“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.
R. Gates says:
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.
========================
Show us the data. Show the warming, R.
Can you? You can’t.
R. Gates says
“Now, as far as “predictions” by the AGW community as to whether there will be snowier or less snowier winters– yes, there will be.”
____
Good one Aaarrgh. I bet your real name is R.U. Kidding.
Reminds me of my favorite send up of prognostication by Yogi Berra: “Making predictions is really hard, especially about the future.” I feel a song coming on.
Well it rained so hard the day I left,
The weather was bone dry,
With the sun so hot I froze my self,
Suzanna don’t you cry.
Q. Where do trolls go for vacation?
A. Aaargentina
Q. What is a troll’s favorite salad?
A. Aaarugula.
Q. what is a troll’s favorite vegetable?
A. Aaartichokes.
Why would anyone study Climate 101? The guy that has been teaching that class has been wrong all of his life. Better to just go outside and look around and believe what you see. pg
82-83 winter in the Sierra was the result of a strong El Nino.
10-11 winter in the Sierra was the result of a strong La Nina.
Similar result, yet different factors causing both.
I was expecting a colder dryer winter here. I am happy to have seen the snow accumulate. April typically gets some significant accumulations as well. Last year we had great back country skiing deep into the summer months, this year might be the same again for different reasons – El Nino last winter/spring, La Nina this past winter/spring.
I wonder if the Donner Party had an El Nino or a La Nina ? I’d like to live long enough to see another year like that occur around here.
Nothing is inconsistent with Global Warming,
or to put it another way, and emphasize the religion aspect…
Global warming worketh in strange ways
The 1 April snowpack has been generally increasing over the past 33 years in the Cascade Mtns of Washington and Oregon as seen in this composite graph of all snotel/snow survey sites with a complete record from 1976-2008:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/marka/swe.waor_west.1976-2008.gif
But the claims of declining snowpack due to global warming just keep on coming:
http://earthsky.org/water/philip-mote-on-declining-snow-melt-in-western-u-s
Mammoth Mountain has had its first 600 inch plus snow season in its history (dating to 1969).
http://www.mammothmountain.com
They keep pretty good monthly snow cover records since then as well in their links.
Mr. Mosher,
The head of the US energy department says that 90% of the snow pack will COULD (there’s another weasel word again) disappear due to global warming. See here
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/04/local/me-warming4
The alarmists are very much saying that the snow pack in the Sierras will all but disappear, whether AR4 does that precisely or not.
I could waste a lot of time giving more examples of this, or just about any other subject core to the AGW debate. The alarmists have every possible scenario covered with some study or another that makes their point (The cold is really caused by the warming, don’t you know!). Whatever happens, they have predicted it! It is consistent with the models.
Wasn’t it you that said to Judy Curry that no one trusted her? I trust her a lot more than I trust you!
Is that a mole on the tip of your nose?
I found this link interesting in regards to the information in the post.
http://www.mindfully.org/Water/Global-Warming-Water.htm
steven mosher says:
March 29, 2011 at 4:31 pm
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.
————————————————————————————————
Steven,
I disagree with this. AR4 findings are not only not most robust, they are proven untrue on this issue.
The most important effect of droughts – water stress – would be considerably relieved by warming, That is what the science references in AR4 say, though the report represents this in a totally misleading way. AR4 mentions only the people with increased water stress but does not subtract the higher number of people with reduced water stress thus hiding a net beneficial effect.
Additionally, reduced water stress on a global scale even with fast growing populations is in my view very hard to reconcile with “more intense droughts”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/18/how-the-ipcc-portrayed-a-net-positive-impact-of-climate-change-as-a-negative/
Jeremy says:
March 29, 2011 at 2:36 pm
R. Gates says:
March 29, 2011 at 1:55 pm
“Until then, continue to believe, as you stated, that warmer ground temperatures mean more snow accumulation.”
____
Jeremy, please don’t put words in my mouth. Precision is important in these matters and I never said anything about warmer GROUND temperatures. Also, the accumulation of snow during warmer climate periods is not a matter of belief, but a matter of record and pure science– 100,000+ years of ice-core data and basic physics.
The primary reason that the central part of Antarctica is a desert is because the air so cold and dry. Yes, circulation is a factor, but not the prime one. Even if storms could begin to head towards region, its so cold that the moisture would be wrung out of the storms long before they made it to the central Antarctic.
…. hmmm, you claim the ice core data, presumably Dome C, Vostok etc, proves your claims about accumulation of snow during warmer periods … correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t the very ice core data you quote as support for your claims about increased snowfall FROM the Antarctic – the place you claim in next paragraph has little or no precipitation because of the local conditions?
Seems to me there is a reason they are called “glacial” periods. And the ice core and other data show clear well defined “cycles” – appx every 110,000 year we move from warm interglacial to cold glacial periods.
The ice core record you tout in fact shows the last 12 – 15,000 years of temperatures are extremely and unusually STABLE – we are well overdue for a warm period tipping point peak – which the record shows is usually sharp and quick – witha rapid descent into glacial period.
