New 2 day record December snowfall amount to the Minneapolis/St Paul area
While there have been a few high temperature records in the desert southwest and western Oregon, the majority of weather records in the USA this week have been for cold, snowfall, or rainfall. The biggest number of records have to do with the lowest maximum temperature.
Here’s a summary of the weather records:
| Record Events for Mon Dec 6, 2010 through Sun Dec 12, 2010 | |
| Total Records: | 2002 |
| Rainfall: | 319 |
| Snowfall: | 320 |
| High Temperatures: | 71 |
| Low Temperatures: | 426 |
| Lowest Max Temperatures: | 767 |
| Highest Min Temperatures: | 99 |
Uncharacteristically for the Associated Press, they give this latest snowstorm the title of “monster”:
Rutgers snow lab has the current snow cover for 2010:
Last year, we seemed to have a bit more snow cover in the USA (and globally) at this time:
I think Rutgers is having a little joke by making snow cover “yellowish”.
Here’s a Public Information Statement (PIS) from the NWS in Minneapolis
Dec 10-11 Snowfall…New December Record
The December 10-11 snowstorm brought a new 2 day record December snowfall amount to the Minneapolis/St Paul area, and perhaps to other areas as well. The new record is 17.1 inches. This storm was bit unusual in that it was a Pacific type storm system. The snowfall amounts were in the category of what would be more typical of a storm moving out of the southwest U.S. toward the Mississippi valley.
This storm also ranks in the top 5 of the largest snowfalls in the Twin Cities. See the Minnesota State Climatology site for further details.
Here is the broad picture of the storm total snow.
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE TWIN CITIES/CHANHASSEN MN
800 PM CST SUN DEC 12 2010
...SNOWFALL TOTALS FROM THE WINTER STORM EVENT DEC 10-11...
THE TOTALS BELOW ARE SEPARATED INTO SNOW...AND ICE AND SLEET
CATEGORIES...THEN BY AMOUNT...AND ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE
FINAL AMOUNT FOR EACH LOCATION.
SNOW REPORTS LISTED BY AMOUNT
INCHES LOCATION ST COUNTY TIME
------ ----------------------- -- -------------- -------
23.00 5 SE OSCEOLA WI POLK 0900 AM
22.00 EAU CLAIRE WI EAU CLAIRE 0500 PM
TELEVISION STATION WQOW.
21.50 NEW MARKET MN SCOTT 0930 PM
21.50 SHAKOPEE MN SCOTT 0700 PM
21.00 OAKDALE MN WASHINGTON 0330 AM
20.00 RED WING MN GOODHUE 0800 AM
20.00 MAPLEWOOD MN RAMSEY 0330 AM
19.20 EAU CLAIRE WI EAU CLAIRE 0100 PM
18.50 4 NNE MENOMONIE WI DUNN 0945 PM
18.00 MENOMONIE WI DUNN 0800 AM
18.00 EAST FARMINGTON WI POLK 0630 PM
18.00 3 SSW BURNSVILLE MN DAKOTA 0615 PM
18.00 2 W PRIOR LAKE MN SCOTT 0900 PM
17.50 3 NW MINNEAPOLIS MN HENNEPIN 0100 PM
17.40 LAKEVILLE MN DAKOTA 0900 PM
17.20 WOODBURY MN WASHINGTON 0900 AM
17.20 1 W CARVER MN CARVER 1000 PM
17.10 MINNEAPOLIS MN HENNEPIN 0130 AM
MEASURED AT THE MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL AIRPORT
17.00 EAU CLAIRE WI EAU CLAIRE 1100 AM
17.00 2 N MENOMONIE WI DUNN 0630 PM
16.50 SAVAGE MN SCOTT 1130 PM
16.30 HASTINGS MN DAKOTA 0830 PM
16.10 BLOOMINGTON MN HENNEPIN 0600 PM
16.00 RIDGELAND WI DUNN 0100 PM
16.00 DURAND WI PEPIN 1030 PM
15.50 CHANHASSEN MN CARVER 0130 AM
MEASURED AT THE NWS OFFICE
15.20 ST LOUIS PARK MN HENNEPIN 1030 PM
15.00 1 SSW DELANO MN WRIGHT 0630 PM
14.70 WACONIA MN CARVER 0745 AM
14.50 3 SSW WHITE BEAR LAKE MN RAMSEY 1030 PM
14.20 STANLEY WI CHIPPEWA 0930 AM
13.70 LESTER PRAIRIE MN MCLEOD 0930 AM
13.50 1 ESE CHASKA MN CARVER 0700 PM
13.50 ELK MOUND WI DUNN 0700 PM
13.00 STILLWATER MN WASHINGTON 1200 PM
13.00 JIM FALLS WI CHIPPEWA 0930 AM
12.50 NORTH BRANCH MN CHISAGO 1100 AM
12.50 1 ENE CAMBRIDGE MN ISANTI 0630 PM
12.00 FARIBAULT MN RICE 0900 PM
11.50 ANDOVER MN ANOKA 0145 AM
