minority that are sacrificed in order to protect the majority but the cost would be a fraction of the costs of building these ad hoc dikes and the repairs when they are breached.
That said, my main point is we can and should focus on adapting to any climate change instead of wasting resources trying to stop what may be unstoppable.
This is what President Obama had to say about the flood and global warming.
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=obama-cites-north-dakota-floods-in-2009-03-25
Emotions affecting data?
Poor dear thermometer it’s cold. Here have a knitted warmer.
@ur momisugly Tom
You are so right.
You said: “Peter, how does this article even deserve “ONE” mention of Global Warming. You really miss the whole point of this posting by a mile. You need to open your eyes and recognize that lately any article on any natural (and even man-made sometimes) disaster somehow has at least “ONE” mention of global warming.”
I watched CBS Sunday Morning today. They had a piece about the increase in giant squid off the coast of CA. I was perched on the couch just waiting. Yup. There it was: Caused by global warming.
Peter Hearnden (10:02:33) :
White said climate change caused by global warming likely is changing ice conditions and adding to the unpredictability.
These are weasel words. The situation has been building throughout the season. By subscribing to the notion that our climate or seasonal weather are predictable, they may have been negligent in their duty to show due diligence to the prevailing conditions.
Should anyone be to blame? Probably not.
They are not super human and some conditions you can’t control or predict. Did they do a good job when the problem became critical? This is something for the people of North Dakota to decide.
Any hint that global warming or climate change is in anyway responsible is to diminish their expertise and that could lead to a culture of blame and excuses.
It has happened and it may happen again. The people of North Dakota need to plan ahead and take appropriate actions that will limit the damage to it’s community.
This does not involve destroying it’s industries or denying themselves access to rapidly deployable energy.
Answering President Obama’s question
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=obama-cites-north-dakota-floods-in-2009-03-25
Given that the flooding was due to unusual cold and snow, chances are two degrees of warming would have mitigated the flood or perhaps prevented it.
This flooding was increased by what happened this winter. The ground froze earlier than usual, reducing the amount of water absorbed by the soil from fall until now. Continued cold during the winter kept it that way. With the solid stage set, the heavy snowfall arrived to begin the performance. The sun returned from the south, and the show began.
A long cold winter gives more time for a lot of snow to accumulate. For similar floods to happen in warm weather, there would have to be a hurricane’s worth of heavy rains in the spring.
We should not denegrate anyones judgement because they are not ‘trained’ in the subject they wish to get speak on. All that matters is if they are right or not. There are many people who are able to provide useful insite into things they are not ‘qualified’ for. However, it does appear that Kate Wite has excluded all other possibilities for this flood and has ‘tacked’ AGW onto this event, which is lazy. How has urbanisation and/or agriculture changed upstream since the previous high level? Both urbanistion and agriculture will change the way water runs off the land in a fundamental way.
The “great global warming” of 1897 is very well documented… however the co-relation between flood crest and CO2 concentration is not that clear… More work is needed and a new super computer too…
And further more there was a previous flood of similar proportion here before, which means this type of flood can happen here again.
Here’s the feedback page for US Army cold Research region for inquiries on their expertise and credentials in Oceanography, Meteorology, Climatology, etc..
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/crrel/feedbackform.html
The word “likely” inadequately qualifies the uncertainties.
the word “likely” inadequately qualifies the uncertainties. But the
Associated Press would probably balk at writing, “conditions to be expected after continued climate change,” in every AGW story.
Who would have thunk it, building your home on a flood plain, next to a river that is historically prone to flooding, and your home gets flooded! Not the result of poor judgement of course, pass the buck onto “Global warming” (or is it called climate change now?, I can never remember) .