Guest post by Steven Goddard
“April comes in like a lion, and stays that way.”
The University Of Colorado in Boulder and nearby Colorado State University are hotbeds of climate science activity. Famous climate names from both sides of the AGW aisle like NCAR, NSIDC, the Pielkes, Bill Gray and Chris Landsea are associated with these universities. Earlier this extended winter WUWT reported on one forecast by a CU geography professor :
University of Colorado-Boulder geography professor Mark Williams said Monday that the resorts should be in fairly good shape the next 25 years, but after that there will be less snowpack – or no snow at all – at the base areas
No doubt that a geography professor would have the correct skill set to be making ski forecasts 25 years in the future, and that 25 years from now the climate will make a radical switch. It appears that Dr. Williams forecast is correct so far, as Colorado is getting lots of snow.
Wolf Creek Ski Area has received more than 11 metres of snow this winter, and has 118 inches of snow on the ground. (That would be 2.9972 metres deep, using the Catlin tape measure.) Unfortunately, people may be unable to get to most of the ski areas because Interstate 70 is shut down – due to too much snow.
Ahead of the current storm, all of the snowtel sites in Colorado were reporting normal snowpack.
| RIVER BASIN | PERCENT OF AVERAGE | ||
| Snow Water | Accum | ||
| GUNNISON RIVER BASIN | 109 | 108 | |
| UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN | 112 | 109 | |
| SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN | 98 | 97 | |
| LARAMIE AND NORTH PLATTE RIVER BASINS | 103 | 105 | |
| YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER BASINS | 113 | 109 | |
| ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN | 107 | 99 | |
| UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN | 104 | 107 | |
| SAN MIGUEL, DOLORES, ANIMAS & SAN JUAN | 95 | 10 | |
One popular AGW theory of convenience is that warming temperatures bring more snow. As can be seen below, this might not be an adequate explanation.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/hprcc/MonthTDeptHPRCC.png
Of course, weather is not climate and the earth has a 50/50 chance of “tipping” in the future – due to reaching some mythical CO2 threshold.
On a more urgent note, a US Navy researcher from told the Beeb that projections of an ice free Arctic by 2013 may be “too conservative.”
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
(This California based researcher did not accompany the Catlin expedition on their -40C Arctic camping trip this spring.)
Polar Bear pondering how cap-and-trade may brighten it’s future?
If you want to save the ski industry and the polar bears, you might want to consider sending Al Gore some money – and please quit producing so much of that dangerous pollutant CO2. However, absolutely do not try to apologize to the bears in person. Skiing is much more fun and generally safer than swimming with polar bears, as this woman visiting the Berlin Zoo found out.
PHOTO: WWW.TELEGRAPH.CO.UK
I just don’t know how to get to any ski areas without making lots of CO2.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ohioholic (20:31:24) :
Ron de Haan (20:03:26) :
That site is full of hand wringing worry warts. I could smell the fear. Liked how the moderator personally called out Anthony
I wouldn’t call it fear so much as holier and smarter than thou condescencion twoards those who deny. From on eof the posts there:
Sadly, prayer can’t save us from the willful ignorance of those who deny science.
I’m an archaeologist with a little quarternary knowledge. Enough to understand some of the graphical data presented on this site but not enough to understand some of the more technical aspects of climate science data. I understand the basic sunspot thing (certainly enough to understand the sun’s effect on Earth’s climate) but not some of the technical jargon that comes with it.
I also know that a lot of people who read this blog are seeking understanding but do not have the technical knowledge to follow some of the more science based discussions. There is an article that any reasonably educated layperson can read and understand. It is essential reading for anyone seeking the truth about AGW or who is concerned about how AGW is being used to promote a highly damaging, world-wide political agenda. Forgive me if someone has linked to this site previously.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
The ruling of the judge mentioned in the article has yet to be upheld. Unfortunately, inconvenient truths are not welcome by the UK government. The French, on the other hand, seem poised to turn the tide of lunacy. If they finally see sense I’ll take back everything I ever said about their national stereotype. ;o)
Tom P said:
“UK Sceptic,
From Booker’s article:
“..the latest available data show the downward trend in global temperatures continuing.”
rather seems to be contradicted by the plots of the positive trend just presented on this site a couple of days ago:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/1979trends.jpg
Do you think Booker, like Philip_B, has difficulty reading these graphs?”
I have no idea, Tom. Why don’t you ask them?
Another expedition to save the world by Carbon neutral expeditions
http://carbonneutralexpeditions.com/the-expedition/
“To make the first carbon neutral, double crossing of Greenland by sailing across the North Atlantic and then completing a return ski traverse of the ice cap. (over 550 miles)”
It’s not carbon dioxide melting the ice caps?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/
I wish these guys would make up their faming minds…
Idea of “CO2 induced warming to burst after natural cold period” is a myth, because most of the warming due to CO2 is supposed to be created by positive feedback. If the Earth is getting colder the temperature induced feedback effects will work towards cooling. For example, ice is getting thicker and wider and it will reflect more sunlight back to space.