11.00 HAUGEN WI BARRON 1130 AM
10.00 ST JAMES MN WATONWAN 1230 PM
10.00 CUMBERLAND WI BARRON 0730 AM
9.50 NORTH BRANCH MN CHISAGO 0430 PM
9.00 VESTA MN REDWOOD 1230 PM
8.00 MANKATO MN BLUE EARTH 0715 PM
7.00 4S ST CLOUD MN STEARNS 0630 PM
6.00 WINTHROP MN SIBLEY 0830 PM
Here is a Radar Replay during the time of some of the heavier snow (9 am to 3pm).
Snow Depth as of December 12
R. Gates says:
December 13, 2010 at 10:02 am
There is, in essence, a huge “freezer door” opened right from the Arctic to the E. United States. Normally the Arctic will have several closed low pressure systems that hold most of the cold up there with only an occasional outbreak and that outbreak will only usually affect the Northern U.S. The large strong high pressure system over Cananda combined with the low pressure over the eastern U.S. is that “opened freezer door” sucking that air right from the Arctic. Now, on the flip side, the temperatures in the Arctic are at normal to above normal across the whole of the Arctic, just as you’d expect to happen if you left your own freezer door open– it would be above average inside the freezer!
Arctic temperatures are fluctuating around normal, not higher. Your “to above normal” is your trademark mix of sleight-of-hand and self-deception. “Arctic temps are normal. Or above normal? Yes – they’re above normal!” Quantum logic?
The Freezer door is open but the freezer aint getting any colder just now.
R. Gates says:
December 13, 2010 at 8:51 pm
What we see, and have seen for millions of years on earth is that when CO2 increases, the earth warms, and since heat is the engine of the hydrological cycle, the hydrological cycle acclerates to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere.
Over the last half billion years or so what we see is this:
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/289/logwarmingpaleoclimate.png
Between levels of 300 and 8000 ppm, CO2 has no correlation with global temperature, this argument “when CO2 increases, the earth warms” has no factual basis. The above data argues strongly against any forcing role of CO2 in temperature. The effect of CO2 on climate is mostly indirect, via its effect on plants and trees. (Its biology, not physics.)
Tony says: (December 14, 2010 at 9:50 am)
Yes, that’s kind of the whole point of AGW.
Indeed, the current interglacial is about 10–15,000 years old, which is about how long they typically last (at least recently). Milankovich cycles, though, are really several cycles overlain on each other, sometimes in phase with each other and sometimes out of phase. Because of how the phases line up, some interglacials last quite a bit longer than others, and the current 100,000-year cycle has not always been dominant. Recent studies indicate that the current interglacial could last 30–50,000 more years (absent anthropogenic effects). And the glacial-interglacial transitions themselves take thousands of years.
The climate forcing from our rapid release of greenhouse gases dwarfs anything we could expect based on natural cycles. For more info, read Chapter 6.4 of the Working Group I Report from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.
Eadler – I read it. The argument is basically that “this time it’s different because we’re doing it” and isn’t all that different from “I know God exists because the Bible says so”.
A question: How many failed predictions must a theory produce before it’s considered a failed theory? And why is that number so different for “climate science” than for other sciences?
latitude says: December 14, 2010 at 6:01 am
[R. Gates quote]
=====================================================
Gates, if it really worked that way, carbon would be limited in the oceans.