The SAME ice core data shows that despite CO2 rising at appx the same pace for the last 5000 years or so temperatures – when reviewed in the context of the last 15,000 years, appx 10% of the total time of ONE climate cycle – are extremely STABLE – moving up and DOWN within a narrow range of natural variability
R. Gates says:
March 29, 2011 at 3:46 pm
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.
And a perfect example of the mindless repetition of irrelevant facts – carefully constructed – cherry-picked – to provide the required result.
“2000-2009 warmest decade on instrument record”
100% completely meaningless … to the point, sorry – no other way to say it, of being simply moronic.
The “instrumental record” is 1880 or so to present. A little more than a century. A whopping 131 years.
Big effen (Effen Vodka – a very fine product – since we’re talking ice) deal!
To put in real world perspective – lets see just how ridiculous the claim “warmest decade during “instrumental record” really is.
If one climate cycle – the appx 110,000 year glacial to inter-glacial period – equals one 24hour climate “day” … if my math is correct the 131 year “instrumental record” equals 1.7 minutes out of one climate “day”
Even if we ONLY look at the last appx 15,000 years of very stable global temps – and treat that time as one climate “day” – the 131 year “instrumental record” equals a whopping 12.7 minutes out of that one 15,000 year climate “day”
To make ANY meaningful “climate change” related claim or comparison based on the 131 year “instrument record” is simply silly.
And therein lies the root of all of the AGW claims – they refuse to look at the entire historical record – instead focusing all of the claims on observing a few minutes of one climate “day”
That literally is comparable to someone trying to say they can measure data for 2 minutes during the day and make a meaningful prediction of the weather the next 24 hours as a result.
Ask any warmist – including those at Real Climate and the like – about this glaring issue … that climate occurs over hundreds of thousands of years for EACH single cycle – yet they are basing wild and specious claims of imminent doom on a 100,000+ year climatic scale – on an instrument record that represents a little more than 1/10th or 1% of a single climate cycle … and watch them dance and scurry to avoid the question.
To a warming alarmist “climate” – all of the effects of AGW – is based on data from the last little over 100 years … and the long term, 15,000, 100,000 400,000 years, record is meaningless.
I challenge R. Gates or any other warming alarmist to answer the simple question:
If the increase in global temp during the “instrument record” period is less than the peak and entirely contained within the natural RANGE of temps seen over the last 15,000 years … then where is the “climate change” level warming?
{{{{{R. Gates says: March 29, 2011 at 3:32 pm says:
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.}}}}}}
Ummm – you mean like skiing in Scotland during the summer?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10238296
This has not happened since the early ’90s, so by your argument we must be tipping back into a new period of Global Cooling. Or are you going to change your arguments and assertions once again, in the face of Inconvenient Truths?
Why not just admit that climate is either cyclical or chaotic, and we are currently unable to forecast it.
.
Vostok ice-core – where is the warming?
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/vostok-last-12000-years-web.gif
Greenland GISP 2 ice core – where is the warming?
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
The last 1000 years temps:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713/F2.medium.gif
The last 1000 years temps overlaid on Vostock 15,000 years temps:
http://www.trackforum.com/images/WARMING/1000vs15000yerTemp.jpg
(a simple appx representation – 1000 year record flipped to match and scaled to appx match Vostok scale)
Please R. Gates – if the last 1000 year record is well within the natural variability in temps over last 15,000 years and well below the peak, and if the rate of change is entirely consitent with past changes during this period … please point out where is the warming?
And please lets not forget that almost ALL of the temp discussions and claims are NOT based on REAL temperatures.
They are based on the DEVIATION – or anomalies – from a “mean” period. This mean period is variously chosen to be 1901-2000, and most often 1961-1990 and similar. In other words – once again we do not see how current temperatures com[pare to past historical record on a long term climatic scale … instead we see how the temps compare to the 30 or 100 year RECENT periods
When a meaningful measure would be to compare current temps to the mean of the last 15,000 years
steven mosher says:
March 29, 2011 at 8:52 pm
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.
_______________________________
Averaging is what some honest GCM reviews criticize. The models are fundamentally flawed. To paraphrase, they get the right answers for the wrong reasons. They are able to fit observations retrospectively, but have no demonstrated predictive value. They can’t get basic features of PDO or ENSO right. One review warned that the models should not be used by officials to set public policy because of their uncertainty.
No problem, I’ll just repeat what you said then:
You said greater accumulation is a sign of a warmer climate. Since you understand physics so well, I’m guessing you have some new energy equations to explain how a warmer temperature overall would not mean warmer surface temperatures (since the surface is generally the warmest part of the atmosphere) and this would thus create more snow accumulation on the ground.
I’m waiting, but not holding my breath.
