Ah you know its coming, both the snow and the blame game. Here’s a NWS/NOAA graphic you don’t see very often:
The forecasts say snow possibly down to sea level, or very close. I’m betting we’ll see at least snow flurries in downtown SFO at least briefly.
Here’s the latest forecast discussion:
FXUS66 KMTR 241819 AFDMTR AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 1019 AM PST THU FEB 24 2011 ...COLD WINTER STORM TO IMPACT OUR AREA LATER TODAY... ...VERY COLD TEMPERATURES EXPECTED BOTH EARLY SATURDAY MORNING AND SUNDAY MORNING... .DISCUSSION...AS OF 10:14 AM PST THURSDAY...LIGHT RAIN SHOWERS HAVE BEEN REPORTED ACROSS THE FORECAST AREA THIS MORNING. LOOKING AT THE LATEST SATELLITE WATER VAPOUR IMAGE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE AREA IS UNDER MOIST NORTHWEST FLOW AHEAD OF AN APPROACHING STORM SYSTEM. THE MOIST FLOW WILL PRODUCE SHOWERS THROUGHOUT THE DAY TODAY WITH THE BEST CHANCE OF PRECIPITATION FROM THE GOLDEN GATE NORTH AS WELL AS THE WINDWARD SIDE OF THE COASTAL MOUNTAINS. THE VISIBLE SATELLITE IMAGE IS SHOWING MAINLY CUMULUS TYPE CLOUDS FROM THE GOLDEN GATE SOUTH SO ALTHOUGH SHOWERS ARE LIKELY IN THE MONTEREY AREA THERE WILL BE PERIODS OF SUN TODAY. CURRENTLY IT APPEARS THAT THE FORECAST MODELS ARE IN GOOD AGREEMENT WITH THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM WHICH IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN TO IMPACT THE AREA TODAY. COLD AIR WILL BEGIN TO FILTER INTO THE FORECAST AREA TODAY DROPPING FREEZING LEVELS AS IT SLIDES SOUTHWARD. THE CURRENT FORECAST IS ADVERTISING SNOW LEVELS OF 1500 FEET TONIGHT IN THE NORTH BAY WHICH SEEMS REASONABLE. SNOW LEVELS ARE FORECAST TO DROP TO 300 TO 400 FEET FOR THE NORTH BAY TOMORROW NIGHT INTO SATURDAY MORNING FOR THE NORTH BAY. THESE LOW FREEZING LEVELS WILL CONTINUE TO SPREAD SOUTH TO MONTEREY COUNTY BY SATURDAY MORNING. WITH THE LOW FREEZING LEVELS SNOW WILL BECOME AN ISSUE FOR ELEVATED AREAS AND WINTER WEATHER ADVISORIES HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR ALL OF THE MOUNTAIN ZONES TONIGHT AND TOMORROW. THE FORECAST ISSUE TODAY WILL BE WHETHER OR NOT TO INCLUDE THE NORTH BAY VALLEYS IN THE WINTER WEATHER ADVISORIES. ACCORDING TO THE HYDROLOGICAL PREDICTION CENTER 24 HOUR SNOW FALL PROBABILITY DOES INDICATE A 10 TO 20 PERCENT CHANCE OF RECEIVING 1 INCH OR LESS OF SNOW IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY BETWEEN 1200Z THE 25TH AND 1200Z THE 26TH. THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA HAS NOT RECEIVED MEASURABLE SNOW IN QUITE SOME TIME HOWEVER THIS IS A VERY COLD AIRMASS AND A FEW SNOW FLURRIES MAY BE EXPERIENCED IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA. TO SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT A CROSS SECTION WAS PERFORMED FROM SONOMA TO SOUTHERN MONTEREY COUNTY FOR THE 0600Z SATURDAY THROUGH 1200Z SATURDAY TIME FRAME AND SOME CONDITIONAL INSTABILITY AND MAYBE EVEN AN ARGUMENT FOR CONDITIONAL SYMMETRIC INSTABILITY CAN BE MADE FOR THIS TIME FRAME. ALL THIS MEANS IS THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR BANDED PRECIPITATION AND SOME IF IT MAY BE IN THE FORM OF SNOW. I DO FEEL THAT THE SOIL AND GROUND TEMPERATURE WILL BE TOO WARM IN THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO TO SUPPORT SNOW ACCUMULATION BUT WE WILL SEE A FEW FLURRIES. HOWEVER, A FEW HUNDRED FEET IN ELEVATION AND PRECIPITATION WILL BECOME PREDOMINATELY SNOW.
