Another east coast snowstorm brewing

Forecasts call for another 20 inches of snow in Washington DC with snow spreading to NYC this time.

Feb. 8 (Bloomberg) — Storm systems barreling across the country may bring as much as 20 inches (50 centimeters) of new snow to Washington and Baltimore starting late tomorrow, while New York may receive a foot, forecasters said.

With the Washington-Baltimore area still digging out from a weekend storm that left record snowfalls in some areas, the latest blast of winter “is going to be accompanied by heavy winds, which will make it feel worse, and across the Northeast that wind is going to last through the weekend,” said Tom Kines, a meteorologist with AccuWeather Inc.

A winter storm watch was posted today by the National Weather Service for New York, Long Island, southern Connecticut, Rhode Island and southern Massachusetts. A winter storm warning was posted for Washington starting at noon tomorrow, and 10 to 20 more inches may fall, the agency said.

more here

Advertisements

101 thoughts on “Another east coast snowstorm brewing

  1. With the moon at maximum South declination today on the 9th of February, we are again seeing a surge of moisture, making up the southern half of the secondary tidal bulge, forming on the East side of the Rockies.
    That will follow the inertia already imparted on it, into the Eastern USA, producing snow and freezing precipitation, for at least the next 4 days before it leaves bound for the British Isles.
    For a look at a new paradigm, Lunar declinational, natural analog weather forecast, that saw this coming two years ago, click on following link to website, a work in progress, still in the Beta stages of production.
    http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx
    Differences between the site’s posted “forecast” and the actual weather may be due to the difference in solar cycle activity levels from the past three cycles, (when the sun’s activity levels were higher than now.) Tends to move current frontal positions further South than in the past.
    Plots of the past precipitation patterns are compiled from 6am date of forecast reference date, till 6am the following morning, as such the tracks are not expected to be repeated in entirety, till 6am the morning following the forecast date.

  2. And one thing I have noticed over the years, forecasters rarely get Nor’easters right. They are just too finicky. A few miles one way or the other makes all the difference. I have seen forecasts of 10 or more inches of snow fall as an inch of rain or a forecast for a dusting turn into a dumping of a foot. The exact amount of snow to expect from a Nor’easter has to be one of the hardest calls in meteorology. You just sort of have to watch it as it develops.

  3. If they are correct about this forecast, then Wednesday’s evening commute could be dangerous, especially up towards New York City.
    They are not talking about lazy flakes of sticky snow that you can make a snow man with. They are talking about the dry, sifting stuff that doesn’t stick, flying like needles on howling winds. More like the Dakotas than the East Coast is used to. Visibility could drop to zero in white-outs, and wind-chills drop to zero.
    It only takes one dumb driver to stop all the traffic on an expressway. Then you are going to have people sitting in cars, depending on their heaters because they will not be properly dressed to go for a walk in the gale-force wind.
    I am always amazed by how poorly some people dress for winter driving. They always assume they can dash from a heated home to a heated car to a heated office. Wednesday evening will not be a good time to make this assumption.
    It likely will be a good day to leave work at noon, head home, and hunker down. Fortunately it doesn’t look like the storm will slow down and stall. It ought head out to sea in a hurry.
    Meanwhile we may get strong winds but only an inch, up in southern New Hampshire. We’ve had snow-cover since December, but its starting to look a bit worn and moth-eaten. The snow-shields of all these storms are shunted south of us.
    The following storm looks like it will lay down a stripe of snow across the deep south. Then, for a few days, we may have snow-cover from Canada clear down to the Gulf of Mexico.
    Albedo effect, anyone?

  4. Any news on how the local wind farms helped the electricity generation figures during the storm?

  5. I remember when that same system hit Northern California last week with heavy downpours. It really put a damper on my running routine. We had a nice break over the weekend but of course now it’s raining again! Thanks a lot El Nino.

  6. crosspatch (00:48:19) :
    I dunno. I am looking at that buildup on the gulf coast and starting to worry that this one could be bigger than the one before.

    It was a real gully-washer when it blew through Houston yesterday. Y’all up there in winter wonderland can expect some more of O’Bama’s shovel ready stimulus jobs.
    Speaking of the carbon cycle, I see where Rep. Murtha has gone carbon-neutral.


  7. I particularly enjoy watching Mordor-on-the-Potomac catch pastings such as these we’ve experienced. Drivers in that area (and to the immediate south thereof) experience snow so rarely that most of them lack the skill to handle it. Those of us bred and taught in northern climes learn early how to deal with icy roads.
    Heck, I took (and passed) my driver’s test at age 17 on roads precisely as snow-covered and treacherous as they are right now in the Mid-Atlantic states. It was in February, too, come to think on it.
    The lightest dusting and there are cars with Virginia and DC license tags in the roadside ditches, and if one has the time to put up with the astonishing clumsiness of the ones who can (barely) keep their own vehicles on the asphalt, it’s quite entertaining.

  8. That’s an awful lot of snow going to end up being on the ground at one time.
    After the cold comes the melt.
    I’m looking at the same situation on the opposite coast. Reversvoir has budged much for the last 2 months. When the clouds clear on a rare day it’s obvious why. Ain’t been melting much. Still, they are jumping up & down screaming drought. The polys don’t seem to get it, 200% of normal water content in the snowpack. Might as well call it Lucy : “Charlie Brown, you blockhead !”

  9. Crossing fingers that Washington will get hammered with 20 inches of snow every second day…
    Come on snow gods !

  10. crosspatch (00:48:19) :
    I don’t like what I am seeing on that RADAR loop one bit.

    I’m loving it 😉 The more that hits DC the better… (Besides, that means it’s finally left here!)
    Brian Johnson uk (01:26:35) : Any news on how the local wind farms helped the electricity generation figures during the storm?
    Saw a ‘teaser blurb’ on some mindless news show about wind turbines in somewhere back east (Minnesota? Wisconsin? I donno…. wasn’t really listening closely…) that were frozen and not turning. The hydraulic fluids and lube oils were setting up to jelly. The California manufacturer said that “had not been consulted about climate suitability” or some such…
    (he googles)
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5068
    Looks like it was Minnesota …

  11. I am from Australia and I have to apologize for the inordinate quantity of global warming that you are suffering from. We have been assured by our erstwhile minister for the environment, that only the methane co2 and other green house gases from farts and burps of camels is only relevant to the Kyoto protocol if the camels are privately owned. Perhaps 200 in OZ are in this catagory. Mean time one million feral camels, not native to Australia are invading towns, destroying fences,crops and pasture. The touchy feelly greens have prohibited the culling or destruction of these green house monsters. The Kangaroos are having serious competition. We have considered arming the Kangaroos but the restrictive gun laws stopped them having a competative edge.
    That is why I feel compelled to apologize for it is obvious that our feral camels are the root of the intense global warming that has been inflicted on you by our inappropriate actions. Sincerely your Wayne

  12. Here comes the snow again, winter is almost over but the snow seems not giving up that easily. i hope everyone prepare for this to avoid huge problems.

  13. Not Amused (03:20:39) : “Crossing fingers that Washington will get hammered with 20 inches of snow every second day…”
    Glad you are amused “Not Amused”. This storm will probably have a death toll to go with it. If you remove the entire government from ‘THIS’ area, you’d end up with a hell of a lot of good people, even including those that actually do work for the Government! Most of them would probably also take exception to your gleeful finger crossing and your exceptional lack of compassion for your fellow human beings… IT IS A SERIOUS SITUATION.
    I know this post has no value (as Not Amused has no value) and I’d be surprised if it even makes it through, but I’m here trying to learn.
    [Reply: Why would your comment not be posted? This is not one of the blogs promoting AGW by censoring opposing comments. If you are polite and reasonable, your comments will be posted. ~dbstealey, moderator]

  14. OK, here south of DC we had 30″ of snow in the past week, Sat -Sat. Remember that does not include the 15-17″ pre-Christmas storm. So this one will drop another 6-12″ (or more) we can never tell with a NorEaster. A record year? Maybe, and it couldn’t have come at a better time. Cooling temps and now record snows in that ole DC, what’s better to stop the Cap & Trade BS?
    Oh, I almost forgot, a different administration is the answer to that last question.

  15. Any news on the drought that global warming caused in Georgia (U.S.) over the last couple of years? Seems like that has gone the way of other AGW “evidence”.