The carbonates are the buffer.
People can’t claim “ocean acidification” and then claim that the oceans are
saturated in bicarbonates at the same time.
Either you don’t have saturation and you have “ocean acidification”,
or you have saturation and the oceans are sequestering carbon.
For what you are saying, the oceans would have to be saturated in bicarbonates.
Exactly. In addition, there are many high-plains/semi-arid/desert areas where the carbonates collect on the native rock. The rain fall is so minimal, that carbon stays pretty much right there.
Correction:
The Freezer door is open but the freezer aint getting any warmer just now.
Tony says: (December 14, 2010 at 11:40 am)
I don’t follow this at all. Maybe you could explain it to me?
Anonymous Howard says on December 14, 2010 at 3:44 pm
What he actually means is that the argument that “this time it’s different because there has never been such a quick increase in CO2 before,” leaving aside whether we have sufficient resolution in our proxies to actually determine this is essentially a statement of:
Which is basically the same as:
That is to say, AGWers are in the same camp as creationists.
Tell us about how the AGW claims could be falsified?
Steve Keohane says:
December 14, 2010 at 11:40 am
latitude says: December 14, 2010 at 6:01 am
[R. Gates quote]
=====================================================
Gates, if it really worked that way, carbon would be limited in the oceans.
The carbonates are the buffer.
People can’t claim “ocean acidification” and then claim that the oceans are
saturated in bicarbonates at the same time.
Either you don’t have saturation and you have “ocean acidification”,
or you have saturation and the oceans are sequestering carbon.
For what you are saying, the oceans would have to be saturated in bicarbonates.
Exactly. In addition, there are many high-plains/semi-arid/desert areas where the carbonates collect on the native rock. The rain fall is so minimal, that carbon stays pretty much right there.
______
I think you failed to catch a key part of the sequence. The calcium carbonate is easily precipitated from the calcium and bicarbonate ions in seawater by marine sea life such as coral. The equation would look something like this:
Ca++ + 2HCO3- -> CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O
The carbon cycle is hardly controversial and is pretty well understood as is it’s interaction with the hydrological cycle which is a key component. The only real link to be found was whether or not increased CO2 in the atmosphere would (as the models show and the theory behind them) act as a catalyst to acclerate the cycle. There is more and more research showing this is exactly the case:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/09/28/1003292107.full.pdf+html
Not one of the “above normal” temps that R. Gates and others attribute to the Arctic or elsewhere can be trusted. The reporting stations used have been (selectively) gutted. Once more I challenge anyone to look at this graph and its INSTANT nearly 2°C average jump when the stations were slashed in 1990 and believe that the current numbers are real:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/ball120610-2.jpg
An Inq;
“…it probably is a stretch of confidence to believe that we have all the right solar measures – much less their values – in the models.”
Actually, it’s a sucker’s bet. It would be surprising if there were even one unfudged solar measure or value in the GCMs.
Never forget that, by remit and design, the GCMs produce projections – “illustrations” – of “scenarios” selected for the purpose of properly educating and persuading politicians and the public that AGW is serious and deserves and warrants full-bore Panic Precautionary Principle Prevention. I.e., “Give us your money! All of it! You obviously can’t be trusted to use it properly without our expert guidance and control!”
Anonymous Howard says:
December 14, 2010 at 11:38 am
Recent studies indicate that the current interglacial could last 30–50,000 more years (absent anthropogenic effects). And the glacial-interglacial transitions themselves take thousands of years.
Do you have a link for these studies?
R. Gates says:
December 14, 2010 at 4:18 pm
I think you failed to catch a key part of the sequence. The calcium carbonate is easily precipitated from the calcium and bicarbonate ions in seawater by marine sea life such as coral. The equation would look something like this:
Ca++ + 2HCO3- -> CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O
====================================
Sorry Gates, you’re dead wrong about that one.
Your formula is correct, it just don’t work that way in real life.
First, if there really is ocean acidification, the whole problem is about corals, dinoflagelates, etc NOT being able to lay down proper shells/exo/endo skeletons etc.