CONTEST
The NWS is so interested in this rare event, they want people to TWEET with geolocation info. This is at the top of the NWS San Fran web page:
See Snow in the Bay Area – Tweet It! 
So in that spirit, I’d like people to be on the lookout not for the first snowfall, but for the first ridiculous claim that this SFO snowfall is related to any of these:
global warming, climate change, or climate disruption,
For example:
“…global warming increases increases severe events, why is why we have this snow in SFO”
…would qualify.
The first credible and verifiable report posted here in comments will earn the tipster a single item of their choice from the WUWT Stuff store, see here.
POLL
In the meantime, here is a poll:
It’s at least 24 hours from any snow in SFO, so we may even find statements in advance. Good hunting.
I just did a search for +”San Francisco” +”Global Warming” +snow and got 5, 490,000 hits. Most of them were spoofs, but there were a couple of sites I’ll take a look at. WUWT came in 6th with its poll. Steve Goddard was 8th, below CO2insanity. Now I need to do a search for +”Coming Ice Age” +aerosol . I read three or four comments at a couple of sites that flat-out deny that there were predictions by scientists in the 1970s that we were “on the verge of a new ice age”. I can remember back that far – not coherently, but enough to know that was the word at the time. I want some PROOF, so I can slam these revisionists.
Sorry and you can snip as appro. but Kerry is just almost as dumb as a box of rocks. ergo I voted for him.
LexingtonGreen says:
February 24, 2011 at 3:38 pm
“: I was checking in to see how long it would take to link the colder water killing baby dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico with global warming. Granted colder water as the cause of death has not been linked yet, but just a theory at this point.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What’s so strange for me about going through these comments is the rahrah glee going on, and this nastiness toward any notion of anthropogenic global warming. For instance, what LG’s comment, if it turns our that dolphins did die from colds is that some sort of proof that our planet is cooling? Who would that work?
And what about all the other complexities that may be involve, but no time for them… because of why?
But, if you’re curious about the dolphins here’s an interesting article:
~ ~ ~
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/scientists-scrutinize-rise-in-baby-dolphin-deaths-1278132.html
Scientists scrutinize rise in baby dolphin deaths
By JANET McCONNAUGHEY ~ AP ~ Feb. 24, 2011
“Although scientists are investigating whether the deaths are related to last year’s huge BP oil spill, they say toxins from oil or chemicals used to disperse it are considered a less likely cause than cold or disease. That’s because only one species of dolphin — and no other kind of animal — is dying, and because the calf deaths appear concentrated in Mississippi and Alabama rather than Gulf-wide.”
~ ~ ~
Why do so many folks think this is all a joke?
Can you really look around at your world these past decades and think nothing of note is going on?
sorry about those typos.
I’ve always lived north of 45°N and the streets in San Francisco always scared the bejesus out of me. I always wondered what happens if it snows. Is it worse living near the top of a hill and fearing the long slide to the bottom, or is it worse living at the bottom and fearing unexpected visitors?
The forecast for LA is also for snow down to 1000 feet, which is even more unusual given that we’re three degrees south of SF.
We might want to re-assess our fear of “global warming”. It seems that counting our blessings that we’re getting wet could be a better track. In the process of raising hell in our local paper (locally called “News Lite- Less News, Less Filling”) there’s a link to a paper on Great Basin droughts. LONG droughts.
http://www4.nau.edu/direnet/publications/publications_m/files/Mensing_S_Smith_J_Norman_KB_Allan_M_Extended_drought_Great_Basin.pdf
Maybe a little water-based snow in S.F. could be a good thing? ….As long as it doesn’t kill the dolphins.
Good thing I bought some extra popcorn for this. 🙂
Not only is snow caused by warming but the fire season will be much worse because all the snow made the brush grow. You just know it will happen if you live in CA.
Terry
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm “A complete list of things caused by global warming” already has “Baghdad snow” as well as “snowfall decrease”, “snowfall increase”, “snowfall heavy”, and “snow thicker”. Another day, another thing to blame on Global Warming.
How San Franciscans see the world.
Here in NW Calif., the cold air mass has yet to arrive – 6pm PST.
So, the moisture may pass by before the cold hits and drops white stuff on Al Gore’s parade.
Our local meteorologist says the really cold air will hit Saturday. Expect a big chill.
I bet the connection has already been made in the press somewhere.