  16. Tucci 02:10:40, Look out, I’m one of those drivers. I got my driver’s license at age 14, saw snow stick on the ground for the first time at age 20 and drove on snow for the first time at age 35, when I moved way up north to DC. I’m your worst nightmare on a snow-covered roadway…

  17. Oh dang, likely little snow in New Hampshire. Last storm all we got was a light cloud cover and wind. I’m still hanging on to my paltry 3″ (8 cm). Ah well, it looks like the snow is going to a good home. Anything to slow down congress is a Good Thing(tm) .
    Looking ahead, I’m hoping for a couple big March storms here when the storm track finally moves back north.
    —————
    crosspatch (00:57:04) :
    > And one thing I have noticed over the years, forecasters rarely get Nor’easters right. They are just too finicky. A few miles one way or the other makes all the difference.
    One reason for that is continental storms often transfer their energy to a new storm that forms off the coast. Exactly where that point is provides an initial starting point for the track. The biggest uncertainty is along the fringe of the storm. I drove to work in one blizzard that was clobbering Massachusetts. The first snow I saw was when I reached the northern border of Nashua New Hampshire, work was near the southern border, just before Massachusetts. Every exit had nearly another inch on the ground, but I made it to work before traffic was impacted, and there were 6″ in the parking lot.
    New England, especially along the coast, is a mecca for meteorologists who like a challenge. The best are willing to admit their forecast was wrong.
    —————
    Caleb (01:18:47) :
    >I am always amazed by how poorly some people dress for winter driving. They always assume they can dash from a heated home to a heated car to a heated office. Wednesday evening will not be a good time to make this assumption.
    For a while, especially when I’d often drive to Plymouth NH late at night, I kept a warm sleeping bag in my car. There are just too many stories about people sliding off the road in a snow storm and being found days later.
    I have a long commute, I’m always amazed at the number of people here who don’t have snow tires. I like to claim that “all season” tires are great in Florida. They’re great here too in winter – most of the time. And then people get in the passing lane and are afraid to move back right. Once after a toll booth all the traffic wound up in the passing lane which had visible pavement. The right lane was well (not too well) packed snow and I had it all to myself for a few miles.
    I don’t really seek out drives in the snow any more. The drive I had in the Blizzrd of ’78 really can’t be improved on. Any additional challenge would have left me stranded.
    —————
    Tucci (02:10:40) :
    > The lightest dusting and there are cars with Virginia and DC license tags in the roadside ditches, ….
    Sometimes that’s the most dangerous. When 1/4″ of snow packs down into a thin icy coat, you can skid and not stop. The trick, of course, is to not skid, except is safe areas where you can test the traction.
    When there’s 3-6″ on the road, then ice isn’t much of a problem and if you do skid, the loose snow helps slow you down.
    Ah well, I hope it’s been a learning experience down there.
    And another thing – people who spin their tires! There’s still enough friction to heat up the tire surface to above freezing. Warm tire on snow makes wet ice and too little traction to do anything (like get out of the pit dug out by spinning tires).

  18. Tom – I live in Georgia. No discernable evidence of drought or global warming here. It would be nice, in fact, to see the sun two days together.
    I went on about 5 or 6 swimming outings over the summer. It was only warm enough to swim probably two of those times. And this in a place which is usually unbearably hot in the summer.
    But hey, it’s just weather.

  19. You guys need to get a Jeep Commander with 4-wheel drive, a low-4 tow package, studs, and chains if ya need em. My Jeep is so bulky and big, I was stopped once for not having drag chains.
    Traded my nearly new Toyota Corolla in for that big ol’baby after the Toyota hit a deep patch of snow on Tollgate and ground to a stop, with headlights buried in the snow on the road.

  20. Hope everyone stays safe and heeds Caleb’s advice. If I’m forced to travel in snow I also take a shovel, large hot flask of sweet coffee and some high calorie snacks.
    Were due another dollop of the white stuff here in Britain tomorrow and Thursday, and I’m planning on staying indoors by a nice big log fire. Wishing everyone well and stay warm.

  21. Our local newspaper had an article about water equivalent snow being just 81% of average (ever heard of a standard deviation?). Less than 5 days after the weekly came out, water equivalent basin snow now stands at 87%.

  22. @ Tucci (02:10:40) : The lightest dusting and there are cars with Virginia and DC license tags in the roadside ditches, and if one has the time to put up with the astonishing clumsiness of the ones who can (barely) keep their own vehicles on the asphalt, it’s quite entertaining.
    Several years ago, I was in South Carolina when they got hit with a whopping half an inch of snow. A state trooper pulled me over and told me I had to get off the roads. I was incredulous and asked, “What for?” And he said, “It’s not safe to be out here right now, ma’am.” I just laughed and said, “You’ve got to be kidding!” He told me if I kept arguing with him he’d give me a ticket.
    As bad as that is, the worst drivers in any kind of weather are from Ohio. 🙂
    @ Ric Werme (05:30:30) : For a while, especially when I’d often drive to Plymouth NH late at night, I kept a warm sleeping bag in my car. There are just too many stories about people sliding off the road in a snow storm and being found days later.
    In the winter, I always, always keep extra blankets, sweatshirts, gloves, a 24-pack of bottled water, granola bars, protein bars, an extra cell phone charger, a shovel, kitty litter, and a broom in my trunk.

  23. @ Tucci (02:10:40) : I particularly enjoy watching Mordor-on-the-Potomac catch pastings such as these we’ve experienced. Drivers in that area (and to the immediate south thereof) experience snow so rarely that most of them lack the skill to handle it. Those of us bred and taught in northern climes learn early how to deal with icy roads.
    When we were learning to drive as kids, my dad would take us to an empty parking lot at a public pool. (And I learned to drive in a 1972 Dodge Polara, that didn’t exactly stop on a dime.) He made us get up to about 60 mph, then hit the brakes. You learned very quickly what NOT to do…panicking is the worst thing you can do, followed by slamming on the brakes. You SQUEEZE the brakes–you don’t hit them so hard your wheels lock.

  24. Pamela Gray,
    “You guys need to get a Jeep Commander with 4-wheel drive, a low-4 tow package, studs, and chains if ya need em. ”
    Sounds great, but here in the UK, such 4 by 4’s have to pay punitive taxes to be allowed on the road. Ironically, during the snowy spell last month, the only vehicles able to make it up the hills around my way were the despised 4 by 4’s, while the eco friendlies were stuck on their drives.
    Don’t you just love it when govinmints try to pick winners!

  25. @ Not Amused (03:20:39) :
    Saw a ‘teaser blurb’ on some mindless news show about wind turbines in somewhere back east (Minnesota? Wisconsin? I donno…. wasn’t really listening closely…) that were frozen and not turning. The hydraulic fluids and lube oils were setting up to jelly. The California manufacturer said that “had not been consulted about climate suitability” or some such…
    (he googles)
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5068
    ———
    Yeah, if they had known it was going to Minnesota. they would have put some peanut butter into the lube. At least that way you could have a peanut butter and jelly windmill while you froze in the dark.
    Looks like it was Minnesota …

  26. Good luck with your pending next dump of snow. Stay safe.
    (I love it when this stuff happens in the USA [no offense], but it is so sad when people are injured and killed.)
    There are a couple of references above to the snow-free Olympics in Vancouver.
    Naturally, we can expect the eco-weenies to start with “The lack of lower elevation snow at the Olympics is caused by AGW!” All the while, the “ultra left BC tree huggers” forget the record snow cover they had last winter when the snow stayed for week vs. the usual few hours. They could not drive their Beemers out to get sushi. Aaaaw gee.
    But as we all know … (here at WUWT anyway)
    1) Weather is not climate, and more importantly …
    2) This is a classic example of El Nino keeping the West Coast well above average. It is a statement about the power of the oceans which remains lost on many..or at least is lost in their brains when convenient to do so. ☺
    Clive

  27. The other tough thing about snow forecasting in southern New England is the snow/rain line. Ten miles and 250 feet of elevation can cut snow depths in half as warmer temps cause a change over to rain. Shoveling slush is the worst.

  28. Ack. I don’t know how much more weight my roof can take. This one will maybe be concentrated more to the east & NE from western MD than the last one. I hope.

  29. To know weather, why don’t you consider lunar phases like in the past it used to be?, it seems that Piers Corbyn does take them into account too.
    Then, if you have had big snow storms beginning on the fifth of february, chances are you will have them back on the 7th. of march.

