Record Snow in Sierra – Near 200% of normal at Boreal Ski resort

“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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
188 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jimbo
March 30, 2011 11:25 am

R. Gates,

Mid-Century Ensemble Regional Climate Change Scenarios for the Western United States
Besides changes in mean temperature, precipitation, and snowpack, cold season extreme daily precipitation increased by 5 to 15 mm/day (15–20%) along the Cascades and the Sierra. The warming resulted in increased rainfall at the expense of reduced snowfall, and reduced snow accumulation (or earlier snowmelt) during the cold season.

Rhys Jaggar
March 30, 2011 11:43 am

Mammoth Mountain hit 600 inches for the first time since records began in 1969 a few days ago. Mainly due to two monster storms, one in December and one in March. Both those months are record-breakers, otherwise the winter is quite normal.

R. Gates
March 30, 2011 11:47 am

[snip. Re-posting the entire thread serves no purpose, and wastes my time trying to figure out your motive. ~dbs, mod.]

Richard Sharpe
March 30, 2011 12:27 pm

I would be interested in some calculations on what it would take to remove 100M of the ocean and deposit it as snow, and eventually, as an expanding shield of ice at the poles.
The ocean surface area seems to be 361,132,000km^2. Multiply that 100M suggests that we are talking about 3.6 x 10^16 m^3 of water, or 3.6 x 10^19 kg of water.
Over 100,000 years, it would seem we are talking about a need to transport 3.6 x 10^14 kg, or 3.6 x 10^11 tons of water per year to the poles, or approximately 10^9 tones per day.
I hope my numbers are not screwed up in any way. Perhaps someone can correct me.

SteveSadlov
March 30, 2011 12:27 pm

Oh yeah!
The skiing and riding will be great for weeks to come.
And then:

March 30, 2011 1:49 pm

Hoser:

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.

The simple fact is that averaging produces better results. Not perfect, better. The models are not fundamentally flawed. If they were fundamentally flawed, then would predict cooler temps as the result of added GHGs. they dont.
The features of PDO and ENSO?
lets see
Contents88.48.4.7
8.4.7 El Niño-Southern Oscillation

During the last decade, there has been steady progress in simulating and predicting ENSO (see Chapters 3 and 9) and the related global variability using AOGCMs (Latif et al., 2001; Davey et al., 2002; AchutaRao and Sperber, 2002). Over the last several years the parametrized physics have become more comprehensive (Gregory et al., 2000; Collins et al., 2001; Kiehl and Gent, 2004), the horizontal and vertical resolutions, particularly in the atmospheric component models, have markedly increased (Guilyardi et al., 2004) and the application of observations in initialising forecasts has become more sophisticated (Alves et al., 2004). These improvements in model formulation have led to a better representation of the spatial pattern of the SST anomalies in the eastern Pacific (AchutaRao and Sperber, 2006). In fact, as an indication of recent model improvements, some IPCC class models are being used for ENSO prediction (Wittenberg et al., 2006). Despite this progress, serious systematic errors in both the simulated mean climate and the natural variability persist. For example, the so-called ‘double ITCZ’ problem noted by Mechoso et al. (1995; see Section 8.3.1) remains a major source of error in simulating the annual cycle in the tropics in most AOGCMs, which ultimately affects the fidelity of the simulated ENSO. Along the equator in the Pacific the models fail to adequately capture the zonal SST gradient, the equatorial cold tongue structure is equatorially confined and extends too far too to the west (Cai et al., 2003), and the simulations typically have thermoclines that are far too diffuse (Davey et al., 2002). Most AOGCMs fail to capture the meridional extent of the anomalies in the eastern Pacific and tend to produce anomalies that extend too far into the western tropical Pacific. Most, but not all, AOGCMs produce ENSO variability that occurs on time scales considerably faster than observed (AchutaRao and Sperber, 2002), although there has been some notable progress in this regard over the last decade (AchutaRao and Sperber, 2006) in that more models are consistent with the observed time scale for ENSO (see Figure 8.13). The models also have difficulty capturing the correct phase locking between the annual cycle and ENSO. Further, some AOGCMs fail to represent the spatial and temporal structure of the El Niño-La Niña asymmetry (Monahan and Dai, 2004). Other weaknesses in the simulated amplitude and structure of ENSO variability are discussed in Davey et al. (2002) and van Oldenborgh et al. (2005).

