“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,
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.
[snip. Re-posting the entire thread serves no purpose, and wastes my time trying to figure out your motive. ~dbs, mod.]
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.
Oh yeah!
The skiing and riding will be great for weeks to come.
And then:
Hoser:
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
PDO?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
R. Gates.
Thanks, for your efforts here.
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.
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.
R. Gates says on March 30, 2011 at 3:42 pm
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.
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.
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.
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.
R. Gates says on March 30, 2011 at 5:28 pm
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.
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 ….
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.
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.
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.
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,