  30. According to the National Weather Service, typical for DC is either 17 inches for a season or 15 (Dulles versus Wash National stations).
    With the Xmas snow storm, that could mean a potential 60 inches so far this year.
    That would be 60/15 = 4 x’s the norm.
    Now what’s the statistical spread on this, and is this more than 3 standard deviations out?
    Max

  31. Actual snowfall, 120 seasons
    12.5
    6.5
    37.1
    41.7
    31.0
    25.4
    24.8
    9.3
    16.2
    11.0
    54.4
    35.6
    9.1
    13.1
    8.2
    20.2
    41.0
    25.7
    28.3
    18.3
    36.0
    20.0
    39.8
    21.8
    8.7
    28.6
    14.5
    17.4
    18.8
    36.4
    3.3
    11.9
    4.8
    42.5
    15.2
    21.4
    18.5
    17.4
    2.3
    11.1
    7.5
    18.1
    2.5
    5.0
    23.8
    30.7
    31.4
    31.8
    20.2
    5.4
    13.6
    25.3
    17.9
    13.6
    16.7
    4.6
    7.3
    21.6
    20.0
    23.4
    15.8
    3.4
    10.2
    10.2
    8.3
    18.0
    6.6
    11.3
    14.2
    40.4
    4.9
    24.3
    40.3
    15.0
    21.4
    33.6
    17.1
    28.4
    37.1
    21.4
    9.1
    14.0
    11.7
    16.8
    0.1
    16.7
    12.8
    2.2
    11.1
    22.7
    37.7
    20.1
    4.5
    22.5
    27.6
    8.6
    10.3
    15.4
    31.1
    25.0
    5.7
    15.3
    8.1
    6.6
    11.7
    13.2
    10.1
    46.0
    6.7
    0.1
    11.6
    15.4
    7.4
    3.2
    40.4
    12.4
    12.5
    13.6
    9.5
    4.9
    Average: 17.9″, Standard Deviation: 11.5″
    Thus 60″ would be 5 S.D.’s out, usually an indication of a “significant” change from the “average”.
    The next item would be to see it happen, say, 4 to 10 years in a row.

  32. For Baltimore, the all-time record for the snowiest winter is something like 62.5 inches. After this past weekend’s snow, Baltimore is at 60.4 inches for this winter. We are poised to receive much more tonight, not merely breaking the record, but obliterating it.
    Washington National airport receives an average of 16.6 inches annually. In the December 19-20 snowfall, they got 16.4; nearly an entire year’s worth in a single fall. This past weekend, they received (if memory serves me right), 17.4 inches–more than a year’s worth in a single fall. Now we have the possibility of yet a third major snow.
    Hey Mr. Gore, think people will buy your AGW alarmism after this?

  33. Members of an independent new media would now be asking Obama and other politicians how the weather compares with Al Gore’s and the UN IPCC’s prediction of global warming.
    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  34. “I’ll get the tar
    You get the feathers
    And will go see Al
    If we can make it
    Through this weather..”
    (Unk)

  35. Any bets on how long it will be before the AGW crowd agree that it is not getting hotter, and they start claiming the credit for saving the planet?

  36. John Innes (08:20:27) :The crowd may realize that AGW is over but not the promoters because it is a business and the means of an ideology to achieve their goal: Global Government, which, in turn and again means business.
    They are quite advanced in their agenda, just see in any direction and you’ll see it fulfilled. All production means in less hands every day: Do you remember the good all days when you could buy something as trivial as chocolates from different parts of the world with different trade names?, now all they keep its trade names, but the trademark on its envelopes it is only one and the same: N….é

  37. This pattern is starting to look like the more classical Nor’easter than the last one did. On the national loop, notice the “explosion” starting to happen at about the border of the Carolinas.
    http://radar.weather.gov/Conus/index_loop.php
    This generally rakes up the coast. What determines the amount of snow and where it happens is determined by where exactly it is relative to the coast as it moves North. The “worst case” is a center of the storm just off shore that wanders slowly North with heavy precipitation on the “cold” side of the storm.
    This one is interesting in that it is a double-barreled event with another storm farther to the North that could cause another “exposion” possibly off the coast of New Jersey. If that happens just as the one from farther South is arriving in the area, it is “Katie, bar the door” for New York and Long Island.

  38. Oh, and on the West coast, notice how clearly you can see the circulation right now around a low pressure area centered about San Francisco bay. That will be next week’s storm in the East.

  39. No snow, but here in San Antonio they’re forecasting a mix of winter precipitation starting early Weds.
    Winter is usually over by the end of January – I can’t remember having this much cold weather in a very long time (mid 80s, perhaps?)
    Of course, it’s a relief after our horrific, blistering, 50+ days over 100F summer last year. I’ll take whatever winter I can get after that!
    (Julie, who certainly does NOT know how to drive in the snow!)

  40. FYI, that area to the west of the east coast is populated, not terra incognita, and we are -having- a snow storm. The city left me a nice 3.5 foot wall at the end of my driveway.

  41. It has been pointed out before that these frozen wind turbines are not the ones dotting the prairies in their thousands, but some old, used ones designed for California. The new ones hereabouts keep on turning.
    Ric, that is true. One of my great-aunt’s tenants disappeared in the Christmas storm and hasn’t been seen since. He was heading “up nort’ from Iowa.
    Another thing you ought to have in your car survival kit is a coffee can with a lid. Think about it. One woman had to use her purse a year or two ago.
    -pump- the breaks, so that you don’t spin out. Gently pump them. Front-wheel drive is diferent. You may actually want to accelerate.

  42. Kay (06:24:40) :
    I kept a warm sleeping bag in my car.
    In the winter, I always, always keep extra blankets, sweatshirts, gloves, a 24-pack of bottled water, granola bars, protein bars, an extra cell phone charger, a shovel, kitty litter, and a broom in my trunk.

    I keep the same, plus flashlight, toilet paper, and the most important necessity. A fifth of whiskey. Nothing beats a whiskey slushy when you’re in the ditch, even if it does cool you down.

  43. 25% of DC “snow plow fleet is down and they’re having trouble getting replacement parts…..Crews have been working non-stop since the blizzard on Friday…..also working to get Bobcats and other front loaders to help with snow removal.”
    http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1884422

  44. Is this the Green Police?
    RFK Jr. said snow storms like this couldn’t happen there anymore in Virginia because of global warming. If that was true this unbelievable incident couldn’t have happened:
    Felony snowball throwing charges have been leveled against two Virginia college students for allegedly pelting a city plow and an undercover police car during Saturday’s blizzard.
    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0209101snow1.html
    When I was a kid everyone threw snowballs at the snowplows! And they are slapping these kids with felonies no less!

  45. AccuWeather.com
    is now projecting that Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Wilmington (DE), Baltimore, Atlantic City and others will break their records for snowiest season in recorded history, after tomorrow’s storm
    (in inches, current/record/expected after tomorrow):
    Philly: 56.4 / 65.5 / 71.0
    Atlantic City: 42.8 / 46.9 / 53.7
    Wilmington: 53.9 / 55.9 / 67.3
    Washington D.C.: 63.1 / 61.9 / 72.3
    Baltimore: 60.4 / 62.5 / 74.6
    http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?blog=Weathermatrix

  46. Washington only had officially “only” 17.8 inches. The Washington Post article tries to explain why, while everybody else in the area got much more:
    link
    Urbanization doesn’t just affect the temperature.

  47. Pamela Gray (05:55:48) :
    You guys need to get a Jeep Commander with 4-wheel drive, a low-4 tow package, studs, and chains if ya need em.
    Funny-the suvs are all the ones that see off the road in norhtern Vt. My Corolla-never once in 25 years of a 30 mile commute. It’s not what you drive-it’s how
    That being said-crummiest snow year that I can remember since maybe the late 70’s here in VT.

  48. Tim Clark (10:38:27) :
    Kay (06:24:40) :
    I kept a warm sleeping bag in my car.
    In the winter, I always, always keep extra blankets, sweatshirts, gloves, a 24-pack of bottled water, granola bars, protein bars, an extra cell phone charger, a shovel, kitty litter, and a broom in my trunk.
    I keep the same, plus flashlight, toilet paper, and the most important necessity. A fifth of whiskey. Nothing beats a whiskey slushy when you’re in the ditch, even if it does cool you down.

