That’s from the avalanche center in the Tetons, and here is a current web-cam view up Yosemite Valley towards still-closed Tioga Pass (in the left background):
AP has a nice roundup of late snow and snowpack news (including the Teton quote). Just weather. No mention of climate. Nothing this time about snow and cold being caused by global warming. Now if we could just get the press to do the same when there is a regional hot spell. Still, it’s progress. Remember the spinning on last winter’s snowzilla?
Most amusing was Al Gore’s quote from “the scientific community“:
A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.
A click on Gore’s link showed “the scientific community” to be Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page. Gore should also have quoted Page’s credentials, which Page listed in his next line:
That’s simple science even for me, a guy whose scientific education pretty much ended with the old “Watch Mr. Wizard” TV show and a subscription to Popular Mechanics.
Unfortunately, Gore could have quoted some actual scientists to the same effect, as Andrew Bolt quoted the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research:
The overall warming of the earth’s northern half could result in cold winters… Recent severe winters like last year’s or the one of 2005-06 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it.
But as Bolt also quoted, the Potsdammer’s IPCC bible had predicted the opposite:
Fewer cold outbreaks; fewer, shorter, intense cold spells / cold extremes in winter” as being consistent across all model projections for Europe
What, are there no takers this time around? Are they tiring of the ridicule?
It seems some would like to doubt the basic physics of evaporation and even the accuracy of the ice core record, as well as perhaps, the fact that higher CO2 levels correspond to an acceleration of the hydrological cycle (meaning more snow and rain in areas that are prone to them). Ask yourself this: If CO2 didn’t lead to an acceleration of the hydrological cycle (meaing greater rock weathering and the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere) than why would that feedback process exist in the rock carbon cycle? And more interestingly, what would it mean if it did not exist? Some of you may need to read up a bit on the carbon cycle and rock weathering as it pertains to CO2 levels to fully grasp the signficance of this question, but your research will pay off…
Latitude says:
May 29, 2011 at 10:56 am
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 9:48 am
Everyone should have a look at this chart:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
What is shows is snowfall accumulation rates compared to temp from ice cores,
===============================================
It shows from 10,000 years ago to present, temperatures have gone sightly down.
From 10,000 years ago to present, snow accumulation has been going slightly up.
….it shows that as temperatures go down, snow accumulation goes up
But that’s accumulation not snowfall
______
Uh…we are talking about snowfall accumulation, not glacial growth…two very different…very very different things. Think of of this way…during warm periods, it might snow (i.e. accumulate) 15 inches, but all 15 inches melt. During cooler periods, it might snow 13 inches, but only 10 inches melt, thus, we would see three inches of potential glacial growth for the season. This is roughly what the ice core data show us quite clearly happens over very long periods. Perhaps some are confusing accumulation with glacial growth, but they are very different things.
Gotta love R Gates. Present out of context talking points with no credible scientific explanation behind them, and then defend them by calling everyone else’s responses just talking points with no science behind them. Repeatedly says he is 25% skeptic and 75% warmist, yet never takes a skeptic position on anything, seeming to believe that claiming to be part skeptic will lend credence to his warmist talking points.
I can only suggest that he must not be very good at what he is doing. Most warmists who produce talking points ad nauseum with no credible science behind them seem to have degrees, grant money, movies, books and all sorts of revenue streams in return for their talking points.
Still waiting for a link to peer reviewed studies dealing with “certanties” in ice core measures. I showed you mine, now show me yours.
Jeff Alberts says:
May 29, 2011 at 7:40 am
The North Cascades Highway in Western Washington remained closed more than a month later than “normal”, due to incredibly heavy snow and avalanches. I’ve heard reports that snow was as high as 75 feet in some places.
==================
Awesome pics, thanks.
davidmhoffer says:
May 29, 2011 at 12:02 pm
“Gotta love R Gates.”
_____
You can just stop there.
No? Darn. Well, the truth is that you need to define your terms a bit better. I find few skeptics willing to admit that the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700’s could have any effect on the climate at all, and yet I freely maintain that there are multiple influences on climate…from Milankovitch cycles, to solar, and even microbiological. So, yes, I am a warmist, in the sense that I think it is more likely than not that the 40% rise in CO2 and related feedback effects are affecting the earth’s climate, but I’m also a skeptic in that if someone presented paper tomorrow showing that it has be pretty much all GCR’s, Milankovitch, solar irradiance, volcanoes, geomagnetic, and CO2 has been along for the ride as an effect, rather than a cause, it wouldn’t completely shock me. I actually think, for example, that there lot’s more to the GCR/climate relationship than I did just a few months ago (and I was pretty keen on it then). But I see no reason to think that increasing the noncondensing GH gas CO2 by 40% might not have some effect on the climate as well…
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 11:53 am
Uh…we are talking about snowfall accumulation, not glacial growth
==================================================
Gates, a lot of times I don’t know why you say what you say.
