By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, ICECAP
Map of US weather records for week ending 4/6/09 click image to enlarge or here for source. Map created by HAMWeather,
UPDATE: NOAA predicts the Red River Will Crest Again in Fargo-Moorhead in Late April here possibly again at records levels.
Just a week after the last major northern plains blizzard another significant snowfall occurred this weekend. Models did poorly with the location of the heaviest snow bands and generally overdid the magnitude. These models sometimes have difficult with the first 48 hours, but Susan Solomon and friends tell us you can depend on cruder models to predict the climate 100 years or even a thousand years in advance.
Several inches of snow fell in parts of Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, southern Minnesota into southern Wisconsin. This will include parts of the Red River Basin already in flood and with deep snowcover (click here to enlarge).
The northern plains has been hit hard this year. Fargo set a record for snowfall and precipitation for March, Bismarck also in North Dakota had record snowfall in December and the second snowiest March, the first year with with two monthly totals in the top ten enlarged here.
Bismarck is on the northern edge of this storm. If they get more than 1.4 inches of snow from this (or some later) storm, they will set an all-time snow record. See the enlarged listing shown below here as of April 1 after the big blizzard. See all the watches and warnings here.
The National Weather Service said International Falls, with the reputation as the nation’s icebox, recorded 124.2 inches of snow this winter. That tops the old record of 116 inches set in 1995-1996. The nearly 9-inch dump from this week’s snowstorm pushed International Falls over the edge. The Minnesota-Ontario border area has been pummeled with snowstorms this winter.
And from KOMO News Weary Spokane residents who are sick of snow can at least now be consoled by the fact that they were a part of history.
A snow storm on Sunday has made this the snowiest winter on record in Spokane. The National Weather Service said 93.6 inches of snow has been recorded at Spokane International Airport this winter, breaking the record set in 1949-50 by a tenth of an inch. It took snowfall of 3.9 inches of Sunday, a record for the date, to break the all-time record. This is the second-consecutive heavy winter in Spokane. Last year, more than 92 inches of snow fell on the Lilac City, third most since records started in 1893.
Spokane’s Top 5 Snow Years:
RANK WINTER SNOW TOTAL
1 2008-2009 93.6
2 1949-1950 93.5
3 2007-2008 92.6
4 1974-1975 89.0
5 1992-1993 87.3
Spokane is also mired in unseasonable cold. Normal high temperatures at the of March are in the low 50s, but this month has seen highs in the 30s and 40s.
See here how an amazing 358 lowest temperature records and 409 snowfall records were broken for the week ending Apr 2, 2009.
Yes, here in Ohio’s Miami Valley, we are set to be close to the low temperature record set waaaay back in 1982 before that global warming started, which is much better than the record posted as recently as 1929 of 81oF because of all the CO2 causing global…. what? Oh, I must have the years backwards. I don’t? Oh, then it’s just weather.
DJ, at times I think you are just playing us, getting climate naturalists to post long rebuttals. Then at times I think you are truly a global warmer believer. I haven’t figured out which it is. But there are times when your posts seem trivial and filled with “consider this” and “consider that” without a lot of questioning. And then you impress me with your depth of response. In this thread, not so much. Are you unsure of why record snows and cold temperatures, both highs and lows, are being recorded? How does this mesh with your unfailing belief that it is getting warmer? There are weather stations that report data that go back to the last part of the 19th century. These stations are reporting record cold at night AND during the day. What will you do when these lower temperatures continue to stay around for more years than they have? I take it you consider that oceanic oscillations trump global warming but when oceans turn warm again, we will all fry. Do you understand that warmer oceans evaporate and that evaporation eventually leads to cooling, just as it does on your own skin? Bottom line, your theories and posts at times seem contradictory. Tell me, outside of saying that the IPCC says it, the theoretical basis for your assumptions.
You know mine: heat columns and trade winds around the equatorial belt caused by axial spin. Heat columns build and eventually get caught in the trade winds which begin to blow harder, blowing warmed oceanic water west and away, revealing colder lower layers, which then cool land surfaces. Cooling land surfaces eventually lead to quieter, dryer weather, which calms trade winds, allowing heat columns to build again, till they get caught in axial spin trade winds. These are known climatic events. These events also blow ozone and atmospheric gases around in an unmixed swirling soup.
Now show me yours.
