“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms,” says the IPCC in 2001.
Recent snows suggest much for AGW induced snow worries, but still the hype continues:
“Heavy snowstorms are not inconsistent with a warming planet,” said Jeff Masters, director of meteorology for www.wunderground.com (source Breitbart)
Heavy snow would be tragic if it weren’t so funny. Memo to Dr. Masters: with the current mindset, nothing is inconsistent with global warming. – Anthony
By Joe D’Aleo, ICECAP
It is called “Miracle March 2011” in the Sierra. At Boreal, near Donner Summit, as of a few days ago, they had received 217 inches this March bringing the seasonal snowfall to 762 inches. The previous record was 662 inches in 1994/95. The recent prolonged storm brought 6-7 feet of snow. The normal for the season is around 400 inches. Their snowbase is between 275 and 375 inches (20-30 feet).
The Snow Water Equivalent is well above normal and bodes well for both agriculture and coastal cities which rely on the melting snow for irrigation and drinking water. There have been battles for decades over how much water the farmers should get to use in the long dry growing season.
As show above, and confirmed below, this wet season has brought over 80 inches of water equivalent to some of the higher terrain.
nc says:
March 29, 2011 at 1:46 pm
To R Gates, I do not remember any predictions of heavy snowfall do to global warming before the heavy snowfall. You have any examples? I do remember that ski resort owners where told to find another occupation as warming will mean less to no snow. But when the big dumps of snow came the tune changed to warming causes snow. Oh I am getting so confused, now reaching for head ache medicine.
Please please unconfuse me.
____
Richard Alley, one of the leading experts on ice-core data published his findings on snowfall accumulation in 2000, which showed quite clearly that, at least for Greenland, as the climate warmed, snowfall accumulation rates increased, and as it cooled, they decreased. But some seem confused about what this means. It means that more snow was falling on a year-to-year basis as the temperature increases, even though, on a year-to-year basis, the continental glaciers were retreating as the temperature increased. This seems paradoxical to some at first glance, but it is really not. The key is this: NOT how much snow falls in the cold months, but how much sticks around and doesn’t melt during the normally warmer months. If the climate is cooling, even if it snows less, much less melts during the colder spring, summer, and fall, and thus, it begins to build into glaciers, beginning at the highest peaks and northern latitudes first, and then moving down the mountains and to more southerly latitudes.
R. Gates says on March 29, 2011 at 2:02 pm
So how did all that water get up onto the land? IIRC, there were glacial shields a mile or so thick covering North America at least to New York, and similar such shields on Europe and Russia … and the sea level was some 100+ meters lower than today.
How did it all get there? Was there a burst of non-Anthropogenic Global Warming followed by sudden cooling?
Have you thought about how that had to play out from a scenario like the present if cooling leads to less moisture in the atmosphere?
Please give us more details and less hand waving.
Time for a new descriptive AGW acronym to enter the climate debate;
“PEP’s” ie; “Post Event Predictions”
JJ says:
March 29, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Isnt it strange that Seattle gets so much more rain (and snow) than most parts of California (its so much warmer where is the moisture laiden air)? Also, all the COLD weather Florida had this winter, snow in Texas, Thailand is warm – but no snow, Alaska is cold – but lots of snow, global warming is assaulting St. Louis – but it was FREEZING this winter, etc.
I have also noticed a strange trend this winter with very little rain on the warmer days, but a lot of snow when the cold fronts are pushing down.
Isnt the world just backwards sometimes, Gates??
Strange
____
One thing I try not to do is try and compare apples and oranges, and to take any basic principal to an extreme. It tends to be snowier in Greenland when it is -40C on average than when it is -55C.
(see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif)
But some would like to “mock” this basic science and claim that means it would be even snowier if it was 10C versus -55C, which is of course absurd.
Each region of the world needs to be compared to its own history and climate to see any meaningful trends. March is normally the snowiest month in the Denver area where I live, but this year, we’ve had very little snow in March and a series of forest fires in the area. If this continues into the summer, we’re going to be in big trouble along the front range in Colorado. I attribute this year’s weather more to La Nina than any global warming, but I don’t discount that global warming could play some role in the longer-term weather changes I’ve seen in Denver over my lifetime here.
R. Gates says:
March 29, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Climate has 4 states:
1.) Warm & wet
2.) Warm & dry
3.) Cold & wet
4.) Cold & dry
For the greater part of the Earth, the climate has shifted to #’s 3 & 4.
Global cooling now predominates in definace to the amount of a certain trace gas in the atmosphere. The globe will continue to cool until it is darn good and ready to warm back up.
And, by the way, High Pressure Cells like to sit over Ice Sheets.
Mosh, I’m pretty sure these two things are “science”.
They might not be convenient science, but it’s things like this that led to all the predictions of less snow.