PDO?

Recent work suggests that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, see Chapters 3 and 9) is the North Pacific expression of a near-global ENSO-like pattern of variability called the Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation or IPO (Power et al., 1999; Deser et al., 2004). The appearance of the IPO as the leading Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) of SST in AOGCMs that do not include inter-decadal variability in natural or external forcing indicates that the IPO is an internally generated, natural form of variability. Note, however, that some AOGCMs exhibit an El Niño-like response to global warming (Cubasch et al., 2001) that can take decades to emerge (Cai and Whetton, 2000). Therefore some, though certainly not all, of the variability seen in the IPO and PDO indices might be anthropogenic in origin (Shiogama et al., 2005). The IPO and PDO can be partially understood as the residual of random inter-decadal changes in ENSO activity (e.g., Power et al., 2006), with their spectra reddened (i.e., increasing energy at lower frequencies) by the integrating effect of the upper ocean mixed layer (Newman et al., 2003; Power and Colman, 2006) and the excitation of low frequency off-equatorial Rossby waves (Power and Colman, 2006). Some of the inter-decadal variability in the tropics also has an extratropical origin (e.g., Barnett et al., 1999; Hazeleger et al., 2001) and this might give the IPO a predictable component (Power et al., 2006).
Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models do not seem to have difficulty in simulating IPO-like variability (e.g., Yeh and Kirtman, 2004; Meehl and Hu, 2006), even AOGCMs that are too coarse to properly resolve equatorially trapped waves important for ENSO dynamics. Some studies have provided objective measures of the realism of the modelled decadal variability. For example, Pierce et al. (2000) found that the ENSO-like decadal SST mode in the Pacific Ocean of their AOGCM had a pattern that gave a correlation of 0.56 with its observed counterpart. This compared with a correlation coefficient of 0.79 between the modelled and observed interannual ENSO mode. The reduced agreement on decadal time scales was attributed to lower than observed variability in the North Pacific subpolar gyre, over the southwest Pacific and along the western coast of North America. The latter was attributed to poor resolution of the coastal waveguide in the AOGCM. The importance of properly resolving coastally trapped waves in the context of simulating decadal variability in the Pacific has been raised in a number studies (e.g., Meehl and Hu, 2006). Finally, there has been little work evaluating the amplitude of Pacific decadal variability in AOGCMs. Manabe and Stouffer (1996) showed that the variability has roughly the right magnitude in their AOGCM, but a more detailed investigation using recent AOGCMs with a specific focus on IPO-like variability would be useful.

March 30, 2011 1:58 pm

Gil Grissom says:
March 29, 2011 at 11:13 pm
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
##############
yes. he said it COULD ( note the admition of uncertainty) disappear in 2100.
So what does THAT have to do with snow in tahoe in 2011?
Nothing. Look nobody in climate science in the past 10 years has predicted the DISAPPERENCE of Heavy snowfalls in tahoe in 2011.
What they do project is this:
1. IF we continue to follow certain emissions projections (IF)
2. It is LIKELY ( not certain) that snow cover, the land that is covered by some snow, will diminish DECADES from now.
3. You might also see increases in extreme precipitation events.
People confuse the ACTUAL science with the alarmist stories that get constructed from the science. Its far better to bash them for getting their own science wrong, than it is to misstate the science yourself.