“One popular AGW theory of convenience is that warming temperatures bring more snow”
Hence the expression, “too cold for snow”! 🙂
UK_Sceptic,
I’ve asked both – no response as yet.
It is somewhat ironic that Philip_B used his misreading of the data to accuse me of “denying reality.” His (and Monkton’s and Booker’s) version of reality – that the climate is cooling – is not supported by any scientist I know of, including Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer.
It’s going on forty years since I moved to Colorado, and loving weather, I find the flux of extremes here wonderful. I spent 20 years in the foothills near Masonville, a spotter for the NWS in the 80s. In the dead of winter there, one can go to bed with temps in the single digits (F) and awaken to 50s and 60s, with winds raging near 100mph. I have photos of summer skys at night, of solid cloud cover the strangest green lit by lightning. I remember about 1978, a tremendous snow storm in April, sending my wife and children to stay with friends in town in the middle if the storm, as we had 3 feet if snow with another foot or two yet due and the power was out. Had to hike a mile to as close as a jeep could get to our house, carrying my two-month old son. That night, once the snow stopped, the cloud cover came to ground level, and glowed with electrical charge for hours. Though I lived in Indiana for over a decade, the three tornados I’ve seen were in Colorado. I love being on the eastern plans and seeing for a 100 miles all around, and hiking to the top of the step in the plains outside Kiowa, where sand of ancient shores are frozen ripples in stone, still with water-smoothed pebbles strewn about, several hundred feet above the prairie to the east. Here in the western slope now are ancient shores at 9000 feet and up. Here, the continental divide saps most of the moisture from the storms from the north and west. The eastern plains get their water when it can be sucked up from the Gulf of Mexico. I am heading over to Boulder today to meet an old friend, that journey takes four hours under the best of conditions, but has been as long as thirteen, eg. in March of ’92. I notice that several of the commenters on WUWT are Coloradians, must be something about the climate, or is it the weather?
Tom P:
Then maybe you should talk to more scientists?
Tom P,
The climate is cooling: click
For the past 6 – 7 years, as CO2 has steadily risen, the planet’s temperature has steadily declined. Whether this trend will continue is something we do not know for certain at this time, but it is a plain fact that as CO2 has gone up, the planet’s temperature has declined.
It is very obvious that CO2 is not the forcing agent that the alarmist gang still pretends. CO2 has only a very small effect. Spending any money at all to “mitigate” that very small effect is extremely foolish, when the money could be used to address actual problems. Or better yet, not be taken from taxpayers in the first place.
The very small contribution to warming that CO2, at its current concentration causes, is overwhelmed by many other factors. Otherwise, as CO2 increased, the planet would have become warmer.
But that isn’t happening. Which means that CO2 [AKA: “carbon”] should be completely disregarded, because its effect is negligible and inconsequential.
And since CO2 can be disregarded, then every argument against CO2 [or “carbon”] should be disregarded, too.
Where does that leave the climate alarmist contingent? Their AGW/CO2 hypothesis has failed. Failed!! They are now arguing about a non-problem. Their position is baseless from a scientific point of view.
Finally, Monckton is correct in his facts, and no one has refuted them. Instead, they attack the messenger [Monckton] because the facts fail to support their alarmist position.
The climate is cooling. The link above shows that fact conclusively. So your claim that the cooling climate is not supported by any scientist you know of can not be a true statement.
Smokey (05:22:01) You’re right of course, but after Tom P’s discourse with Frank Lansner over ‘Making Holocene Spaghetti Sauce’ a few days ago, I think Tom identified the type of kool-aid he is on.
Using a picture of a human being suffering grievous injuries in the way you have done is spectacularly nasty. Do you know what empathy is?
Ski areas and ‘global warming’:
In Europe, this is considerably more of an issue than in Colorado, as many resorts are at much lower altitudes and they have already, in the past 20 years, seen decreasing snow pack, particularly in the valleys. That’s important as a lot of continental winter holidayers are cross-country afficionados, not downhillers……
Reports have been commissioned in Switzerland, Austria and France that I know of which warned of likely loss of viability of many ski resorts over the next 20 years. It’s amusing to me that we’ve seen some pretty good snow this winter, although 2007 was far too warm and worrying in that regard….
The key in fact for ski resort viability in reality is this:
i. Lots of precipitation between mid/late November and the end of January.
ii. A lack of freak warm spells/rain in that period to reduce the snow pack.
iii. Cold nights to allow use of snow cannons to build up the base.
iv. No early onset of the spring-like temperatures in the 12 – 18C range.
2007/8 and 2008/9 fit those criteria very well.
What’s actually happened in Europe since 1980 was a loss of the early season snowiness, which left thin bases exposed to normal spring temperatures. Funnily enough, frequency of late snowfall was markedly higher in that period, which kept the wolf from the door for a while and made most seasons bearable if not vintage…..
I don’t think any of us can possibly predict what will happen in the next 30 years, based on:
i. Not knowing how quiet the sun will be.
ii. Not knowing what volcanoes will erupt.
iii. Not knowing how many El ninos/la Ninas will occur.
iv. Not knowing the future strength of the PDO/AMO.
v. Not knowing the effect of the first four variables in storm track frequency and direction over the world’s mountains….