2006, “Consequences across the region,” Climate Choices, Union of Concerned Scientists
“ and winters are becoming warmer and less snowy. These changes are consistent with global warming,”
IPCC
Climate Change 2001:
Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms”
=================================================
but it really doesn’t matter…..
…truth is, there really has not been more or less snow, it’s all within “normal”
As far as precipitation, until we have another decade long drought, like the dust bowl 1930’s-1940’s, everything else is above normal precipitation and we should be glad for it………….
As far as “normal”, since everything has been trending below “normal” ever since they declared what “normal” was, it might be time to readjust what “normal” is…………
…there’s a distinct possibility that “normal” is wrong
Manfred:
“2. When snow levels were low, same people told the opposite story in the past.”
Please find that in Ar4. You won’t. Remember what Ar4 said. its likely to see increase precipitation in the higher latitudes and likely to see LESS in sub tropical. Also, they noted that precipitation is highly variable. More extreme events. More intense droughts and more intense precipitation events. That’s what the science says. Again, note that these findings are not listed as the most robust findings.
latitude:
I’ll suggest that you stick to the best document we have Ar4. That gives you what the considered belief is. AND it gives you a liklihood. A 2001 document is UPDATED by a 2007 document. In fact, one of the things that got revised was precipitation.
Science moved forward between 2001 and 2007. Also, a 2006 report on the northeast US says nothing about Tahoe. The regional skill of models is not very good.
Anything is consistent with them. that WHY you dont see these kind of claims made in the robust findings of AR4.
So basically your sources are off point and dated. next
“2006, “Consequences across the region,” Climate Choices, Union of Concerned Scientists
“ and winters are becoming warmer and less snowy. These changes are consistent with global warming,”
IPCC
Climate Change 2001:
Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms”
mosh, none of that has come true either……………….
evanmjones says:
March 29, 2011 at 8:02 am
Nothing is inconsistent with Global Warming.
“Everything gives you cancer.” – Joe Jackson
With the abandonment of Falsification, the now irrefutable meme of “Man Made Global Warming” continues it’s march into the realm of pseudoscientific dogma.
rbateman says:
March 29, 2011 at 4:22 pm
R. Gates says:
March 29, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Climate has 4 states:
1.) Warm & wet
2.) Warm & dry
3.) Cold & wet
4.) Cold & dry
For the greater part of the Earth, the climate has shifted to #’s 3 & 4.
Global cooling now predominates in definace to the amount of a certain trace gas in the atmosphere. The globe will continue to cool until it is darn good and ready to warm back up.
And, by the way, High Pressure Cells like to sit over Ice Sheets.
_____
Well, I can’t speak for what High Pressure Cells “like” to do or don’t like to do, but I do know that physics tells us that it is the ice sheets that create the conditions for the high pressure. Dry, cold, sinking air masses as opposed the warm, moist, rising air masses you find in the warmer regions.
As 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on instrument record, your notion that the “globe will continue to cool” seems a bit odd, unless you’re talking about the shorter-term cooling which corresponds quite regularly with every short-term La Nina cycle, but that’s of course weather and not climate.
steven mosher says:
March 29, 2011 at 11:02 am
There are so many different GCMs making different and contrary predictions about specific phenomena in a given geographical region that you can pick whichever one is best suited to support your claim of accuracy.
GCMs are expensive toys that produce pretty pictures. I’d put the legislators and regulators using them in the Bernie Madoff category, albeit worse. Arguably, we’ve already lost $trillions due to CAGW propped up by this over-hyped science. And greater losses are on the way.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/six_questions_for_jim_manzi
“If we introduced a tax high enough to keep atmospheric carbon concentration to no more than 1.5x its current level (assuming we could get the whole world to go along), we would expect to spend about $17 trillion more than the benefits that we would achieve in the expected case.”
steven mosher says:
March 29, 2011 at 4:37 pm
So basically your sources are off point and dated. next
=========================================
Aren’t you a little too old for this.
My comment was not off point or dated, you didn’t catch what I said first:
“They might not be convenient science, but it’s things like this that led to all the predictions of less snow.”
Go George E. Smith!
R. Gates, La Nina almost always brings more snow to Pacific mountain regions. If you don’t know why, go find a more basic blog and learn why. I am tired of comments that are at such a sub-par level of understanding. Even the warmest-bent NOAA has info on this.
So according to R. Gates, just about any climate, cold, dry, warm, wet, are consistent with global warming. In which case we have nothing to worry about since the climate has always been cold, dry, warm or wet. We thrive regardless of these changes.
R. Gates says: (March 29, 2011 at 4:47 pm)
” As 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on instrument record, your notion that the “globe will continue to cool” seems a bit odd”
I give you your own evidence supplied in an earlier post by you, yourself.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
Not only does the decade 2000-2009 come no where near being the warmest, but the rate and amount of warming has been greater in the past. Do you not read your own evidence? Now I know you cleverly insert “on instrument record” to be able to dance around what I just said, but as we all know that record only covers the last 30 years. The semantics game you like to play is getting old.