If you have ocean acidification, you do not have carbonate saturation.
Period, end of story.
And for your water cycle to work, the entire water column of the ocean would have to have carbonate saturation. If at any point, there was less than saturation, your formula would break down.
But then that’s the way the system works. Many things in the ocean are limiting, carbon being one of them. If things, like carbon, did not break down, were sequestered, and not shared and cycled, the ocean would not be able to support the types of life that it does.
Record low maxima, in the absence of snow cover, are a very hard feat to accomplish:
In keeping with the theme of this post….here’s another one. Also Salisbury MD and Richmond VA weighing in on record low maxima:
Statement as of 7:15 PM EST on December 14, 2010
… Record low maximum temperature set at Norfolk VA…
A record low maximum temperature of 28 degrees was set at Norfolk VA
today. This breaks the old record of 29 degree set in 1904.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
To those who appreciated my response, “Thanks!”. It’s nice to know it was worth it.
I do note that R.Gates has had high school chemistry. It would be nice if he understood that the ocean is full of living species that control the carbonate. Things like corals, bivlaves, etc. The Diatoms, especially, fix about 40% of all the carbon fixed, and they are silicate limited (and it’s the grasses that give them the silicates). Then there are the fishes that excrete “gut rocks” made of carbonates. Yet he wants all that to go away and just be a saturated solution in a beaker. Sorry Charlie, only the Best Ideas get to be kissed… (the others get kissed-off…)
Some on the role of slicate and diatoms in controlling the carbon fixation (and how that might impact C12 / C13 ratios to boot, as diatoms have a shift in their rate of relative ustilization with CONCENTRATION of CO2, so simply having more CO2 at all changes the C12 / C13 ratio fixed by the major fixer …):
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/silicon-in-life/
So did R. Gates have a clue that C fixation was strongly driven by silica concentration? Nope, not a clue…
I also note that Anonymous Howard is peddling time traveling CO2 again. Yeah, that’s the ticket. It just happens to follow 800 years behind because, well, because, well, it all works out prettier that way 😉
@Julian Braggins:
Glad to be of help 😉 I grew up in a farm town. Between about 7 and 12 years old, we had a family restaurant in town. I spent many long days there (washing dishes some times, talking to customers others. Yeah, a kid 8 years old working for a living. I wanted the new bike and my parents said “There’s the sink”… $56 later at 25 cents an hour it was mine…)
But the “old folks” in town hung out there too. I picked up several lifetimes of stories and insight from folks between about 60 and 90 years old who liked ‘talking to the kid’. Some of them had come to the town in the 1800’s… You know, horses, wagons… They had “perspective”. The “cups and saucers” sink was just behind the counter, so for many hours I was “face to face” with a customer while washing (by hand… no machines then…) and folks liked to talk. Probably the best orientation to life possible.
In farm towns, folks talk about the weather alot. It’s where I learned to look at the sky and know what the day would be like. Every so often my family asks me ‘what to wear’. I go to the door, look into the wind, and tell them. (Just don’t ask for a long range prediction during spring or fall 😉 Not a lot of fancy names for the processes, but a lot of wisdom in the descriptions.
@lattitude:
Also note the METALIC manganese nodules by the megaton on the ocean floor. Going to be a bit hard to acidify anything with all that metal just waiting to react…
The planet is mostly iron. In the long run, acids get consumed. Period. Full stop.
An Inquirer says: To clarify one item for R. Gates, not everybody who disagrees with him believes that we are heading toward significant cooling. Why could the earth not warm back up to the MWP?
Well, it COULD… but…
I’m in the ‘leaning toward colder due to some evidence but not fully commited’ camp. Looking at the “wiggles” of the curves, we’re ‘due’ for a drop. Looking at the ‘fit a curve to the proxy peaks’ we’ve rolled over to a longer term drift down, and the present peak just, well, peaked. Looking at the solar state ( IFF “The Sun Did It” folks are right), says were headed for cold. Looking at the PDO… but you get the picture.
It’s rather like the parabolic rise of a stock, or more recently gold. Unstable systems often have an overshoot / return to trend. Just watch a dog walk… So I’d bet money (and I do…) on colder. But I’d rather it was getting warmer… the cold path IS NOT the best one.