    Really, don’t forget the liquid – that’s what you need first nutritionally, not food per se. Overdo everything, especially sleeping bags and blankets, too. You won’t regret it. Take the whiskey if there’s any chance you’ll get caught outside of the Antarctic compound you’ve just had to completely burn down in order to destroy The Thing, like Kurt Russell did.
    Or just don’t travel if things are shaping up too ominously. You can get stopped out there for days pretty easily, not only on the highwway. Around here where we’re fairly well prepared, once the Freeway froze up with a lot of cars stopped. But my neighbor jumped on his evil snowmobile and drove 70-100 miles up to rescue his stranded wife anyway. I think it was something about “sleeping on the couch” or something.

  49. Hehe, try running around in three feet of snow with a “smart” car. You will be lucky to be able to see over the snowbanks at the intersections.

  50. Dodged the bullet again here in southern Illinois. The storm that’s set to dump all kinds of more snow on the mid-Atlantic, once again, just gave us a dusting. It’s still cold as hell here, though. I know, I know, AGW-faithful…weather isn’t climate, and North America is sitting in an “anomaly.” Climate is a measure of, oh, I don’t know, average numbers of orgies, or something.
    Glad we dodged the bullet again, because I’m not sure my Insight will handle much more snow 😛

  51. John Innes (08:20:27)
    Any bets on how long it will be before the AGW crowd agree that it is not getting hotter, and they start claiming the credit for saving the planet?

    Interesting goad there
    But what about the NASA claims that the “aughts” are still the hottest decade on record, with 2005 being the hottest year of all time since reliable records have been kept, and 2009 coming in second now?
    Heavy snow or not, 2009 is not that darn long ago. Oh, and heavy snow is well within the predictions of AGW. More warming means more vapor is in the air now, and in winter (yes, it will be around for some time to come!) means that vapor is turned to snow under the right conditions.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=249

  52. Wakefield Tolbert (16:08:22):
    “…heavy snow is well within the predictions of AGW.”
    1. Everything is well within the predictions of AGW. You surely must have gotten the memo by now.
    2. NASA is no longer credible. They just aren’t. They can not be trusted. Sorry ’bout that, they used to be my heroes, too. But they’ve fudged the numbers once too often.
    3. Relax, the warmest year always comes back to trend: click. They said 1997-8 was the warmest. See? There’s nothing to get all upset about. CO2 isn’t gonna getcha.

  53. So…I’m imagining that it would do no good to post the thoughts of a physicist/aquaintence of sorts of mine who made the following observation in friendly jest with some of us over on MacClean’s online the other day to the effect of:
    The polar ice cap is vanishing at a rate far faster than the worst IPCC predictions. Agriculture is suffering due to changes in climatological patterns, seen most profoundly at first in grain farming in Australia, precisely where predicted. 2009 saw the driest spring that Canadian agriculture has seen in the 70 years we’ve kept records of:
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/canadas-p
    Low lying island nations such as Tuvalu are already being forced to begin relocating due to rising sea levels. An overwhelming majority of scientists globally concur on the basic facts. The so-called ‘climategate’ is climate change denial’s last gasp. Hackers stole ten years worth of emails, and they were scoured for anything that might appear damning, finding only two that have been endlessly paraphrased since. The term ‘trick’ is commonly used in science journals as an accepted clever methodology rather than an intent to deceive, and the study mentioned in the email that includes the word ‘trick’ plays no part in official IPCC findings. The ‘can’t explain the decline’ email refers to a study of tree ring formation, and rather than being a secret, the scientist who wrote the email also wrote a public article about his inability to explain his findings. Clearly we don’t know everything we might about tree ring formation, but AGW is happening. The science is unassailable, so now taking a couple of private emails out of context is the worst that denialism has left in its arsenal.
    And thank fate for that, because the longer we linger in the first of five stages of grief, the deeper the knife will cut when we realize we have no other choice. Even if climate change were not real (it is) and we didn’t have anything to do with it (we do), the shift to more sustainable methodologies would be infinitely valuable in human health improvements and long term resource availability.”

  54. Wakefield Tolbert (17:06:29) :
    Yeah, it would be a waste of space to post that. Why? Because the base information on which it is based is dodgy at best. Just like the “115 year record hot” in the west of the USA “just as predicted”, only it wasn’t. It was a direct result of having only 4 thermometers left in the state being used in the GHCN data set. One at the airport in San Francisco and 3 near the beach in Southern California…
    So, sea level rise? Nope. Pacific islands rise and fall with sea level. (There was an excellent posting here a ways back explaining island dynamics.) BTW, most of those Pacific islands are built on the tops of submerged mountains. Key words: “built” and “submerged”. Islands are an active process, not a static feature. FWIW, “The Big Island” of Hawaii is bigger than the others because it is still being built up over the hot spot. It will eventually join the chain of sinking ones (that used to be giants too) that ends about Midway where the submerge. Until you have a few feet of water in downtown New York, it’s mindless to talk about ‘sea level rise’. More so for Pacific Atolls and volcanic islands.
    Similar issues apply to your other points. The polar ice cap, for example, is way within historic norms and is doing fine.
    BTW, I’ve done a nice little “self to self” thermometer record analysis that shows the Pacific Ocean area has, since 1880 to 1995, warmed by exactly nil.
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/dtdt-agw-ddt/

  55. @Wakefield Tolbert (17:06:29) : Click on the “Categories” line in the sidebar, then click on “sea level” to find a list of relevant articles on the topic, with the most recent one by Willis E. on top. Reading that ought to take the air out of your faith in that and other warmist prognostications. Then check out other categories.
    For instance, three years ago warmists like Lacis were sure they had their smoking gun in the supposed ice-melting in Greenland — which subsequently stopped.

  56. @WT: Agriculture is always suffering somewhere or other. On the whole it’s doing well.
    Certainly there are semi-innocent explanations for much of the Climategate material. But some of them won’t wash, when they’re really put in context, as for instance in the Mosher/Fuller Climategate book. Regardless, the leaders in the field of climatology come across as sharp-elbowed, narrow-minded zealots; hence their say-so on anything cannot be taken as authoritative enough to “bet the farm” on. Their findings and interpretations need to be reviewed by independent scientists from outside the snake pit of organized clime.
    “An overwhelming majority of scientists globally concur on the basic facts.” It remains to be seen how many of them have reviewed and concurred with Hansen’s catastrophic/runaway scenario, as opposed to how many simply have accepted it without much thought, or who have accepted a non-catastrophic version of warming but not made a fuss about it in order to avoid rocking the boat. A very detailed questionnaire should be administered to a known and representative sample.
    It should also be borne in mind that people who entered the field of climatology did so in many cases because they “wanted to make a difference” and/or because they were thoroughly indoctrinated in CAGWism in their training.
    “AGW is happening. The science is unassailable,” — Care to make a bet? There are about ten available, under “Markets –> Climate & Weather,” here: https://www.intrade.com

  57. Wakefield,
    The numbers are “adjusted”, and always in a way to show higher temps. But that’s not all. Here’s a graph from CRU showing both hemispheres, and the global temperature: click. Notice that the global graph is higher than the total of the hemispheres.
    And regarding Tuvalu, that story is so bogus. Here’s a John Daly graph of its supposedly rising sea levels: click
    At nearby New Caledonia atoll, also no sea level rise: click
    And finally, a decisive refutation of sea level rise: click
    The rest of the comments from Treehugger are equally bad. They’ve all been deconstructed, every one of them.
    I hope you get a chance to read John Daly’s paper. He covers the bases well.

  58. Caleb (01:18:47) :
    >I am always amazed by how poorly some people dress for winter driving.
    For a while, especially when I’d often drive to Plymouth NH late at night, I kept a warm sleeping bag in my car. There are just too many stories about people sliding off the road in a snow storm and being found days later.

