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.
DJ Meredith says:
February 24, 2011 at 8:55 pm
If it does snow in S.F., it won’t be the Gorish thing of the past as once claimed.
The local meteorologists will surely be in forecast nirvana.
“If it’s cold enough, would San Francisco fog turn to snow when it comes to shore?”
I too used to live in SF. The fog tends to be a summertime phenomenon caused by the temperature differential of the central valley v. the coast. But, as has been noted above, SF’s tendency to micro-climates has be experienced to be believed.
This reminded me of the other contest:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/24/contest/
But the comments appear to be closed?
If not, then I’d like to submit these articles for that contest:
http://www.kasa.com/dpps/news/interactive/upcoming-fire-season-expected-to-be-bad_3728671
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S1982178.shtml?cat=516
If it snows on Mt. Camelpie, it will be hard to ignore.
We had an inch of snow in Eugene this morning, but then climate disruption occurred and it all melted and the streets dried. So, my guess is that the climate disruption will move south into SF before the snow gets there and save the day, thus disrupting this poll as well!
😉
Nice water vapor loop here:
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/west/nepac/loop-wv.html
Give it time to load.
There is a good explanation of CO2 and cold weather in this video.
I’m going to go out on a limb and try for the “Trifecta-de-Tutti-Trifecta”-
WIN – “Proponent Some Other”, Owner – Noaa Websterson the VI
PLACE – ”Romm Joe’, Owner – Soros Inc.
SHOW – “Gore Getter Al”, Owner – Sherri Masseuse, Jennie Masseuse, Vicki Masseuse, Hotlips Masseuse, Kiko Masseuse, Latta Masseuse, Song Li Masseuseii, Volga Masseuseinski, Cici Masseusei, Gretta Masseuseo, Victoria de la Madrid La Masseusela, Bridgit Masseuseka, Helga and Hilda von Hamburg Masseusen GmBH, United Masseuse Workers of the World (Locals 214, 667, 2319, 14205)
I just had to vote for Al Gore. The poor guy is probably trying to lay low these days, and will avoid making a comment on San Fransisco snow to avoid further embarrassment. But a person never knows, Al could be invited on a morning talk show and fall victim to the media spotlight once again. If he does, it would sure be a YouTube keeper!
Isn’t it now “Climate Challenge”?
Old PI was looking for something from the 1970s about scientists predicting an impending Ice Age.
How about this from Time magazine of June 24th 1974?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Andy
I think this info-babe
http://failblog.org/2011/02/25/epic-fail-photos-snow-reporting-fail-gif/
was explaining to the viewers how suddenly Global Warming can strike
I’m in the SF north bay, the sun is shining, temps are rising, and the satellite views denote clearing skies. No snow for us. Global Warming thwarts us once again. 😉
Don’t know about ess eff, but it’s snowing in Oroville
Thanks for the tips from a couple of people about the 70’s. Here’s the best site I’ve found so far. This is a compendium of both popular and peer-reviewed papers from the time.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims
I also found several sites that said the new Ice Age has already begun, or that it will begin “within the next century or so”. Two also indicated that weather would become chaotic before the final plunge, swinging back and forth between extremes of warming and cooling, until cooling dominated. We’re certainly seeing chaotic weather.
February 24, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Rhoda R says: “Citizenschallenge: take a look at the link provided by Walter Dnes above. That should explain why we tend to laugh at AGW attributions.”
Guess you missed my post pointing out that it just goes to show you how many aspects of our lives are influenced if not controlled by weather.
Still can’t figure out why it’s worth all the ridicule.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
February 24, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Smokey says:“ citizenschallenge, you come here with your misconceptions, and assume you understand scientific skepticism/realism. You do not.”
Well, which skepticism are we talking about? The philosophy kind – “an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere”?
Or, the skepticism that demands you remain skeptical to your own conclusions also and that you remain open to readjusting your own thinking according to the incoming evidence?
The self skepticism that reminds one that experts who have spent life times studying a field do know more than we do, so shouldn’t be discounted because of political persuasions. Not that they are always right, but to consistently dismiss them outright and ignore the evidence they present isn’t very smart either.
~ ~ ~
Smokey says:“A central theme of skeptical scientists is that what is being observed has happened many times in the past, and to a greater degree.”
Human civilization is perhaps ten thousand years, we have been blessed and deeply influenced by a spell of “just right” weather. To ignore what society is doing to our atmosphere to disrupt that “just right spell” simply doesn’t make much sense.
Mass extinctions were normal too, but that doesn’t mean we need to push full throttle to embrace another one.
~ ~ ~
PS. I’ve been looking at this website for years, I’ve just never posted before.
Also, I learned the basics of climatology in High School in the early 1970s and have been watching the situation with interest ever since. I may not be a climatology, but I am aware of the developing state of affairs.
Cheers, peter
citizenschallenge says:
“I’ve been looking at this website for years, I’ve just never posted before.”
You started posting here in April 2010.
@citizenschallenge:
It seems to me that nothing has been presented to scientifically support AGW over natural variability. I’ve been living on the planet 60 years and see nothing unusual about the recent decades.