Warm is GOOD.
Cold is BAD.
But I fear where headed for cold, based on the evidence:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/quelccaya-peru/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/new-little-ice-age-2014/
The problem is that there are many ‘wiggles’ of different periods and trying to make sure you’ve accounted for all of them can be a challenge. On the 100’s of years time scale, we’re headed for cold. On the thousands, way cold. On the 10’s… probably cold due to the PDO. But could next year or two be a warm excursion. Yup. And could we have one more “hurrah” of a solar cycle before the drop of longer term? Yup. And trying to get folks to think in terms longer than 10 years is nearly impossible.
It is premature to conclude that we are returning to a period of significant cooling.
Well, the answer actually depends ENTIRELY on how long a time period you use. Like all things fractal, the size changes with the size of ruler you use. On a 100,000 year time scale, we’re definitely headed for cold. Glacial cold. On an hourly time scale, it depends on which part of the planet you sit upon. 1000 years scale? Cold. 10 years scale? um… can’t say for sure, but probably colder. (PDO argues for that). One year time scale? Well, the sun could burp and make it 2 C hotter everywhere…
So take a look at the links. Then place your bets. BUT make sure you know what time scale your are betting on.
Unfortunately, it’s not enough evidence for a “scientific” proof. But it is enough to bet your Vegas money on it.
@Tony:
I think Anonymous Howard has no clue that “This time it’s different” is THE sure fire line for knowing someone is about to lose everything in a stock deal. IT IS NEVER DIFFERENT. Stocks, too, have quasi-periodic and chaotic nature within what looks like trends and patterns. You can even use some of them to make money. AND every time is absolutely unique. But it is NEVER EVER DIFFERENT. You just think it is as your experiential data sample is way to small to see that it’s just a rhyme…
BTW, A.H., the wiki link on Milankovich is a dead giveaway. ANY article climate related on Wiki has been throughly buggered and corrupted. It’s useless. I’ve watched valid articles re-written to be AGW PC as soon as they were linked. So you’ll need to find some other “evidence” that we’re not already sliding down the cold side. If you look at the temperature history chart (that in the “Peru” link above, and yes, I picked it up from Wiki, but I’ve saved a copy, so WHEN it gets re-jiggered I’ll be able to do an A/B and show how it was changed 😉 you will see that we’re drifting lower, and have been for 7,000 years. We’re ALREADY drifting into the next Glacial. It’s just that it’s so slow folks don’t notice AND it has ripples (about 600 years long) that can go against that grain. But it doesn’t change the long term trend. Down. Period.
So you can try to spin that notion of another 30,000 years of ‘good times’, but it just isn’t what’s happening. We are slowly and inexorably cooling. In a couple of thousand years you’ll notice…
Oh, and using the IPCC as a reference? Really? A corrupted (Climategate anyone?) POLITICAL body? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover that there
is gambling going onare people using the IPCC as a reference!Anyone that is following the Unisys global SST record will acknowledge that the current oceanic conditions are trending to the very cool. But there are several warm patches as a result of the recent El Nino that will continue to drive evaporation rates. The La Nina will also allow more solar input via reduced cloud cover over the tropics, but the big factor is the cold air flowing from the poles that backs up the process creating a massive northern winter. ie left over heat converted to heavy snow and low temps.
There will always be left over heat but it will be converted in times like these. When solar output is low the negative feed backs are far more effective.
The cold air is a function of reduced solar output that controls the negative atmospheric teleconnections that we have seen during other cold spells. Its not about solar TSI, but more about how low solar magnetic/EUV output affects our atmospheric oscillations.
The ENSO pattern along with the neg PDO will continue to drive our climate, but the trend will be downward for the next 2 decades.
E.M.Smith says:
December 14, 2010 at 8:48 pm
To those who appreciated my response, “Thanks!”. It’s nice to know it was worth it.
I do note that R.Gates has had high school chemistry. It would be nice if he understood that the ocean is full of living species that control the carbonate.
=====================================================
A little history on that formula.
It is right out of Chemical Oceanography, Frank Millero.