RGates is just having you on. He’s just cutting and pasting response 33B from his list of retorts—too bad we’ve seen that one before though. Almost had us.
With the huge amounts of snow and ice still on the ground over much of North America, I would expect the arctic sea ice to have a slow start to its melt season. This would be similar to what happened last year when the April values for 2010 were the highest since 2002. With this being a La Nina year instead of an El Nino year like last year, I expect a decent sea ice coverage in September.
Watching the snow is interesting, to say the least. and of course the warmists have it completely wrong. Consistency is required in physics.
One of the things that I prefer to watch for evidence of climate change is the heating degree days, and the cooling degree days. Even here in Los Angeles, an urban heat island of world-class proportions, the heating degree days are increased this year, and the cooling degree days have dropped off. LA normally has 61 cooling degree days on this date, measured since January 1, yet this year we have had only 25. Similarly, the heating degree days normally is 691 since the previous July 1, yet we have 995 on this date. That represents approximately 60 percent fewer cooling degree days, and 25 percent more heating degree days. By any measure, it’s definitely getting colder in Los Angeles. This is so, even with massive urban heat island effect due to many millions of population. Meanwhile, of course, CO2 increases in the atmosphere. The disconnect is obvious.
It doesn’t snow much in Los Angeles proper, although the surrounding mountains do get quite a bit of snow, so much so that we have ski resorts on some of the mountains.
Cooling and heating degree days from:
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=ICAO:KCQT&almanac=1
As to the snow in California, tomorrow (March 30) the state will take the final official snow measurements and make the water availability statements.
See this link for details:
http://www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/032511snow.pdf
latitude you didnt even read the 2006 report.
you read a news report about the report.
the report doesnt say anything about extreme precipitation.
Its says:
“Across the Northeast, the number of days with snow on the ground will be reduced by 50 percent in the higher emissions scenario, but only by 25 percent under the lower scenario. ”
Basically, the report did its own regional study with different emission scenarios.
It said NOTHING about snow in tahoe in 2010. Made no predictions about that.
It was focused on long range studies of the northeast. the time period over which it made predictions hasnt even OCCURRED. and then, it makes statements about snow COVER. basically in line with what Gates asserts. generally speaking we expect snow COVER, days with snow on the ground, to shorten OVER THE LONG HAUL.
Thats the prediction. The actual prediction was concerned with the length of the ski season and the length of the snowmobile season. I find nothing in that report that says anything about extreme events, massive snowfalls. Its more about the length of the season. So warmer air, as R gates notes, would tend toward more precip. If its cold you get big snowfalls, if its too warm, you’ll get rain. And a shorter season.
Again, these changes are predicted at mid century. not 2011.
Dave Worley says:
March 29, 2011 at 6:11 pm
So according to R. Gates, just about any climate, cold, dry, warm, wet, are consistent with global warming. In which case we have nothing to worry about since the climate has always been cold, dry, warm or wet. We thrive regardless of these changes.
#######
No dave, For example, the physics predicts that as it warms we will see accelerated warming at the north pole. So if the equator goes up by 1C over 20 years, the theory predicts that you’ll see MORE THAN 1 C at the pole. The planet doesnt respond uniformly.
Hoser says:
March 29, 2011 at 4:53 pm
steven mosher says:
March 29, 2011 at 11:02 am
There are so many different GCMs making different and contrary predictions about specific phenomena in a given geographical region that you can pick whichever one is best suited to support your claim of accuracy.
##########
You clearly have not read the literature or looked at model outputs. You can go to CA and see the instructions I gave for downloading results of modelE for example. Start there. Here is what you will find. The average of ALL models out performs any given model. So the IPCC averages models to come up with findings. the findings that are robust are published as such. other findings, are less accurate. I would not take them very seriously. Most people don’t. They are tentative, and subject to change as models improve. Sorry thats the state of the science.
Pamela Gray says:
March 29, 2011 at 6:08 pm
R. Gates, La Nina almost always brings more snow to Pacific mountain regions. If you don’t know why, go find a more basic blog and learn why. I am tired of comments that are at such a sub-par level of understanding. Even the warmest-bent NOAA has info on this.
=======================
Right on.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R. Gates says:
Well, I can’t speak for what High Pressure Cells “like” to do or don’t like to do, but I do know that physics tells us that it is the ice sheets that create the conditions for the high pressure. Dry, cold, sinking air masses as opposed the warm, moist, rising air masses you find in the warmer regions.
============================
No you can NOT speak for them….and, thankfully for us, that is a good thing. Neither can you generalize the “warm, moist rising air masses you find in the warmer regions.”
What???
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA