While early autumn snowstorms aren’t uncommon in US weather history, they tend to be quick affairs that melt off quickly in a day or two. This however is a bit different in that we have a significant portion of the northern Midwest plains and northern Rockies are snow covered and it is not quickly dissipating, in fact it is increasing. Since October 10th the coverage has increased from 13.2% of the USA covered by snow.
This map below is from NOAA’s NOHRSC National Snow Analysis page.
Here is the accompanying table and discussion:
October 13, 2009
| Area Covered By Snow: | 19.9% |
| Area Covered Last Month: | 0.0% |
| Snow Depth | |
|---|---|
| Average: | 0.7 in |
| Minimum: | 0.0 in |
| Maximum: | 728.8 in |
| Std. Dev.: | 2.1 in |
| Snow Water Equivalent | |
| Average: | 0.1 in |
| Minimum: | 0.0 in |
| Maximum: | 403.4 in |
| Std. Dev.: | 0.4 in |
By way of comparison, here is the October 13th USA snow cover for the last few years:
2003- .7
2004- .3
2005- 1.7
2006- 3.7
2007- .3
2008-12.7
2009-19.9
What is also interesting is the 6 year trend of snow depth on this date.
2003- 38.2 in
2004-322.6 in
2005-456.9 in
2006-223.2 in
2007-458.1 in
2008-600.6 in
2009-728.8 in
You can watch the snow cover advance in the animation they provide:
Click for animation of the last 72 hours
Weather Summary
A series of potent systems moved across the coterminous U.S. this weekend, and they brought snow to the north and rain to the south. Late last week, heavy rain fell across the south, which continued to aggravate river flooding and keep soils most.
On Friday, up to 1 foot of snow fell at higher elevations in Wyoming, mainly due to upslope flow from a surface low which moved across the Plains. This same system produced up to 1 1/2 feet of snow to mainly Nebraska Friday and Saturday. Lighter amounts – up to 1/2 foot – fell across the southern Dakotas. On Monday, another system produced light snow across the Upper Midwest and western Great Lakes.
Much of the Western snowpack is cold and stable due due to unseasonably cold air temperatures in those areas. Along the southern edge of the snowpack – from southeastern Idaho to southern Wyoming and from southern Nebraska through southern Iowa, warm and melting conditions were present.
A deep, strong offshore system off the West Coast with potent onshore flow will cause widespread heavy rainfall across the northern two-thirds of California. Up to a foot of snow is possible in the high-elevation central Sierra Nevada, but it will be mixed with rain.
The energy of this West Coast system will shift northward and bring moderate rainfall – 1 to 2 inches – to the coastal Northwest and the Cascades on Wednesday and Thursday.
A midlevel trough will develop across the eastern U.S., and a stationary front across the South will be a focus for heavy rainfall through midweek, and this rain will shift to the Middle Atlantic states late this week.
As the West Coast system lifts northward, midlevel ridging will develop progress smartly across the West. Daily maximum temperatures are expected to be above freezing in much of the West by Friday. The ridge will move into the central U.S. by the weekend and bring seasonable temperatures to the Plains and Upper Midwest, causing snowmelt there.
Snow Reports
| Top Ten: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
h/t to WUWT reader Mike Bryant
4 Billions – I guess you and Kinnard et al have not seen the photo of the USS Skate when it surfaced at the North Pole March 17th 1959. Surfaced in MARCH of 1959 to VIRTUALLY NO ICE! At the North Pole. In March. Not July or August, MARCH! I could claim Santa Claus had his workshop there until 1940 using contrived graphs and misinformation, and without satellite observations this case could be argued. Let’s not lead with conjecture, let us lead with known and established facts first.
Interglacial John (06:50:04) :
4 Billions – I guess you and Kinnard et al have not seen the photo of the USS Skate when it surfaced at the North Pole March 17th 1959. Surfaced in MARCH of 1959 to VIRTUALLY NO ICE! At the North Pole. In March. Not July or August, MARCH! I could claim Santa Claus had his workshop there until 1940 using contrived graphs and misinformation, and without satellite observations this case could be argued. Let’s not lead with conjecture, let us lead with known and established facts first.
The image found here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
of the North pole, 18 May, 1987, when Sea ice extent was around 16 million km2,
http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articles/2006/2006_seaice.html
shows there can be open water at North pole at sea ice coverage maximum. This invalidates the claim that Sea ice coverage must be lower in the 1920’s 40’s etc because open water was found at North pole, open water at North pole does not necessarily mean a diminished Sea ice extent.
The graph you deride is compiled from historical records of Ice charts and settlement records.
3rd Symposium on the Impacts of an Ice-Diminishing Arctic
on Naval and Maritime Operations
June 9-11, 2009
U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
The 100-year historical record from ships and settlements going back to 1900 shows a decline in Arctic ice extent starting about 1950 and falling below pre-1950 minima after about 1975 [Naval Operations in an Ice Free Arctic, 2001]. According to satellite records available since late 1978, an overall downward trend in the extent of Arctic sea ice is present. This trend seems to have been accelerating during the last decade.