Walter Dnes says:
February 24, 2011 at 5:47 pm
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm “A complete list of things caused by global warming”
~ ~ ~
Just goes to show you
how central climate is to life on this here, one and only, planet that will ever be our home. So why do you folks seem to hold it in such contempt?
No predictions would be of any value if there weren’t a quantitative tool to determine if it was, or was not, snowing in San Fran.
Good news…there is!!
http://www.isitsnowinginsfyet.com/
Citizenchallenge: take a look at the link provided by Walter Dnes above. That should explain why we tend to laugh at AGW attributions.
Janne Pohjala says:
February 24, 2011 at 4:03 pm
If it’s cold enough, would San Francisco fog turn to snow when it comes to shore?
Fog is already a liquid droplet so freezing it will not produce snow. Snow forms as a crystal from the vapor (gas). This can get complicated and the processes combined (forming, freezing, melting, re-freezing). For a response to your exact question, start here:
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/359/
Then here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graupel
Now you are on your way! Have fun.
Janne Pohjala says:
February 24, 2011 at 4:03 pm
> If it’s cold enough, would San Francisco fog turn to snow when it comes to shore?
Most likely no. If it mixes with subfreezing air the typical result will be rime ice building on things like wires and tree limbs that can cool down to freezing quickly.
Snow it typically formed from water vapor in air. “Snow pellets” (sometimes included as hail) are snow flakes that have supercooled cloud droplets freeze on them.
http://emu.arsusda.gov/snowsite/rimegraupel/rg.html has some interesting electron microscope photos of rime ice on snow crystals.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/primer/primer.htm is a great resource and has a useful morphology diagram linking snow crystal formation with temperature and air saturation.
citizenschallenge,
You come here with your misconceptions, and assume you understand scientific skepticism/realism. You do not.
The truth is that those promoting wind power and those that work against nuclear power and against supplying fossil fuels are harming the environment much more than those who oppose monstrous windmills and approve of all the benefits of efficient, cheap, clean energy.
What gives you the completely wrong impression that skeptics are not genuine environmentalists? The green totalitarians have bamboozled you, and like a child you unquestioningly accept what they say. No doubt you swallowed Algore’s An Inconvenient Truth hook, line and sinker.
My suggestion is that you get up to speed by reading here for a while, before posting the mindless drivel that is apparent in your first few comments. You say, “Can you really look around at your world these past decades and think nothing of note is going on?”
A central theme of skeptical scientists is that what is being observed has happened many times in the past, and to a greater degree. Nothing unusual is occurring now, and we have the records to prove it. The charlatans trying to sell people like you on imminent climate catastrophe will not come out and debate. That should tell you something: that they lack the confidence to support their conjectures. If you have any sense you will ignore their alarming pseudo-science.
That should be ‘disruption’ in the title, not ‘disrupton’, BTW.
[Fixed, thanx. ~dbs, mod]
It already happened. I was speaking with a naturalist/colleague in the Monterey Bay area around noon today about anticipating snow down to sea level. Without skipping a beat, she explained it was due to “climate disruption.”
My lad said, “As long as it extends the snowboarding season, I do not give a fig where it comes from, now move out of the way, I need to dig out the snow chains and head for Tahoe”!
Oh to be a fit youth again!
P.F. says:
February 24, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Snow in S.F. is periodic climate disruption, seeing that on occasion, going back as far as the records do, it’s snowed there – done that.
It’s just that these days, some want to charge admission to a natural spectacle.
Nancy Pelosi will be the first one.
San Francisco Snow Record
1856 Dec 25 2.5″
1868 Jan 12 2.0″
1882 Dec 31 3.5″ Snow fell from 11:30am to 4:20pm.
1884 Feb 7 1.5″ Snow fell off and on during the day.
1887 Feb 5 3.7″ Snow fell during the day. Up to 7″ of Twin Peaks.
1888 Jan 16 0.1″
1896 Mar 3 1.0″ Fell as brief heavy snow at night.
1932 Dec 11 0.8″
1952 Jan 15 0.3″
1962 Jan 21 Unofficial 3″ in Sunset and Westlake Districts
1976 Feb 5 1.0″ Up to 5″ at top of Twin Peaks.
As you can see, snow is not that unusual. Infrequent, perhaps, but not unusual.
So for snow in S.F. to be the “extreme” weather event to qualify as a result of global warming, the snow is going to have to be far in excess of the 1887 3.7inches.
Anything less is natural variability.