Smokey says:
February 25, 2011 at 12:14 pm
citizenschallenge says:
“I’ve been looking at this website for years, I’ve just never posted before.”
You started posting here in April 2010.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Hmmm, forgot that one, care to share the link, I’d love to read it again.
Also I did a couple posts a few days ago. Guess I was just trying to introduce myself as more than your run of the mill troll. 😉
DanB February 25, 2011 at 1:03 pm says:
@citizenschallenge: It seems to me that nothing has been presented to scientifically support AGW over natural variability.
~ ~ ~
What about all this stuff?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
Or, http://www.climate.gov/#climateWatch
Or, http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm
Or, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DanB says: I’ve been living on the planet 60 years and see nothing unusual about the recent decades.
~ ~ ~
You haven’t noticed vast land-areas of previously… well basically untouched biologically active natural countryside come under construction, cities, farming, factory complexes, mining, etc?
Don’t get me wrong I’m not knocking that stuff, I depend upon it as much as you do. However, that does not justify us ignoring the deep impact these activities are having upon our planet’s biosphere, our life support system.
Spent some time on Google Earth exploring our planet and all those exotic names you’ve always heard of. Look at the Amazon, give it a fair canvasing, then go up the coasts. How can it be said that humanity isn’t having a substantial impact?
And come on now Dan, be honest, look at the opportunity that awaited you and me as go getter twenties. Then look at what is awaiting our twenties kids these days. Don’t tell me you don’t notice a tragic diminishment in beckoning opportunities?
So you “think” (that man is having an extreme (er, substantial) effect on the environment (based on Google earth searches and looking up other exotic names …).
Okay. That is your opinion, based on your feelings, your emotions. Your “”decision” that man IS having an adverse impact on the planet – to your mind – means therefore – that YOU want to make energy and food and clothing and shelter and clean water TOO expensive to and TOO rare for most humans to live in even minimal comfort, health, sanitation, and above a starvation diet.
So why do YOU really want tens of millions of innocents to die an early death of disease and squalor based on YOUR opinion about man’s impact?
With no evidence of any more than 1/2 of 1 degree of a temperature rise – a temperature rise that will do nothing but good for billions as more plants and food, fodder, fuel, and fortune are growing due to nature’s increase in CO2 and a warmer and longer growing season, and a temperature rise you CANNOT link to mankind’s activities, YOU have decided that millions must die so YOU feel better about what YOU have assumed about the environment.
Does that seem moral? Proper?
RE: Citizens Challenge to my post above.
I saw a news video talking about the cold water killing the dolphins. It is just so odd all this cold ocean water. Here a linkable story is:
“Cold water can also kill dolphins, and the water has been cold lately — in fact, NOAA was already starting to look into weather-related dolphin mortality in the Gulf last year, right before the oil spill hit.”
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-25-as-if-the-gulf-coast-hasnt-had-enough-to-deal-with-now-there-are
Kind of weak, but check the 8th paragraph
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/02/san-francisco-consumed-by-chance-of-snow.html
LG, thanks for that link. Interesting. That article had another link worth looking at http://climatide.wgbh.org/2010/10/cold-pacific-skews-global-ocean-temperatures/
Cold Pacific skews global ocean temperatures
October 29, 2010 | 1:46 PM | By Heather Goldstone
A point worth keeping in mind:
“Indeed, many parts of the world’s oceans – like the North Atlantic – have been much warmer than usual this year. As Andy Freedman explains, these seemingly contradictory conditions are a symptom of a moderate to strong La ninã event that may have been the only thing keeping 2010 from even more record-setting heat. . . “
racookpe1978 says:
February 25, 2011 at 6:22 pm
So you “think” (that man is having an extreme (er, substantial) effect on the environment (based on Google earth searches and looking up other exotic names …).
~ ~ ~
No, you’re being silly and mischievous. The GoogleEarth viewing is icing on the cake to support what tons of varied evidence and reports are telling us.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
racookpe1978 says: Okay. That is your opinion, based on your feelings, your emotions.
~ ~ ~
Not so fast, with a bit of time I can pile up a list of learned papers discussing aspects of resource depletion, but you would probably poopoo all of them.
Are you claiming there’s no qualitative and quantitative evolving difference in state of our planet as the decades have pasted?
But, do you deny that we live on a finite planet and that 7 billion consuming people don’t have an impact on that?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Then you turn the whole thing into some moralistic play meant to get me off balance because I too consume and I too am part of the problem. But what does that emotional distraction have to do with trying to understand our current situation in a good faith manner?
~ ~ ~
racookpe1978 says: So why do YOU really want tens of millions of innocents to die an early death of disease and squalor based on YOUR opinion about man’s impact? etc.
~ ~ ~
Come, come lighten up. If you have valid facts and science backing you up ~ why must you resort to this sort of rhetoric?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
racookpe1978 says: and a temperature rise you CANNOT link to mankind’s activities,
~ ~ ~
Do you actually believe this? Based on what?
*********
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_depletion
The State of Consumption Today
http://wn.com/Humanities_ecological_footprint