Perhaps the Navy is using contrived graphs and misinformation as well
Odd. Arctic ice was quite steady during the 1979-1998 warming. Yet you say it shrunk during the cool period from 1950 to 1975. And it has shrunk since 2002, another period of net cooling. I wonder what is at work, here.
4 billion (18:55:02),
The fact that you only post about the Arctic says it all. The key question concerns global ice extent, which is increasing, not your cherry-picked hemisphere: click
evanmjones (19:00:17) :
Odd. Arctic ice was quite steady during the 1979-1998 warming. Yet you say it shrunk during the cool period from 1950 to 1975. And it has shrunk since 2002, another period of net cooling. I wonder what is at work, here.
Can you point me in the direction of data showing Arctic ice was steady between 79-98,
Data showing Arctic sea ice wasn’t steady during 1979-98 can be found here.
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
Smokey (20:29:18) :
4 billion (18:55:02),
The fact that you only post about the Arctic says it all. The key question concerns global ice extent, which is increasing, not your cherry-picked hemisphere: click
SH extent has increased 2.1% over thirty years, NH has decreased by 33.6%
Total increase in SH sea ice extent over last thirty years is 0.3927 million square K’s
Total decrease of NH sea ice extent over last thirty years is 2.35 million square K’s
Total decrease in Global ice extent over last thirty years is 1.9593 million square K’s
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/about_images.html
Some recent articles at…
http://www.iceagenow.com/Upcoming_winter_will_be_a_shocker_to_millions_across_the_world.htm
Upcoming winter will be a shocker to millions across the world
17 Oct 09 – (Excerpts) With all the heavy snow falling either out West over Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado or over the Midwest ….and even the 20% snow cover across America and it’s only mid-October, is there anything more to all this than just a wacky pattern that appears every once in a while?
I have been amazed when I see “highs in the teens” and lows below zero this early. Not to mention the rarity of Billings, Montana recieving “4 straight days below freezing” The fact that Polebridge achieved a nighttime low of -13 degrees is remarkable for so early. The previous night saw -11 at Utica, Montana.
Denver is another amazing example of just how cold it’s been … a frigid high of just 26 degrees. ..The high there should be 69 degrees for this time of year!!
Countless records were broken for coldest, so early!
Is this a sign of a global cooling?
We have now seen records for BOTH SNOW AND COLD from the Rockies to Midwest and Lakes all the way to East with State College, Pa STILL getting snow this morning … Europe’s central region is getting blasted also by heavy, record-breaking snow and cold … as science is proving on many levels, the thermostat of earth is getting turned down…
Whether it be late summer arrivals with so called “freak April, May or June snowfalls” or “freak September, October snowfalls” … there has been a rapid cool down since throughout the year and I see an INCREASE in record snow and cold as well as record or unusual late season snow and cold…I believe Canada may be the first country in the Northern Hemisphere to say goodbye to global warming with cooling summers and rapidly growing colder winters. Major mountain ranges are seeing INCREASED SNOWFALL…
The large reaction to the Nina of 2008 is playing a role is the large-scale pattern that’s established now and is very dominant and will likely play a major role in this upcoming winter which I believe will be a real shocker to millions across the world…
The signs are all around us of large-scale, global changes to a cooling world. Each year for the next 20 years will see increasing snowfall and coverage that, in turn will reflect a vast portion of sun’s energy back to space, therefore creating a very cool world.In the next 20 years, we shall see new stunning cold records written, a new era of cold is arriving and this winter approaching may be the start to a trend.
See entire article, entitled “Is there something in all this early season cold and snow?”
http://truthbehindthescience.blogspot.com/2009/10/is-there-something-in-all-this-early.html
Thanks to Joe D’Aleo for this link
Chicago: Chilliest October in 133 years
15 Oct 09 – “Chicago’s average temperature over the month’s first 15 days slipped Thursday to 47.3-degrees—the city’s chilliest October open in the 133 years since 1876,” says WGN-TV Chief Meteorologist Tom Skilling.
See Chicago: Chilliest October in 133 years
http://www.iceagenow.com/Chicago-Chilliest_October_in_133_years.htm
For summer ice, you are right. (That’s definitely the biggest drop-off.)
For year-round ice, yes, it does go down a bit, on closer examination, but it doesn’t start to drop sharply until after 1998, which seems strange to me.
Look at the 3rd graph across.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
I have doubts about the pre-satellite record. There are reports of severe melting in the 1920s that do not show up in any way on the graphs I’ve seen. (If I recall correctly.)
Apologies to Smokey, I used September SH data, please ignore my post.