François GM
March 30, 2011 1:59 pm

Steven Mosher and R. Gates,
Snow is not consistent with AGW if it occurs repeatedly in areas or in months that usually receive rain. Saying otherwise is simply dishonest (I’m not sure where you stand on this as I don’t have the time or patience to read every post – but just in case … ).
Cheers
François

Tom in Florida
March 30, 2011 2:30 pm

R. Gates says: (March 30, 2011 at 8:45 am)
First:
“I play no semantics games, I simply look at the science and the data.”
Then:
“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.”
There you go again. You trot out the tired old line of “40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s” as if a 40% increase of very little amounts to something. Why don’t you just say the truth, an increase of 112 parts per million. Not so scary now is it? And that’s exactly what I am talking about.

R. Gates
March 30, 2011 2:54 pm

Jimbo,
It’s all about effects over ranges of temperatures. In Greenland, for example, we know that there is greater snowfall in winter when it is -40C versus -55C, (100,000+ years of ice-core data prove this), but this does not of course mean there’d be greater snowfall in winter when it is 10C versus -55C. You get rain, or perhaps something else. Extrapolating effects beyond a range is dangerous and usually wrong. For example, we know that in the atmosphere, as you increase elevation the temp drops, but then, it begins to rise again at a certain elevation, and then in drops again.
So, a world that is 1C warmer might have dramatically different effects than a world that is 2C, 3C, or 6C warmer. It is a chaotic system with nonlinear responses. Hence, why it is wrong to simply extrapolate the effects of an increase in CO2 along some logarithmic curve, expecting effects to follow neatly and predictably along that curve.

R. Gates
March 30, 2011 3:42 pm

Tom,
You must have missed the whole discussion about the notion given to us from
Paracelsus, which is: “The dose makes the poison”.
Percentages are everything when it comes to looking at physical effects. The 40% increase in CO2 (regardless of the ppm) represents the greatest amount of CO2 in our atmosphere in at least 800,000 years. During this time, CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats. Now, in a geologically very short time, we gone 40% above the high point of that range. The key issue now is: how sensitive is the earth’s climate system to this relatively rapid increase?

R. Gates
March 30, 2011 3:48 pm

François GM says:
March 30, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Steven Mosher and R. Gates,
Snow is not consistent with AGW if it occurs repeatedly in areas or in months that usually receive rain. Saying otherwise is simply dishonest (I’m not sure where you stand on this as I don’t have the time or patience to read every post – but just in case … ).
Cheers
François
_____
I only go by what 100,000+ years of ice-core data say. Warmer meant greater accumulations of snow in winter months, but paradoxically (but factually) retreating glaciers, as the accumulated snow melted in the summer months because, like the winters, they were warmer as well.
So, if we see the great snows of this winter stick around through the summer because the summers are colder, THEN it’d be an entirely different topic. Right now though, heavy snows of winters are not necessarily indicative of anything, but over the longer run, the facts tell us that warmer temps meant greater snows in winter in areas prone to snow.

March 30, 2011 4:14 pm

R. Gates.
Thanks, for your efforts here.

March 30, 2011 4:14 pm

Gates says:
“CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats.”
The part left Gates out is that CO2 followed those glacial advances and retreats.
Further, CO2 has been thousands of ppmv higher in the past, during times when the biosphere was healthy and booming [click in image to embiggen]. If any conclusion can be drawn, it is that more CO2 is better for life.
And of course, CO2 follows temperature, not vice versa. Going back farther [570 million years], it is clear that a drop of 5°C or more can cause a major extinction. But a rise of 5° is harmless [chart courtesy of Bill Illis].
The entire CO2=CAGW canard has been repeatedly falsified. What we’re observing can be explained 100% by natural variability, with no need for extraneous variables like CO2 to explain these natural cycles.
“One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. ~William of Ockham, 1285-1349”
It is completely unnecessary, and scientifically irresponsible because of the total lack of supporting evidence, to attribute an unnecessary entity like CO2 to natural variability.