    Once long ago…
    Driving from a diving trip in Coos Bay Oregon back to Sacramento… the geniuses in charge decided to bring I-5 to a halt in the (just starting) blizzard to tell everyone the weather was bad. Of course, sit for an hour in falling snow and the road is not so good and moving again, not so easy. I had lost a chain (and learned about chain tensioners…) and ended up stuck in a drift by the side of the freeway in the Cascades near “Weed”. Very cold and snow falling.
    Well, long story short, I bundled up in coat but it wasn’t enough. So I stripped, put on the wet suit from the dive, and re-dressed including coat. While my toes and nose were a bit cold, the rest of me was OK. About 4 am the snow stopped and I was able to clear enough of the snow to ‘rock’ the car back and forth enough to get out of the ‘divots’.
    Freeway, now being closed behind me, was wide open. Stopped in Weed for coffee… wet suit and all. Only a few ‘funny looks’ in the cafe 😉
    Once after a toll booth all the traffic wound up in the passing lane which had visible pavement. The right lane was well (not too well) packed snow and I had it all to myself for a few miles.
    Same trip, after coffee, driving on clear ‘passing lane’ behind slug. About 4 inch ice / pack snow shelf in ‘slow lane’. Having grown up in farm country on mud and gravel, I ‘floaty boaty’ it over onto the ice and pass on the right. Look in the rear view mirror to see a “flatlander” in a Caddy try to power onto the ice… doing 180’s / 360’s down the freeway with flashers coming on…
    All this in a 1960’s era Ford Fairlane IIRC with crummy cheap summer tires.
    Drove uneventfully on home (past the ‘road closed’ signs at the OTHER end getting more looks of ‘you came out of where?’ ).
    I, too, like to practice spin any given new car type on snow covered parking lots as available. I like to know the limits… But frankly, growing up on mud and gravel is really good training. You shift over to “boat mode; steering is only a suggestion” pretty quick…

  59. Smith and Roger and then Smokey once again:
    Thanks for the links. I’ll pour over them in more detail later, though I did take a look already.
    thx.
    –W

  60. Yeah–I just saw some other info on Tuvalu as well elsewhere by some New Zealanders writing on the subject. Thanks.

  61. Oh, btw, I now have a ‘snow box’ that goes in the car with a LOT of survival and preparedness gear. Including SPARE chains and a full chain repair / reconstruction kit with spare tensioners… The chain kit fits nicely in a military surplus ammo box. Pays for itself too. I’ve rebuilt a half dozen chains while in various hotel rooms waiting for the lifts to open or dinner to start. Just takes a few minutes and you’re up $50. Sometimes I make my own chains now. It’s easy and I like the product better. Also lets me cut out worn links before they risk the fender / wheel well…
    The side chains and attachment gear lasts nearly forever, so it’s just cross links get replaced. One link spreader & vice grips and 10 minutes you can resize the chains for new tires or replace any worn cross links. (oh, and a chain cutter to cut the new cross links to size).
    Haven’t bought a new set of chains since about 1980… just a length of standard chain at the hardware store.
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/crisis-kits-and-preparedness-packs/
    The snow stuff is a subset of the first two sizes plus the chains kit, heavier winter clothing, slicker for laying in the snow putting chains on, couple of towels for after that, and some “Snacks”…

  62. E.M. Smith, the water in Coos Bay is way colder than a snowstorm. Snow is a treat after a dive in THAT ocean! Downright nipply.

  63. Thanks for the thanks, WT.
    I should have added justification for another “hmmm” reflection: Climatology isn’t yet a robust science. It’s immature. It doesn’t know enough yet to “have the problem surrounded,” as I like to put it. But it thinks it does. It’s juvenile and suffers from the “malady of the ignorant”: being ignorant of its ignorance.
    There’s constantly new stuff coming out that makes its previous knowledge, models, and affectation-of-certainty look foolish or suspect. The recent paper on the cooling effect of dryness in the upper atmosphere, for instance. And the Canadian paper a few months ago making a plausible case that recent warming is due to CFCs. (And recent cooling to the lack of them.)
    It also looks suspect when organized clime publishes and trumpets (front-pages) a dodgy study like Steig et al., which smears a warm spot over all Antarctica to create a phony warming trend. There’s been enough dodginess and hype (crying wolf about polar bears, etc.), and enough falsified model-predictions (someone should create a complete list), to tarnish the credibility of the field.

  64. LOL! The Democrats are closing down government for the rest of this week because of the snow and next week is a scheduled vacation. I can’t wait until they come back from vacation demanding that “we act now” to save humanity from global warming, The “D” in DC stands for “disarray.” The politicians are in such a mess, they are fleeing each other. I love it. Some time soon, the American public will wake up and realize that no one is in charge anymore and we are free again. The self-appointed babysitters have fled the house and are hiding under the front porch. Now all we have to do is call the exterminators.

  65. “BarryW (11:34:03) :
    Washington only had officially “only” 17.8 inches. The Washington Post article tries to explain why, while everybody else in the area got much more:”
    I flew out of Dulles on Monday morning, a connecting flight from Boston, and while I had seen reports that Dulles had 30 inches, from my observation it appeared closer to 1 1/2 ft with drifts perhaps being as much as 2 1/2 ft.
    Sometimes airport s and towns report higher than actual numbers to appear more deserving of money when it comes time for budgets or federal/state aid, or just to provide a better excuse for the delay in removing the snow from roads/runways.
    Meanwhile in Taipei it is a balmy 83 deg F, pretty warm for February. But thats just weather (it was darn cold in December/Jaunuary), and warm is certainly better than cold, jet lagged or not.

  66. Wakefield Tolbert (17:06:29) :
    > The polar ice cap is vanishing at a rate far faster than the worst IPCC predictions.
    Vanishing seems to be a strong word, especially since the summer lows for the last couple of years are going up from the record (30 year) low in 2007.
    > Low lying island nations such as Tuvalu are already being forced to begin relocating due to rising sea levels.
    How much of that nation has been evacuated so far? Maldives too.
    > An overwhelming majority of scientists globally concur on the basic facts
    Sure, like CO2 is increasing, the planet has warmed since the last ice
    age, 1998 sure featured a strong El Nino. Those seem pretty basic, did
    you have some in mind (or your physicist acquaintance)?

  67. Ric Werme (21:51:36)
    Basic? Perhaps on those notes. Sure. But what about his other claims, more recent, to the effect of, say…. TEN YEARS of emails combed over, only to find and snag out a couple of supposedly damning nits from the strands. And even here, we’re given the defense of “we scientists are just human too.”
    NO evidence of nefarious Soros money or global conspiracy. Human failings on the emotional front at most, so they tell me. But nothing really damning:
    The so-called ‘climategate’ is climate change denial’s last gasp. Hackers stole ten years worth of emails, and they were scoured for anything that might appear damning, finding only two that have been endlessly paraphrased since. The term ‘trick’ is commonly used in science journals as an accepted clever methodology rather than an intent to deceive, and the study mentioned in the email that includes the word ‘trick’ plays no part in official IPCC findings. The ‘can’t explain the decline’ email refers to a study of tree ring formation, and rather than being a secret, the scientist who wrote the email also wrote a public article about his inability to explain his findings.
    (emphasis mine)
    As to the more recent supposed IPCC “GlacierGate” that has everyone in an donnybrook/uproar (over supposed lifting of material from students and magazine articles as the alleged “only” or “chief” source material) there was a TYPO–and nothing more–about 2035 being the proximate date of Himalayan glacier meltdown rather than the INTENDED date of 2350. The authors of the IPCC report in this regard have admitted the error and did so before the blogosphere got wind of it, AND have reminded people that a slower melt of the world’s glaciers is a melt nontheless, with serious ramifications for those societies and cultures that presently depend on water from said sources.

  68. PS to Ric–good snark on the DMHO link from part of your site. Funny stuff.
    I’m off to the haystack with a cold glass of that….

  69. PS–to Ric.
    Just toured your site (albeit very briefly)
    Was suprised, in that generally most of the “Darwin Fish” types who’d place that little funny leg-sprouter on the car are safely Leftist in orientation in addition to being also the types that have about 100 other stickers, and make mocking noises about religion and so on in other similar missives. Usually the Leftist goes hand-in-hand with Climate Change Warning advocacy.
    Exceptions proving the rule?

  70. E.M.Smith (19:13:49) :
    Great story! I especially liked the part about buying coffee wearing the wet-suit long-underwear. Thanks!

  71. Mom about 100 miles East of DC reports complete white-out conditions, she gave up on the driveway. They got some rain on top of the two feet of snow which made a nice crust on it and will cause it to stay longer as the crust slows melting and prevents the snow under it from blowing around. She reports another 4 to 6 inches of new snow on top of that crust.

  72. And it looks like the storm has stalled and is simply sitting there rotating with little overall movement over the past couple of hours.