Frank and his book were the laughing stock, for exactly the same reasons.
The first question you ask is: “Where are all those clean surfaces so these
purely chemical reactions can take place?”
Unfortunately, his book is still being taught.
Richard Sharpe says: (December 14, 2010 at 3:59 pm)
Richard, thanks for taking the time to elaborate on Tony’s response, but again, I disagree that the two statements are equivalent.
There are plenty of reasons that climate changes — I listed several of them above: orbital cycles, plate tectonics, volcanic activity, solar activity; another important one I didn’t list that will surely interest you is evolution, such as the arrival of photosynthetic organisms, which led to the Huronian glaciation (warning: socialist Wikipedia link!).
The environment has been in constant flux since the Earth formed and it continues to change and will continue to change. None of this is surprising or “unfortunate” to climatologists, and none of it invalidates the theory of AGW. The reasons or mechanisms behind climate change are myriad and their relative importance will also change over time.
For example, Tony pointed to the recent cycles of glaciation which seem to be caused by Milankovitch cycles in the Earth’s orbit. Does that mean he (or you) believe that these cycles are the ONLY causes of climate change? Did you refuse to consider solar variation or volcanic explosions as causes of glaciation or the current warming? Of course not. Teasing out the primary causes of individual events may be difficult, but that doesn’t mean it is impossible. And just because you settle on one cause as the most likely answer doesn’t mean you couldn’t think of anything else or didn’t test any other hypotheses.
Don’t forget that what prompted my exchange with Tony was his recognition of the fact that CO2 lags temperature in recent interglacials. Setting aside, as you have, whether there is sufficient resolution in the proxies to determine this, how could it possibly be unexpected? What scientists have speculated that sudden, unprovoked releases of CO2 caused these interglacials?
I mentioned that our massive transfer of carbon from the ground into the atmosphere is unprecedented. You disagree. Are you saying this has happened before? If so, when? Or are you saying it’s not happening now?
On a personal note, I find it odd that a defender of the theory of evolution would have a problem with the idea that things are different now than they were in the past. 🙂
E.M. Smith said:
E.M.Smith says:
December 14, 2010 at 8:48 pm
To those who appreciated my response, “Thanks!”. It’s nice to know it was worth it.
I do note that R.Gates has had high school chemistry. It would be nice if he understood that the ocean is full of living species that control the carbonate.
_____
Do you think I didn’t understand that? Do you read my post PRIOR to the comment you made above where I said:
“The calcium carbonate is easily precipitated from the calcium and bicarbonate ions in seawater by marine sea life such as coral.”
The fact that marine life plays an important role in the carbon cycle was not missed by me and is interesting and fairly elementary, but it really wasn’t the key point in the discussion.
Anonymous Howard–
Your clear, logical, broad, and well-informed perspective continues to gain my respect…
Geoff Sharp says: (December 14, 2010 at 6:51 pm)
The Earth is entering a period of minimum eccentricity which reduces the influence of precession. This page in the IPCC warmist propaganda report gives an overview with references that you can look up yourself. Specifically, I got the 50-ka figure from Berger and Loutre, 2002, which is behind a paywall, so I didn’t read it.
Archer and Ganopolski, 2005 is an interesting paper that considers how anthropogenic CO2 will affect the impending glaciation.
It looks as if you in America can’t claim all the record bad weather, you have to share it with us. But don’t for heavens sake confuse it with climate, you have to understand there is a vast difference between cold weather and climate.
telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8203890/UK-weather-will-this-winter-be-as-bad-as-1962.html
Anonymous Howard says:
December 15, 2010 at 11:45 am
The Earth is entering a period of minimum eccentricity which reduces the influence of precession. This page in the IPCC warmist propaganda report gives an overview with references that you can look up yourself. Specifically, I got the 50-ka figure from Berger and Loutre, 2002, which is behind a paywall, so I didn’t read it.
Your links are weak Howard, the ice core record also does not match your idea, if anything it suggests we are long overdue for a sudden slide into another glacial period. You might have to supply better links before you gain my respect.
Yes but i did’nt inhale…
[snip – false email address – see policy page]