March 30, 2011 4:19 pm

François GM says:
March 30, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Steven Mosher and R. Gates,
Snow is not consistent with AGW if it occurs repeatedly in areas or in months that usually receive rain. Saying otherwise is simply dishonest (I’m not sure where you stand on this as I don’t have the time or patience to read every post – but just in case … ).
Cheers
###########
If you want the BEST statement of what AGW is as a science, and what it claims, as a science, then I will suggest that you read the findings in the IPCC that are labelled as robust. These are the only things that I consider as science. The likely results, the very likely results, etc are all not up to par as far as I am concerned. When you look at it that way you will see this:
AGW says almost NOTHING about extreme snowfall. It would certainly say nothing about a single season. It can only talk about climate, which is averages over long periods of time. To be sure some have taken the less reliable findings as “science”.
They get what is coming to them.

Richard Sharpe
March 30, 2011 4:33 pm

R. Gates says on March 30, 2011 at 3:42 pm

The 40% increase in CO2 (regardless of the ppm) represents the greatest amount of CO2 in our atmosphere in at least 800,000 years. During this time, CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats. Now, in a geologically very short time, we gone 40% above the high point of that range. The key issue now is: how sensitive is the earth’s climate system to this relatively rapid increase?

Why look at only the last 800,000?
We have seen higher CO2 levels in the past, indeed, considerably higher concentrations, if geologists are to be believed, and yet the world did not end.

R. Gates
March 30, 2011 5:28 pm

Richard Sharpe says:
March 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm
R. Gates says on March 30, 2011 at 3:42 pm
The 40% increase in CO2 (regardless of the ppm) represents the greatest amount of CO2 in our atmosphere in at least 800,000 years. During this time, CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats. Now, in a geologically very short time, we gone 40% above the high point of that range. The key issue now is: how sensitive is the earth’s climate system to this relatively rapid increase?
Why look at only the last 800,000?
We have seen higher CO2 levels in the past, indeed, considerably higher concentrations, if geologists are to be believed, and yet the world did not end.
____
Not being a believer in catastrophic global warming, I can’t comment about that. You’re right though, CO2 has been higher in the more remote past…much higher, but then again, our ancestors were tree-shrews at the time.

R. Gates
March 30, 2011 5:39 pm

Smokey,
Here you go contradicting yourself again. You said:
“It is completely unnecessary, and scientifically irresponsible because of the total lack of supporting evidence, to attribute an unnecessary entity like CO2 to natural variability.”
You say CO2 is an “unnecessary entity” and at the same time a few paragraphs earlier, you said:
“If any conclusion can be drawn, it is that more CO2 is better for life.”
So which is it for CO2? Unnecessary or better for life?
Get this Smokey: The Dose Makes the Poison. Your body and the biosphere like things within ranges. Go outside that range and bad things (for your body and the biosphere) can happen. CO2 is both better for life and necessary (within a range) and the only real issue is what is that range? Or said another way: how sensitive is the climate to CO2 going outside the range we’ve seen the past 800,000 years?
You don’t like this answer Smokey because you’re a die-hard skeptic, but it is the most accurate and scientifically justifiable one there is.

March 30, 2011 6:18 pm

Gates says:
“You say CO2 is an ‘unnecessary entity’ and at the same time a few paragraphs earlier, you said: “If any conclusion can be drawn, it is that more CO2 is better for life.”
I didn’t contradict myself. Your reading comprehension is the problem, Gates, not what I wrote. I was quoting Occam’s Razor regarding the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy that says: “since I can’t conceive of anything besides CO2 that could cause climate change, then it must be CO2.”
The climate null hypothesis has never been falsified, therefore the problem is with the alternative CO2=CAGW conjecture. Every observation of current trends, temperatures, and rates of change have happened exactly the same way before the first SUV rolled off the assembly line. Claiming that this time it’s different violates the unfalsified null hypothesis.
In fact, it is you who contradicts yourself. You constantly arm-wave over an ice-free Arctic, and claim, without evidence, that it is caused by CO2. Now you claim you’re not a believer in catastrophic global warming. You can’t have it both ways.
finally, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have approached ≈20,000 ppmv in the past [versus about 390 ppmv today]. The biosphere flourished. The idea that a little more CO2 is a problem has been debunked by the planet itself.