  73. Wakefield:
    As to the more recent supposed IPCC “GlacierGate” that has everyone in an donnybrook/uproar (over supposed lifting of material from students and magazine articles as the alleged “only” or “chief” source material) there was a TYPO–and nothing more–about 2035 being the proximate date of Himalayan glacier meltdown rather than the INTENDED date of 2350.

    Here’s an exchange I had with a couple of commenters here that should make it clear that it wasn’t a typo:

    RK: Now that the dust has settled, the “typo” idea should be dropped. Not even Choo Choo, Lal, or the IPCC has the brass to make that excuse, although maybe they don’t have to, with Seth Borenstein doing it for them at the AP. Here’s what I wrote a couple of weeks ago about this matter, in response to crosspatch:

    crosspatch (21:20:15) :
    “According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493! ”
    So there you go. That’s how they came up with 2035. It was supposed to be 2350.

    RK: No, that was just a first guess as to where the mistake had come from, because someone [Cogley] noticed the 2305 number and speculated that a transposition had been made. Now [thanks to Cogley’s deeper digging] we know the true source, the Hasnian cliam via the New Scientist report via WWF, because the footnote in AR4 referenced the latter, and the parties involved in making and reporting the claim have disclosed what went on.

    More later.

  74. Ric Werme (21:51:36)
    I do indeed have some more from this person:
    (Responding to someone who posted that Exxon Mobile is outspent by an alleged ratio of 1000-1 by government on the issue of Climate Change/AGW research, and then adding more….)
    As for your chart purportedly showing government vastly outspending EM on climate change research (It never indicates where joannenova.com obtained those statistics, or how they were compiled, but I’ll let that pass) , EM still gives large amounts of money to think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation and countless others that publish studies by climate skeptics. Such money would not be included in the joannenova.com tally.
    Not only that, but EM also influences public policy in other ways, such as campaign donations and lobbying. It isn’t surprising that you hear Republicans like James Inhofe and Sarah Palin, but of whom receive significant largesse from the oil industry, claiming that climate change is bunk. Such politicians have significant influence on public debate, and help at least reinforce the public perception that climate change isn’t “settled science.”
    Aside from that, why do you assume that all of the climate change research comes from the government? The vast majority of the influential literature comes from scientists employed by universities, public and private, and who publish their work in scientific journals. A few of these scientists may hold positions in bodies like the IPCC, but most don’t.
    The vast majority of the serious scientific literature argues that human beings are responsible for climate change. That isn’t really a matter of debate.
    What’s more, scientists have known since the nineteenth century that carbon dioxide absorbs heat. We know that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than ever, and that this amount is growing.
    The consequences of climate change are real, too. If you visit western Canada or the US, you will see huge swaths of forest that are dying from pine beetle infestations, which are no longer killed off during the winters, which have become increasingly mild.
    http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0805/full/clim
    Whole lakes have disappeared in Africa, which has caused widespread famine and disease there. Viruses like west nile and malaria are expanding their range and moving farther from the equator.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/0
    Given these facts alone, none of which “climategate” disproves, the responsible thing for us to do is seek ways to limit carbon emissions.

  75. Wakefield,
    A few rebuttal points:
    The climate peer review system has been thoroughly corrupted by a rent-seeking clique of self-serving connivers. There is no doubt about this, and there is no need for me to cite what I and others have cited endlessly on this site. The emails that are simply hand-waved away by your MacClean’s commentators were much more serious than they think.
    Those leaked emails [along with the Harry_read_me file] singlehandedly caused the failure of Cop15, and they are eating away like acid at the CO2=CAGW hypothesis.
    How can they not be? They freely admitted that they simply fabricated entire data sets; they made them up. The credulous fools who downplay that scientific misconduct are badly misjudging the situation.
    The emails also disclose that ‘hide the decline’ meant that they hid data that would have shown cooling rather than their invented warming. And to this day, no one has denied the validity or provenance of the emails. They can’t; they don’t know what else is out there, and too many people involved have already attested that the emails are genuine.
    Next, there is no verifiable, empirical evidence showing that human activity is responsible for climate change. None. I say again: N-O-N-E. Human activity may be responsible for a slight change in global temperature. But that is still an unproven hypothesis. To post, as you did, that The vast majority of the serious scientific literature argues that human beings are responsible for climate change. That isn’t really a matter of debate is simply an opinion of facts that are not in evidence.
    Show us empirical [real world] evidence that humans are responsible for climate change. You will have been the first to be able to do so. Even the idea that humans can cause global climate change is ridiculous, and there exists zero evidence for that assertion.
    Finally, the current red-faced, spittle flecked arm-waving by the lunatic CO2=CAGW contingent sounds remarkably identical to past prophets of doom: click1, click2
    The natural, constantly changing variability of the planet’s climate always brings out prophets of doom. This time is no different. So get a grip, and look at the situation from the perspective of natural variability: today’s climate is completely ordinary. It is well within its historical parameters. Nothing unusual is happening. In fact, the climate is currently very benign.
    The only ones who are benefitting from climate alarmism are the prophets of doom, who have no real evidence to support their proselytizing.
    But as long as they can scare unthinking people into believing that a harmless, beneficial trace gas such as CO2 is gonna get us all, they don’t need scientific evidence. All they need are gullible people. Don’t be their victim. You will only regret it later.

  76. Well, Smokey, those are some interesting points, to be sure. Agreed.
    And the hungry beetles no longer being nipped by cold Rocky Mountain air?

  77. Wakefield Tolbert (15:05:38),
    This could get endless. If you won’t think for yourself, there isn’t much hope.
    So I’ll wind this up by pointing out that a 0.7° increase in global temperature over more than a century didn’t cause a pine beetle infestation in one small corner of the globe. That is a classic argumentum ad ignorantium; the fallacy of assigning a cause simply because the writer couldn’t think of another reason [actually, they could easily think of other reasons. But those reasons aren’t as likely to bring in new grants].
    It’s the same mindset that assigns all global warming to a tiny trace gas because they can’t think of other causes.
    Apparently most CO2=CAGW believers have never heard of Occam’s Razor: Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
    Adding an unnecessary entity like CO2 to an explanation of climate variability makes the situation more complicated than necessary, and so eventually you end up with rent-seeking grant hogs trying to explain a local beetle infestation — as if no beetle infestations had ever occurred prior to the advent of SUVs. See how silly it all sounds when you don’t buy into the AGW claptrap?
    Come on, Wakefield, you’re smarter than that… I sincerely hope.

  78. @Wakefield: Here’s what one poster here said a couple of months ago re pine beetles, (I’ll respond to your other points in time):

    RJ Hendrickson (20:40:18) :
    The bark beetle kill-off was a result of a drought, not lack of cold in the winter. Pine trees always have a few bark beetles hanging about. They punch a hole in the bark, and it fills up with sap, preventing more beetles from being attracted by the original beetles phemerones. In a drought condition, the trees lack moisture, and not enough sap is produced to plug the hole, and lots of new beetles come to the tree. Enough beetles will eventually girdle the cambium, and the tree is kaput. Cold doesn’t kill beetles, rain does.

  79. Smokey and Roger, thanks for the input.
    I was not trying to make an endless set of posts out of this. Just asking questions. “Smarter than that” does not indicate I’d know all the little factoids floating around out there about the claims of AGW. (But thanks for the vote of confidence.)
    RealClimate has smart people to, as does ScienceBlogs.
    I freely admit to being neither a climatologist or computer-modeler or anywhere near such. I posted what I did from the others who claimed to have some kind of inside scoop exactly to see what this equally smart crowd of folks hangin’ around WUWT had to say about matters, as I’m new to this site.
    And the “smart” comment is NOT meant to be sarcastic.
    I do appreciate your input.