Wait, I’m confused. Did you just admit that I was right (even if partially)? You say that the air over the Antarctic is dry in an effort to explain why the antarctic does not get precipitation. That’s a fairly circular argument if I’ve ever seen one. Yes, cold air can hold less moisture, but this says *nothing* about why moisture does not make it there. Moisture does not make it over the antarctic content as much as any other continent because the atmospheric circulation patterns have no prevailing wind direction to blow moisture over it. Why does the ENSO change precipitation patterns over the NH? It does this because it alters the storm track. Alter the air circulation pattern over the south pole, and you’ll see air with more moisture make it over the south pole.
Ralph says:
March 30, 2011 at 2:00 am
{{{{{R. Gates says: March 29, 2011 at 3:32 pm says:
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.}}}}}}
Ummm – you mean like skiing in Scotland during the summer?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10238296
This has not happened since the early ’90s, so by your argument we must be tipping back into a new period of Global Cooling. Or are you going to change your arguments and assertions once again, in the face of Inconvenient Truths?
Why not just admit that climate is either cyclical or chaotic, and we are currently unable to forecast it.
______
First, yes, if over a consistent period the snow in Scotland or anywhere else did not melt in the summer and new snow fell on top it the next winter, then by definition, you’d see glacial growth. Show me this is happening anywhere in the N. Hemisphere over a consistent period, and I’ll take notice..
Second, climate is not either cyclical or chaotic, for these are not mutually exclusive categories. Deterministic chaos can be cyclical. Certainly the Milankovitch cycles prove that the climate is cyclical, but the details as to exactly how and when any event will unfold within that cycle is quite chaotic. Study the growth and collapse of a sandpile and you’ll see how chaos can be cyclical. Add one grain at a time and the pile grows, but eventually, as some complete unpredictable (yet deterministic point) the pile collapses. Then continue to add more grains to the collapsed pile and it will begin growing again, until at some point it will collapse again, etc. Cyclical and chaotic…just like the climate.
Tom in Florida says:
March 29, 2011 at 6:22 pm
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.
___
This does get tiresome, but I know AGW skeptics want to try to refute the science. No matter how you try and get around it, the period of 2000-2009 was the warmest on instrument record, not going back just 30 years, but going back to 1880. Beyond that, you must start relying on proxies:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html
I play no semantics games, I simply look at the science and the data.
It is absolutely true that if you go back further in the Holocene, or even earlier still, you can find other periods of warming. Duh. What is important is looking at mechanisms behind that warming. Some people seem confused as to what it means to be a chaotic (yet deterministic system). The climate doesn’t change randomly. Chaos doesn’t mean randomness. There are always reasons why things happen at specific times. The warming of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st can only currently be explained by including the role of the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s. Take away this forcing, and the warming has no known cause. Those are the facts and the science.
Jeremy said:
“Moisture does not make it over the antarctic content as much as any other continent because the atmospheric circulation patterns have no prevailing wind direction to blow moisture over it.”
___
This is incorrect. Storm systems can and do take direct aim at the center of the Antarctic continent, but their energy and moisture is quickly wrung out of them as they hit the extremely cold air.
The essence and foundation of the argument is that colder climates on earth are associated with a more dry climate as well. More and heavier snow in the winter time (which is the basis of this entire post) does not tell us anything specific about global warming or cooling, but in generally greater snowfall accumulations have been associated with warmer climates, not colder ones.
Werner Brozek says:
March 29, 2011 at 6:35 pm
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.
___
Don’t know what you mean by “decent” as far as Septembers low sea ice extent, but you’d be better at looking at the late spring/early summer N. Hemisphere snow cover before making any such judgement. Early indications are that this summer’s minimum sea ice extent could be very close to the modern instrument record low set in 2007. Arctic temps have been running high all winter, and we’ve had lower sea ice all winter, so it will be a very interesting melt season to watch.
It is interesting how you read only what you want to hear so that you can create a strawman. What I said was entirely correct, when you read it with this part:
…but of course, in your biased mind this somehow means I’m saying that *no* storms ever make it into the center. I’ve never stated that. Score one for the person in this argument who is able to recognize logical fallacies.
So ICE ages are the result of warming then? Glaciers, which rely on snowfall accumulation, advance in warmer climates? Kilamanjaro is defying your miracle-physics by losing its snowcap in a warming climate? The list of jokes you’re creating with this logical inconsistency is breathtaking.
The Sierra Nevada has a history of extreme weather. It’s just weather.
http://www.sierranevadavirtualmuseum.com/docs/galleries/nathist/weather/snowfall.htm
There is a tendency to put a great deal of importance in the weather when it reinforces your views of climate. A few years ago, during a multi-year drought in the south east, the alarmists were saying it was a permanent condition attributable to climate change, and we needed to make permanent changes to our water consumption, inter-connect river basins, and ration water for each city. Even while the rivers ran over their banks, there were restrictions on lawn watering. Anyway, the drought ended, everything is back to normal, and the alarmists have gone away until the next unusual weather event that they can blame on climate change.
R. Gates,
Have you seen these?
R. Gates,
Is this as a result of a warmer climate or colder climate?