William Rice,
The statement you quote:
“This winter’s maximum Arctic sea ice extent was 5.85 million square miles (15,150,000 square kilometers)—about 278,000 square miles (720,000 square kilometers) less than the Arctic average between 1979 and 2000. ”
is UTTERLY uncontroversial and highly relevant to a trained scientist. Why would a one year trend carry more importance than a consistent deviation from a defined longterm average? Do you understand this?
Honestly, the ignorance on proud display at this site is breathtaking.
The IPCC is the biggest bunch of liars there is I don’t trust anything they have to say. They are the paid goons of the UN. There is no manmade anything to do with the weather period. Ice melts and grows every year at the north and south pole. I have been watching the ice melt at the south pole all summer and there has been virtually none from what I can see. I saw an article recently where Obama wants to stop ships going to the north saying it will help the environment. The only thing it would help is his lies. The less people to see the ice obviously would mean there is less Ice. This is the dumbest debate in the history of the world. Everyone of the morons that fall for this climate change crap or global warming or any of it are falling into the sinister hands of the UN and all other forms of freedom theft.
[snip – ad hom]
Science is apolitical. The earth does not care whether your inclinations take you to the Left or the Right. Good scientists, the vast majority of climatologists, are also apolitical, though the majority of people reading this, who have very little contact with how real science is done, will doubtless have convinced themselves otherwise.
The AGW picture has taken decades of hard work, which is obviously still continuing to this day, to build. It is a result of where the facts lead a truly disinterested observer. There is no conspiracy, most scientists are quite honest about the gaps in their knowledge, what they do and don’t know, with what level of certainty they do or don’t know it and what could be done to improve this (or indeed what would disprove it).
One of the areas that is not in doubt is the consensus that our CO2 contribution is warming the climate globally. This is only controversial in little back eddies of the internet like this, which will not change anything. Thankfully most global leaders (including major oil/gas companies believe it or not) realise this and are taking steps to remedy it. The sad part is, it may already be too late now to stop a major phase shift, but it is too early to say this with scientific precision. It remains a very valid possibility though.
Oh and just think there are still towns on Greenland that have been buried by glaciers for thousands of years. Duh I wonder if that means the earth was warmer once. It must have been all those cars and factories that must have been around thousands of years ago. Or just maybe this is just how the climate is it warms and it cools sometimes it gets warmer than other times sometimes it gets colder than other times. I can guarantee one thing for sure solar activity and the eccentric rotation of the Earth and its wobble on its axis and all of its other quirks have the only real thing to do with the earths climate. Man has absolutely nothing to do with the climate changing it is idiotic and harmful to mans survival to think otherwise.
<Matt Bennett (20:00:17) :
William Rice,
The statement you quote:
“This winter’s maximum Arctic sea ice extent was 5.85 million square miles (15,150,000 square kilometers)—about 278,000 square miles (720,000 square kilometers) less than the Arctic average between 1979 and 2000. ”
is UTTERLY uncontroversial and highly relevant to a trained scientist. Why would a one year trend carry more importance than a consistent deviation from a defined longterm average? Do you understand this?
Honestly, the ignorance on proud display at this site is breathtaking.
Matt,
William’s point is not so relevant, but the story linked to does indeed misrepresent science, claiming this year’s maximum extent as a continued decline, just as the Times Online did with the same press release.
The story also contains nonsense like this, so I wouldn’t be so quick to defend:
Even so, vanishing sea ice poses severe hardships to Arctic plants and animals—including humans—that have evolved to coexist with the ice.
And a beautiful closing:
“It really is unprecedented, what we’ve been seeing, for centuries and maybe thousands of years.”
The departure from the 1979-2000 average is unprecendented for thousands of years?
DJ (01:27:11) :
“Meanwhile very long lived ice sheets keep falling off the Antarctic – http://www.theage.com.au/environment/antarctic-ice-shelf-near-final-collapse-20090406-9tvx.html
as a direct result of warming.”
DJ is one of several of those commenting who confuse ice sheets with ice shelves. Ice shelves are floating as they cover inlets or bays. Somewhat like frozen lakes, only generally much larger. The largest ice shelf in Antarctica (or anywhere else) is the Ross Ice Shelf, which is roughly the size of France and is roughly a half mile thick. Ice sheets are land based and are HUGE! The Western Atlantic Ice Sheet (WAIS), which contains enough water so that it would raise the ocean level by seven feet if it were to slide into the Atlantic, is in the bantam weight class of ice sheets. The Eastern Atlantic Ice Sheet (EAIS), which lies on the other side of the Transantarctic Mountains from the WAIS, is, according to Wikipedia, roughly ten times larger. So I am sure that DJ will be relieved to learn that Antarctic ice sheets aren’t in the process of breaking off and falling into the ocean.
My understanding is that the Greenland Ice Sheet and the EAIS are stable, meaning that they sit in saucer-like indentations and so are not subject to being pulled down a slope by gravity. The same is not the case for the WAIS, which apparently would collapse and slide into the Atlantic except for held back from doing so by the Ross Ice Shelf. However, the jocker here is that the Ross Ice Shelf itself collapses every so often. For example, I understand that there is evidence for such a collapse (accompanied by a major rise of sea level) during each of the last four interglacial periods.
I wonder if the collapse of the Ross Ice Shelf followed by big hunks of the WAIS sliding into the sea over a period of a few hundred years might not act as a trigger for the onset of a new glacial period. This would certainly have the same effect as putting ice cibes om a g;ass of water, resulting in much colder oceans.
http://www.kxmb.com/News/354906.asp
Weather kills, not climate. I have heard it bandied about that we are barely above the temperatures observed in the LIA.
Pamela,
Leaving a long-winded waffle about what ‘you think’ happens in the atmosphere is no substitute for research. To that end, I suggest you get a good book on meteorology and start reading – that is the topic your post is talking about.
Now, if it’s climate you’re interested in, you better start on the physics, esp thermodynamics and radiative forcings, and start realising that the same things that determine weather DO NOT determine climate.
Matt Bennett (20:00:17) :
Why would a one year trend carry more importance than a consistent deviation from a defined longterm average? Do you understand this?
It doesn’t, nor did he say it does. The hypocrisy, however, in only reporting in a a manner on that favors the desired viewpoint is obvious. A record breaking advance is worth at least a mention, don’t you think?
Honestly, the ignorance on proud display at this site is breathtaking.
Indeed, your ignorance, and arrogance, is breathtaking.
Mark
Pamela Gray (18:52:48) :
I haven’t figured out which it is.
I have. I make sure to carry enough coins to cross his bridge, too.
Mark
Anthony, when are we going to have a post about the fact that we just saw the collapse of the tenth major ice shelf to disintergrate since 1950? This is consistent with the reported 2-3 degree C warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and is unlikely to be the last. Given that there is a clear pattern and given that you claim to be a disinterested, objective, scientific blog where is the news of this clear warming trend? Or would it not please the acolytes?
REPLY: Matt you amaze me, on one hand you insult, on the other you demand articles. For example, I could paraphrase your recent comment and say: “the arrogance displayed in your comment is breathtaking”. But, why not learn some proper manners first before asking? If your response to this is to be of the same caliber of vitriol just displayed in the last few comments, be assured your post will be snipped. Learn manners if you are truly interested in discussion and debate. If your only purpose here is to denigrate, then adios. – Anthony
Eric, to take it a little bit further, as Dr. Thune from NASA (Hansen’s old boss) so eloquently pointed out, the mere fact that most of the models do model past climate so closely (almost perfectly), should give one pause. If you can program a model to mimic past climate so accurately, you cannot possibly be modeling a complex chaotic system with any accuracy whatsoever. What are the odds of replicating past climate perfectly by averaging 4000 runs of computer model data? I would be willing to bet that the odds of winning the PowerBall are much better!
They already beat you to the punch concerning the Fargo, ND flooding! Obama himself virtual said as much (certainly hinted at it). I know for fact the flooding there has nothing in the universe to do with any sort of Globull Warming!
I lived there for 25 years, and what you have seen this year is not all the extraordinary. My old house was right on the 100 year floodplain. There is a reason why it is called the “100 year floodplain”, because it floods on average, every 100 years! duh… However, my old neighbor tells me that they are just fine, which means, this has not been a 100 year flood! The only thing that has flooded there are the rivers, which do every year. The only thing different from year to year is by how much. This year by quite a bit, setting a new record river crest for the Red River (none of the other rivers set records), and not by all that much (like 0.6 feet, I would have to go look it up again). The flood of 1997 was much much worse because of the 139 inches of snow that melted so quickly that year. Also, this was NOT the snowiest year in North Dakota, it was the snowiest December only (as has been presented on this site).