  80. Wakefield: The authors of the IPCC report in this regard have admitted the error and did so before the blogosphere got wind of it,

    It’s true that the error was dug out by Cogley, an IPCC accomplice, and by Fred Pearce, a red-hot warmist journalist who wrote for New Scientist, rather than by a blogger. However, saying the IPCC acted before the blogosphere put them up to it incorrectly hints that the IPCC would have taken action if it hadn’t feared that Pearce or Cogley would go public, perhaps via the bloggers, if a correction wasn’t made. The IPCC’s record prior to that point was one of denial and coverup as long as it thought it could get away with it:
    1. Haisnain, the WWF, and I presume other IPCCers in attendance, ignored glacier expert Gwyn Rees’s 2004 UK-government-funded debunking rapid-melting claims and his speech warning that Haisnan’s 2035 date was ridiculous. He forced New Scientist to publish a retraction in 2004 after it had published Haisnan’s claim that Rees’s study was alarmist about the melting rate, so this was widely known:

    From The Sunday Times — January 31, 2010
    Panel ignored warnings on glacier error
    Jonathan Leake
    Another warning came from Gwyn Rees, a British hydrologist who oversaw a £300,000 study funded by the UK government in 2001 to assess the claims about rapid melt.
    His findings were published in 2004 — three years before the IPCC report — and also showed there was no risk of rapid melt.
    Rees said: “The sheer size and altitude of these glaciers made it highly unlikely they would melt by 2035.”
    The new revelations follow a report in The Sunday Times this month which forced the IPCC to retract its claim that the glaciers in the Himalayas might be gone by 2035.
    They raise more questions about why the IPCC ever took the claim seriously. It means the UN panel ignored scientific publications rejecting the rapid-melt theory in favour of claims that had been reported only in the non-scientific media and in a report by WWF, a conservation pressure group.
    The saga began with Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist who issued the first warnings about rapid glacier melt in media interviews in 1999. He now works for The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is run by Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC.
    It was those claims that prompted Britain to fund the study by Rees — who recruited Hasnain to help lead it.
    Rees, a water resource scientist at the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, a government research centre, said Hasnain had signed up to the study’s conclusions. These stated that any suggestions the region’s glaciers might soon melt “would seem unfounded”.
    Hasnain was also in the audience at a seminar sponsored by the EU in 2004 where Rees gave a presentation suggesting there would be some glacial melt, but nothing on the scale suggested by Hasnain. His closing slide read: “It is unlikely that all glaciers will vanish by 2035!”
    That same audience also included representatives from WWF who were compiling their own report on glacier melt. Despite Rees’s warnings, they later decided to include Hasnain’s claims in their report, published in 2005, from where they were picked up by the IPCC.
    In 2004, Rees had assumed the rapid-melt claims would not be repeated, but in May that year Hasnain gave an interview to New Scientist suggesting the UK-funded study had confirmed his claims of rapid glacier melt.
    In it he said: “Global warming has already increased glacier melting by up to 30%. After 40 years, most glaciers will be wiped out and we will have severe water problems.”
    A furious Rees made the magazine publish a retraction in its letters page, describing Hasnain’s comments as a “gross misrepresentation”.
    This weekend it emerged that the leaders of the IPCC had known for weeks and probably months about the error and had even convened private conferences to discuss it.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009707.ece

    2. Raised-eyebrow comments during the review process from Japan and others about the source etc. of 2035 were dealt with perfunctorily. Only a citation of the WWF article was added.

    New Documents Show IPCC Ignored Doubts About Himalayan Glacier Scare
    Sunday, 24 January 2010
    The contentious 2035 date appears in the paragraph from lines 13 to 17 on page 46 of the second order draft of Working Group II. The only changes to the draft text in the finally published text are the removal of a short redundant sentence and the addition the reference to (WWF, 2005).
    David Saltz, of the Desert Research Institute, Ben Gurion University made three comments on this short paragraph including one upon the obvious inconsistency of saying first that the likelihood is very high that Himalayan glaciers will “disappear” by 2035 if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate, and then stating “Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035”. The Lead Author’s response to the comment on inconsistency was:
    “Missed to clarify this one”.
    The Government of Japan commented rather more critically:
    “This seems to be a very important statement, possibly should be in the SPM, but is buried in the middle of this chapter. What is the confidence level/certainty? (i.e.“the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing is very high” is at which level of likelihood? (ref. to Box TS-1, “Description of Likelihood”). Also in this paragraph, the use of “will” is ambiguous and should be replaced with appropriate likelihood/confidence level terminology.”
    The Lead Authors’ response to Government of Japan was:
    “Appropriate revisions and editing made”.
    From what I can see the Lead Authors found none appropriate.
    The paragraph, following the 2035 claim and table 10.10, begins:
    “The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.”
    Hayley Fowler from Newcastle University commented with citations:
    “I am not sure that this is true for the very large Karakoram glaciers in the western Himalaya. Hewitt (2005) suggests from measurements that these are expanding – and this would certainly be explained by climatic change in preciptiation and temperature trends seen in the Karakoram region (Fowler and Archer, J Climate in press; Archer and Fowler, 2004) You need to quote Barnett et al.’s 2005 Nature paper here – this seems very similar to what they said.”
    The Lead Authors responded:
    “Was unable to get hold of the suggested references will consider in the final version”
    The Government of Japan again noted the lack of any reference and commented rather critically:
    “This statement lacks any reference. Also, the reader wonders, are “global warming” and “climate change” interchangeable? Are we still using “global warming”? Clarification of this would be appreciated.”
    “The use of “will” (again) is ambiguous. The confidence level using IPCC terminology should be stated.”
    The Lead Author’s response to Government of Japan was once again:
    “Appropriate revisions and editing made”.
    But once again none were made either in response to Hayley Fowler or the Government of Japan.
    For the IPCC TSU, Clare Hanson commented that there was only one reference for the whole section. This was Hasnain, 2002. To Clare Hanson the Lead Authors’ response was:
    “More references added”.
    So far as I can tell only Shen et al., 2002 and WWF, 2005 were added.
    http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/459-new-documents-show-ipcc-ignored-doubts-about-himalayan-glacier-scare.html

    3. Lead Author Georg Kaser’s e-mail to the IPCC’s technical support team prior to publication about 2035 was ignored.

    Roger Pielke, Jr. — 18 January 2010
    Stranger and Stranger
    The fallout from the IPCC Himalayan glacier situation gets stranger and stranger. Now an IPCC lead author has stepped forward claiming that the error has been known by the IPCC all along. From Agence France-Presse:

    A top scientist said Monday he had warned in 2006 that a prediction of catastrophic loss of Himalayan glaciers, published months later by the UN’s Nobel-winning climate panel, was badly wrong.
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report said in 2007 it was “very likely” that the glaciers, which supply water to more than a billion people across Asia, would vanish by 2035 if global warming trends continued.
    “This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude,” said Georg Kaser, an expert in tropical glaciology at the University of Innsbruck in Austria.
    “It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,” he told AFP in an interview.
    …………
    Kaser said some of the scientists from other regional groups took heed of suggestions, and made corrections ahead of final publication in April 2007.
    But the Asia group did not. “I pointed it out,” he said of the implausible prediction on the glaciers.
    “For a reason I do not know, they did not react.”
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/stranger-and-stranger.html

    Here’s the IPCC’s excuse for how it dropped the ball:

    January 25, 2010, 6:02 pm
    Explanation Offered for Error in U.N. Climate Report
    By JAMES KANTER
    The official, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a vice chairman of the climate change panel, said that a glaciologist, Georg Kaser at the University of Innsbruck, in Austria, had sought to correct the information about the glaciers before it was published by the panel but that the correction came too late and never reached the people who could fix the statement.
    “It’s very unfortunate,” Dr. van Ypersele said, because Dr. Kaser “actually provided the correct information, but not to the correct person.”
    The lead authors “didn’t, from my understanding, get the caveats that would have been useful,” Dr. van Ypersele said.
    He added that he had examined records of e-mail messages and found that the authors had never received the pertinent message from Dr. Kaser. Furthermore, Dr. Kaser’s “most pointed criticism” of the findings on glacial melting came after the contents of the report had been completed, Dr. van Ypersele said.
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/explanation-offered-for-error-in-un-climate-report/

    4. Lead Author Georg Kaser’s letter to Asia group head Dr. Lal was ignored. (Lal said in response that he never got it. A “likely story,” IMO.)

    Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified
    By David Rose
    Last updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010
    Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue.
    Dr Lal claimed he never received this letter. ‘He didn’t contact me or any of the other authors of the chapter,’ he said.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#

    5. In early November ChooChoo scornfully dismissed the correction in the report issued by VK Raina of India’s Geological Survey, calling it voodoo science. Here’s WUWT’s thread on the matter then:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/pachauri-claims-indian-scientific-position-arrogant/

    6. Later in November ChooChoo was informed about the error by Pavlia Bagla but he took no action. This is in line with the IPCC’s hear-no-evil precedents described above. Here’s a story by Andrew Bolt summarizing the matter:

    Pachauri lied about Himalayan warning
    Andrew Bolt — Saturday, January 30, 2010
    Rajendra Pachauri, head of the increasingly suspect IPCC, is caught out lying and now must surely go:
    Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it…
    Dr Pachauri … told The [London] Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”
    Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at (his IPCC) Copenhagen (summit last December), he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit…”
    However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error…
    Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”.
    Mr Bagla said he had informed Dr Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350. [This was his first guess at the source of the error. later he realized it came from Haisnan.–RK]
    Mr Pallava interviewed Dr Pachauri again this week for Science… In the taped interview, Mr Pallava asked: “I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilise what was happening in Copenhagen?”
    As I wrote last week, more telling than even the IPCC’s bizarre Himalayan error has been Pachauri’s instinctive reaction to deny and abuse those pointing out such mistakes.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/pachauri_lied_about_himalayan_warning#66326

  81. PS: Don’t forget that the IPCC not only printed the wrong date, but backed it up by rating the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing as “very high”—i.e., more than 90 per cent.
    Further, although all the experts except Kaser failed to try to get this corrected afterwards (too good a story to spoil?), this was not something that others overlooked:

    that error has been regurgitated ad nauseam. Although Professor Cogley did not notice it, when the 2007 IPCC report was published, the 2035 date was dutifully reported by newspapers all over the world, and became the subject of much Jeffrey Simpson-style brow-knitting.
    http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=2461595&p=2
    …………….
    The 2035 date was an alarming, attention-grabbing finding — and many journalists, including Stephan Faris last year in Foreign Policy, cited it as evidence that global warming is an urgent crisis.
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/09/inside_the_climate_bunker?page=full

    Incidentally, the passage above continues with some interesting background material:

    But, after the Indian government released its own report with conflicting glacier-melt data last fall, glacier scientists went back to the IPCC report and began to raise questions about the 2035 date. The chatter among experts was picked up in Science magazine last year, before spilling into the mainstream media ….

  82. PPS: Here is a piece of a letter to the London Times. It contradicts Wakefield’s proxy claim that the IPCC made a good-faith error:

    Sir, Dr Vicky Pope’s defence of the robustness of “the science” of climate change is too comprehensive (Commentary, Jan 28).
    ………………
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “mistakes” that Dr Pope refers to are no ordinary errors. They show a deliberate disregard for the principles of scientific objectivity. The IPCC had every reason to know that its account of the Himalayan glacier melting was misleading, just as it had every reason to know that its predictions of hurricane frequency and intensity were both unsubstantiated and implausible.
    Lord Leach of Fairford
    London EC3

    Here’s another comment, on dot.earth, that indicates the great usefulness this 2035 “error” had for the alarmist cause:

    Barry Youngerman
    The big question has always been, is the danger so immediate that we must “do something right now.” For me, that bogus 2035 date is not a minor matter; it gets to the heart of the issue.

    And here’s a WUWT comment that’s another indication that it was “no accident” that the IPCC made the 2035 “error”:

    ScientistForTruth (15:15:06) :
    I demonstrate conclusively that the scientific community knew about these Glaciergate errors by their being exposed in a peer-reviewed journal in 2005, which was essentially the substance of a chapter from a book published in 2004 by an authority on the Himalayas. Syed Hasnain’s pronouncements are shown to be myths, and worse. The paper appeared in Himalayan Journal of Sciences, entitled
    “Himalayan misconceptions and distortions: What are the facts? Himalayan Delusions: Who’s kidding who and why — Science at the service of media, politics and the development agencies.”
    In light of that, I find it almost certain that Pachauri and a lot of others knew that these were lies years before AR4 was published.
    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/un-ipcc-rotting-from-the-head-down

  83. PPPS: Here’s more background info., from an earlier WUWTer:

    R.S.Brown (00:54:37) :
    Anthony,
    Mr. Rajendra Pachauri was dumping on a paper that utilized data drawn from numerous University, College Departmental studies, Institute reports, and colloquiums done over the years. There are 18 citations toward the end, most of them peer-reviewed (but not by the IPCC “Team”) and written by the folks who have been studying the Himalayan glaciers up close and personally for years.
    Here’s the difficult-to-find link to the Government of India’s
    Ministry of Environment and Forests Discussion Paper,
    “Himalayan Glaciers – A State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies, Glacial Retreat and Climate Change” edited by V.K.Raina, the former Deputy Director of the Geological Survey of India:
    http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Paper%20_him.pdf
    Raga on. \ / Ray Brown

    More criticism of the good-faith-error defense:

    Economic Times, India: IPCC imperialism on Indian glaciers
    by Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar
    It speaks volumes for the huge biases within IPCC that it took two years for this hoax to be exposed. Any hoax opposing the global warming thesis would be exposed in ten seconds flat. The IPCC is willing to swallow unexamined what it finds convenient, while raising a thousand technical objections to anything inconvenient. This is religious crusading, not objective science. The tactics being used to discredit and destroy heretics is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition.
    The Indian panel, headed by V K Raina, looked at 150 years of data gathered by the Geological Survey of India from 25 Himalayan glaciers. It was the first comprehensive study of the region. It concluded that while Himalayan glaciers had long been retreating, there was no recent acceleration of the trend, and nothing to suggest that the glaciers would disappear. In short, the IPCC had perpetrated an alarmist hoax without scientific foundation.
    …..
    Raina said that the mistake made by western scientists “was to apply the rate of glacial loss from other parts of the world to the Himalayas… In the United States the highest glaciers in Alaska are still below the lowest level of Himalayan glaciers. Our 9,500 glaciers are located at very high altitudes. It is a completely different system.”
    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/columnists/swaminathan-s-a-aiyar/IPCC-imperialism-on-Indian-glaciers/articleshow/5478293.cms

  84. Wakefield:
    a slower melt of the world’s glaciers is a melt nonetheless, with serious ramifications for those societies and cultures that presently depend on water from said sources.
    ……….
    tty (03:32:08) :
    The glaciers do affect the timing of the runoff. Snow melts later and slower and the summer low in river runoff is consequently mitigated.

    A timing ramifaction might not be serious, but if so it could be solved by a low-level dam. As for the idea, implied by some, that diminished Himalayan glacier levels would mean less total water downstream, and/or that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking due to global warming:

    Brian Macker (18:07:47) :

    “On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability.“

    … The glaciers could disappear tomorrow and the rivers would still flow. Think about it a little bit.
    If the glaciers stopped melting they would contribute NO water to rivers on a yearly basis. Then were does all the water in the rivers come from? Snow and rain. Most of the water flowing off glaciers is the melting of snow that was deposited the prior winter.
    In winter same snowfall is also falling everywhere else on the entire mountain, valleys, hills, and planes surrounding the mountain. Far more snow falls on those areas than the comparatively small areas occupied by glaciers.
    This study [see link below—RK] … found that 4% of the studied area was covered by glacier and only ~4% of the runoff came from the glacier. But that is right around what would be expected just from annual percipitation that would fall on the glacier.

    Here are extracts from that study:

    Annual Runoff from Glaciers of the
    Nepal Himalaya
    Donald Alford. Ph.D.
    IV, Discussion
    Many factors determine the runoff characteristics of mountain catchment basins (e.g., Alford, 1985). With increasing altitude, atmospheric moisture decreases, increasing amounts of precipitation fall as snow, and short wave radiation becomes the dominant source of the energy controlling snow and ice melt. All of the data available for the high altitude portions of the catchment basins of the Nepal Himalaya indicates that this belt is characterized by low values of mass and energy exchange.
    The most salient finding of this study is that the glaciers of the Nepal Himalaya do not appear to make a significant contribution to the total streamflow of the rivers of Nepal.
    ………………
    It is probably unreasonable to assume, as some have, that the present retreat of Himalayan glaciers is somehow a result of rising air temperatures.
    These are relatively low latitude glaciers, at altitudes between 4000 meters and 7000 meters above sea level. Under these circumstances, it is most probable that the dominant energy source driving ice melt is radiation, not air temperature.
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&ved=0CBcQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mtnforum.org%2Frs%2Fol%2Fcounter_docdown.cfm%3FfID%3D1294.pdf&rct=j&q=nepal+glacier+%22surface+area%22&ei=frRXS_vFIZCj8AaCp6DOAw&usg=AFQjCNEFkIJmzsjFhp2h84gIdEEiDopn4A

Comments are closed.