Smokey,
On further research, NH summer ice extent has decreased by 2.35 million square kilometers over thirty years, NH winter ice extent has decreased by 1.27 sqkm’s
SH summer ice extent has increased by 606000 square kilometers over thirty years. SH winter ice extent has increased by 392700 square km’s.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&year=2009&month=mar
So the Global sea ice extent during NH winter has decreased by 664000 sqkm’s and during NH summer has decreased by 1.957 million sqkm’s
4 billion (00:54:45),
The nsidc has been called to account for its fudging the numbers. Search the archives for Dr Walt Meier. Dr Meier is in a tough position. He has to toe his boss’s party line. But as has been shown, global sea ice is flat to rising; Arctic sea ice was declining, while Antarctic sea ice has been increasing. The NOAA’s own chart: click.
And Antarctic sea ice has been increasing a lot: click
Even the nsidc admits Antarctic sea ice is well above average: click.
Another excellent reference comes from the late, great John Daly: click.
John Daly passed away several years ago. The current increase in S.H. sea ice is shown here: click.
If you can spot a decline in Northern Hemisphere ice, please point it out to us: click.
You have to understand that there are big bucks involved with the reporting of sea ice extent. There is enormous pressure to show alarming ice loss. So government funded agencies “adjust” the charts: click [it’s a blink gif, give it time to load].
In reality, the current climate is very benign. There is nothing unusual occurring: click.
Summer ice extent is irrelevant. According to the AGW hypothesis, global warming should show up in the winter [and at high latitudes, and at night], not in the summer. But winter ice extent doesn’t support AGW, so they show summer sea ice instead.
Finally, it should be remembered that changes in sea ice extent are a function of wind. A global change in temperature of 0.6° C over the past century is not sufficient to melt millions of square kilometers of ice. Rather, wind blows the sea ice into warmer waters, where it melts. AGW has little or nothing to do with sea ice extent.
Smokey (06:03:14) :
Summer ice extent is irrelevant. According to the AGW hypothesis, global warming should show up in the winter [and at high latitudes, and at night], not in the summer. But winter ice extent doesn’t support AGW, so they show summer sea ice instead.
NH Winter extent has decreased by 1.27 million skm’s
You have to understand that there are big bucks involved with the reporting of sea ice extent. There is enormous pressure to show alarming ice loss. So government funded agencies “adjust” the charts: click [it’s a blink gif, give it time to load].
Seems a bit extreme to say that NOAA, NSIDC are adjusting charts to overstate Arctic Ice loss. No doubt accidents happen.
Finally, it should be remembered that changes in sea ice extent are a function of wind. A global change in temperature of 0.6° C over the past century is not sufficient to melt millions of square kilometers of ice. Rather, wind blows the sea ice into warmer waters, where it melts. AGW has little or nothing to do with sea ice extent.
Ice extent is not solely a function of wind, it is also a function of water temperature, and atmospheric temperature. It should also be noted the Arctic has been warming at greater rate than the rest of the globe, I also note that the Arctic was as warm in the 1940’s as today (though this is pre-satellite data obviously)
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic1880-2004_3.gif
Graphic of Arctic ice and Arctic sea SST
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_PolarIceCaps_files/image010.jpg
Walter Meier on causes of Arctic ice decline and warming
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/16/nsidcs-dr-walt-meier-answers-reader-questions-on-sea-ice/#more-3704
The warming of the last 30 years cannot be attributed primarily to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The AMO does not have a significant influence on the Arctic. On the Atlantic, side, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)-a regional expression of the Arctic Oscillation (AO)-is the most influential mode of variability in the Arctic. As I’ve mentioned previously, there are natural variations in climate that do indeed affect Arctic temperatures in the Arctic and the sea ice. The NAO/AO is a particularly prominent one and a substantial amount of the decline in the sea ice during the late 1980s and early 1990s could be attributed to a strong positive mode during winters because the positive mode favors the loss of thicker ice that is less likely to melt during summer.
However, since about 1995, the AO has mainly been in a neutral or negative state. Under such conditions, the Arctic sea ice should have started to recover. Instead, sea ice extent has not only continued downward, but the decline rate has accelerated. The AO may have been a “trigger” for the precipitous decline, but we wouldn’t have the ongoing decline without the documented warming trend (Lindsay and Zhang, 2005).
I am looking at the maximum snow-depth. It is rather large for this early in the season.
So what we have here are a bunch of remote sensing stations placed in many hundreds of locations all over the US to complement the existing weather stations. At least one of them was placed in a location that experienced the beginning of a new glacier. In 2003 the snow-depth at that location was less than 23 in. Now it is 728.8 inches. That this is glacier pack snow can be seen in the fact that it’s water equivalent is 403.4 inches, which means that more than half the snowpack over the years has been converted to ice. Another strong indicator that some glaciers disappear, others get formed and grow.
Is this observation right?