Now if climatologists could do some simple numbers to work out how many years of data they will need before they can predict THOSE with 80% certainty, then the argument might start showing some perspective….
IMHO
RW,
Those pics of the woman who wanted to cuddle with the polar bear have been all over the newspapers, magazines, TV, and the internet. Why are you singling out this particular article to complain about it?
It seems that you should be much more angry at Al Gore for portraying polar bears as cute, which is probably why the woman thought she could go and pet them.
Smokey,
Your data is not up to date. For some reason it stops in at the lowest temperatures last year. Maybe for a similar reason it starts at the warmest year in the last decade according to the UAH data.
Here is a rather more valid trend that takes in all the UAH data:
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/6856/uah0309.png
This might be why climate scientists of all hues who look at the data as a whole have reached a rather different conclusion. Can you suggest any who think differently?
As for refuting Monckton’s “facts”, did you read the link I posted?
The climate is warming, and cooling. Just pick whatever time frame suits your stance.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Vostok_Plot_png
Meanwhile they have invented a new word that descibes the current scam going on in the arctic now:
The word “Catlin” is going to be a new entry in the Oxford/English Dictionary –
catlin (cat-lin) verb
to deceive, to delibralely fabricate, to de-fraud to public….
M White (02:53:52) :
… the first carbon neutral, double crossing …
Well, if you say so.. 🙂
Heavy snowfall, colder weather patterns, wetter precipitation, all over the center of the disinformation Boulder Colorado. Now if Lake Powell fills up that would be sweet.
http://snowpack.water-data.com/uppercolorado/index.php
3 out the last 4 years have been above average but the lake still doesn’t fill up. Somebody is shoplifting the water.
RW,
I saw a number of news stories describing the Berlin Zoo incident as an “attack” by the bears. I wonder if the bears were angry about global warming, or if they just thought the zoo keepers had thrown them an unusually large lunch?
The woman is a schoolteacher. When I went to school, they taught us that bears were dangerous and what to do if you encountered one in the forest. AGW propaganda media claims another victim.
Tom P,
[Credit to Lucia]: click
As you can see, the UN/IPCC’s AR-4 results have been falsified. Which makes complete sense, since the IPCC is composed 100% of political appointees.
But let’s say your assumption is based on the GISS temp anomaly, which diverges from everyone else: click. Why does it diverge? Because GISS “adjusts” their data, that’s why.
As Steven Goddard points out, the climate is either warming or cooling — but the changes are well within the uncertainty of the surface station network [which is heavily biased toward showing warmer temps than reality].
So let’s cut to the chase again: are you arguing that an increase in a minor trace gas, from under four parts in ten thousand, to five parts in ten thousand, justifies taxing and spending $billions to $trillions to “mitigate”? Because that is the central question in the entire debate.
What is your position on that question? [Please don’t refer to computer models. They are almost always wrong because they reflect the programmers’ biases. Use real world evidence.]
OT, but I have to post it somewhere…
I’ll be holding the first annual WUWT Barbeque the first week of July. (No, you all are not invited to my house, but I encourage you to hold a WUWT Barbeque at your own abodes.)
Inspired by the Catlin survey, I will make it a scientific barbecue and record the temperature on my grill using the super-accurate triple-calibrated factory installed thermometer on my grill (Bonus! My grill thermometer is graduated in both C & F).
I will report the max, min, and average grilling temperatures to the readers here at WUWT. Good scince starts with good data.
P.S. Further inspired by the science of the Catlin Arctic Survey, on WUWT Barbeque Day, I will dig a hole, carefully measure it, then post whatever the heck measurement I feel like reporting here on WUWT, since my digging the hole in my back yard is pointless anyhow.
WUWT Barbeque; the new AGW Tea Party.
page48,
We have a saying around my office (we’re all PhDs), “Get enough PhDs together and we can make a story for anything.” That’s why we’re required to submit our technical reports to peer reviewers outside our department. Group think can cause tons of problems.
Catliners have been swimming: Latest from the ice:
Latest Update
Two big events happened today, both firsts for the Catlin Arctic Survey. The team spotted a seal, the first mammal spotted since leaving Resolute 48 days ago. Where there are seals, there’s always open water! Here in the Ops room in London we’ve been observing ice movements on a grand scale in the area between 85°N and the North Pole. The changes in day-to-day satellite imagery can be staggering, with huge leads suddenly opening up, stretching hundreds of kilometres from east to west.
Today the team came across their first stretch of open water. The sub-zero temperature water ran for such a distance that the team could see no way of bridging the gap between the ice pan they were on, and the one they needed to get to. And so, the team donned their immersion suits, took the plunge, and swam the 50m to the other side, elbowing their way through the thin ice at the fringes of the lead. (To find out more about the immersion suits, take a look at the equipment section of the website.)
Crossing open water is now par for the course with polar travel. As spring progresses, the warmer temperatures cause the ice to melt and break up, meaning the frequency and size of leads increases. The emergence of open water at this stage of the survey is typical for this time of year and will become almost a daily occurrence towards the end of the expedition. So, today was a practice run for the days ahead….