Richard Sharpe
March 30, 2011 6:24 pm

R. Gates says on March 30, 2011 at 5:28 pm

Richard Sharpe says:
March 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm
R. Gates says on March 30, 2011 at 3:42 pm
The 40% increase in CO2 (regardless of the ppm) represents the greatest amount of CO2 in our atmosphere in at least 800,000 years. During this time, CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats. Now, in a geologically very short time, we gone 40% above the high point of that range. The key issue now is: how sensitive is the earth’s climate system to this relatively rapid increase?
Why look at only the last 800,000?
We have seen higher CO2 levels in the past, indeed, considerably higher concentrations, if geologists are to be believed, and yet the world did not end.

Not being a believer in catastrophic global warming, I can’t comment about that. You’re right though, CO2 has been higher in the more remote past…much higher, but then again, our ancestors were tree-shrews at the time.

Well, what then do you think the problem is?
Is it some vague “God did not mean for the world to do that?”
If you think there is a problem (with, say the 40% higher than it has been in the last 800,000 years, but it wasn’t a problem when our ancestors were tree-shrews) then perhaps you should state what you think the problem is.
We cannot argue with your position if you will not state it.

220mph
March 30, 2011 6:52 pm

R. Gates
I see you have responded to most others but failed to respond to my posts at 2:00am, 2:09am, 2:28am …
Awaiting your response ….

March 30, 2011 8:10 pm

Smokey. You’ve never stated a proper null hypothesis. Care to give it a try?
The Null for AGW is not what you think it is.

Tom in Florida
March 30, 2011 8:22 pm

R. Gates says: (March 30, 2011 at 3:42 pm)
“Tom,
You must have missed the whole discussion about the notion given to us from
Paracelsus, which is: “The dose makes the poison”. ”
No. I read that discussion. Perhaps a better illustration. Take one gallon of clean water. Add 1 drop of chlorine. No problem. Add another drop of chlorine, a 100% increase in added chlorine, still no problem. So it really depends on the actual amount of a substance that is added not the per cent by itself. Your constant referral to a 40% increase in CO2 over the last 300 years obscures the actual amount of CO2 added and I believe you do it intentionally and the reason is deception.
Here is another example of your deceptive words:
“During this time, CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats.”
Here you neglect to mention the reason for glacial advances and retreats, changing climate. Yet your statement seems to acknowledge these climate changes while CO2 existed in a steady, “nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm”. So if climate change occurred without CO2 in the past, why will it be any different now? And you cleverly sneak in the phrase “nice comfortable range” when referring to low CO2 as if it is established fact for that to be the optimum range and Earth would not be happy with any other concentration.

March 30, 2011 8:36 pm

Well, R. Gates, I was thinking you were holding your own fairly well in the discussions, and may actually have some intelligent points, until you wrote, “During this time, CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats.”
You clearly do not understand the basic need of CO2 to support life if you think the “nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm” is a GOOD thing. A ‘perfect temperature’ (at least by your standards) doesn’t mean too much if most all life is extinct.
Furthermore, you cherry picked the last 800,000 years wrt CO2 levels, although CO2 levels have been reconstructed for the last several million years. That reconstruction clearly shows that over the last few hundred thousand years there has been an impoverished level of CO2. Moreover, what history – and science – tells us is that the “comfortable range” for life on this planet is around 1000 ppm of CO2.

March 30, 2011 9:11 pm

steven mosher says:
“You’ve never stated a proper null hypothesis. Care to give it a try?”
Hi Steven. And sure, I’ll fill you in. As I’ve posted at least a dozen times before, the null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data.
This takes a while to grasp. The null hypothesis is challenged by an alternative hypothesis, such as CO2=CAGW. If the alternative hypothesis can withstand all attempts at falsification,