But, no matter, these events will continue to be spun into Globull Warming BS (bad science) in order to continue to drive agenda. It is all spiraling out of control (IMHO). We just need to continue to present the true facts to anyone who will listen and pray that it finally begins to in.
oops, should be “sink in”
Steven goddard wrote: “Global warming means whatever the current weather is – because the current weather is (of course) due to global warming. Scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming agree that there is a consensus amongst like-minded individuals.”
LMAO!
Several outlets are reporting Arctic ice loss and conveniently ignoring year on year recovery.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090406-sea-ice-younger.html
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=development&articleId=9131189&taxonomyId=11&intsrc=kc_top
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5116352/Arctic-will-be-ice-free-within-a-decade.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/06/arctic-sea-ice-warning
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/04/06/arctic-sea-ice-fights-losing-winter-battle-again/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aYtW2IeY868Q&refer=australia
http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ncl=1328116702&topic=t
Matt Bennet,
Are you a trained scientist? What are your credentials, or are you speaking on behalf of all trained scientists? I ask only because most trained scientists (at least with any background in statistics) would know why this is a fraudulent statistic. It is misleading because:
a) 1979-2000 is a completely arbitrary period to set as the baseline, which doesn’t even include the year in question. Why not 1933-1947?
b) As in any time series (like the stock market), the current value is highly dependent on the most recent values. If sea ice is recently increasing (which is what we are supposed to be most worried about, isn’t it?), then using the arbritrary baseline period completely disguises this fact. We routinely see similarly deceptive stats such as “7 of the 10 hottest years on record were in the last decade” (the actual stat keeps changing as Hansen keeps rewriting history, but you get the idea). This stat obviously hides the fact that recent years, although warm relative to long term averages, have been trending down. Such statistics are clearly designed to manipulate opinion, and not to tell the real story of the data.
c) Sea ice extent is not a steady state process, so you have no basis for claiming that a “consistent deviation from a defined long term average” has any relevance (and as stated in “a”, you have no basis for defining your so called long term average).
Would you care to give an example of a trained scientist that finds such a statistic highly relevant?
You warmists can’t make your case without throwing out an insult, can you?
Matt Bennett (20:00:17) :
It’s ok Matt, we’ll let you get away with it.
What IS, however, incontrovertible is that climate cycles around in 70 year cycles, and that has been documented since the 1400s. So I’d actually kind of like to know what sort of proud, breathtaking ignorance takes less than HALF of this well known and well documented cycle and uses that to “prove” a “consistent deviation from a defined longterm average”?
Maybe your eminence could enlighten us all. If you understand this.
“Why would a one year trend carry more importance than a consistent deviation from a defined longterm average? Do you understand this?
Honestly, the ignorance on proud display at this site is breathtaking.”
Twenty-one years is a long term average? Precisely how long have the icecaps been melting and freezing, sir? The type of breathless parsing you quoted is much worse than ignorance, it is advocacy.
And on topic:
Calgary is also in the records this winter:
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080513/calgary_weather_notebook/20090209/?hub=CalgaryWeather
For the geographically challenged, Calgary is just north of Montana.
At science daily here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090406132602.htm
Research Professor James Maslanik, who led the 2008 study published in Geophysical Research Letters.
“A key question will be whether this second year ice is thick enough to survive summer melt,” said Maslanik.
“If it does, this might start a trend toward recovery of the perennial sea ice pack,”
It seems that at least one scientist is hedging his bets…
Matt Bennett wrote:
“Why would a one year trend carry more importance than a consistent deviation from a defined longterm average? Do you understand this? Honestly, the ignorance on proud display at this site is breathtaking.”
Because leading warmists, such as Gore and Hansen, claimed and/or implied a year ago:
1. That a one-year deviation in the trend in 2007 (in the warm direction) was a portent of a change in the slope of the long-term ice-retreat trend. This was implied by their saying, “Things are worse than we thought,” “We have less time than we thought,” and “We will soon see ice-free Arctic summers.”
2. That this confirmed that there was an accelerating global warming trend due to CO2. (Such accelerating, or runaway, behavior is predicted by their CO2 models, so they were primed to see any evidence of acceleration-in-warming as a validation of their models and vice versa.)
3. That this demonstrated the need for urgent and extreme CO2 mitigation measures, expense be damned.
So we’re entitled to hoist them on their petard, now that their claim of an accelerating and dire warming trend has been falsified. If the warmists hadn’t given us the rope, there’d be no lynching.