I did not say a thing about glacial growth.
You said that the chart you posted showed as temperatures go up, snow accumulation goes up. That is not true if you are using the chart you posted to show that.
The chart you posted shows that temperatures have been going slightly down for the past 10,000 years and that snow accumulation has been going slightly up for the past 10,000 years.
=======================================================
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 9:48 am
Everyone should have a look at this chart:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
What is shows is snowfall accumulation rates compared to temp from ice cores, which have been shown to be an excellent proxy for hemispheric climates. Besides general warmer temps lining up with greater accumulation
=======================================================
The chart you posted does “not” show that general warmer temps lining up with greater accumulation.
The chart shows that as temperatures have gone down, accumulation has gone up.
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 12:21 pm
I find few skeptics willing to admit that the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700′s could have any effect on the climate at all
======================================================
From 1700-1800 the temperature graphs/charts show a steeper slope (faster rise in temperature), than the next period of temperature rise from 1900-2000.
Since the rise in temperatures that could be attributed to CO2 is slower than the rise in temperatures that could not be attributed to CO2 (which would be considered natural rise in temperature)…..
…how much is CO2 really contributing to the slower temperature rise?
R. Gates,
How much of that 40% rise is due to warming, in your opinion? You said it wouldn’t shock you if all of it was just an effect of warming.
Am I correct in my assumption that Gates pointed to ice core certainties to explain our huge amount of snow pack in our local mountains (it’s warmer, therefore we have lots of snow, because the ice cores tell us this).
The biggest leap (of faith because there still hasn’t been a reference or body of work cited) is to say that there is a teleconnection between ice core layers and temperature in one area (ice cores from the Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland, China, etc), and snow amount and temperature in other places (like what I see out my kitchen window, showing boatloads of snow).
However, I’m still waiting for a link to ice core “certanties”. Then I will be asking for the link demonstrating that ice cores tell us that if it is warm with lots of snow in one area, it can predict warm and lots of snow in another area.
While I’m waiting for those links, I need to stoke up the fire. All this warmer weather and snow accumulation has put a chill in my bones.
Here just east of Yosemite, it is 38F and snowing right now. 5 inches of fresh snow over in Mammoth Lakes. The high country has not even started to melt. Take a look at the snowpack:
http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp013390.pdf
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 5:38 am
R.Gates as usual you have no idea what you are talking about. What you say may hold true for extreme N and S latitudes from whence these ice cores originate, but not for mid latitudes, and certainly not for California. Take a look at the picture above. That’s California.
According to the NCDC our winters are cooling at 1F per decade, our springs are cooling at 2F per decade, and the lovely month of May is cooling here in California at 3.7>F per decade. Winters are getting wetter at the rate of over 1 inch of water per decade. Only 2 winters in the last 10 have even been below average.
In Greenland, yes. What does the NCDC/NOAA chart have to say about the Rockies?
Let me venture a WAG on that – Diddly Squat!
R. Gates says: “As noted many times here on WUWT, greater snowfall and rainfall are generally associated with warmer, not cooler climates….”
And, as noted many times here on WUWT, you’re speaking nonsense. If warmer climates are associated with greater snowfall, how come there are so few ski resorts in Panama and the Philippines?
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 12:21 pm
I find few skeptics willing to admit that the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700′s could have any effect on the climate at all, and yet I freely maintain that there are multiple influences on climate…from Milankovitch cycles, to solar, and even microbiological.
What happened to the lagtime that is so apparent in the Ice Cores?
I’ll admit you excel at getting the cart in front of the horse.
The Ice Cores indicate (if they indicate anything at all about CO2 and Warming) that warming and cooling are the horses that pull the CO2 cart, not the other way around.
Looks like Ely Nevada and White Pine County in general there, is going to have a “White Memorial Day.”:
“… Winter Storm Warning for heavy snow in effect until 11 PM PDT
this evening… The National Weather Service in Elko has issued a Winter Storm
Warning for heavy snow… which is in effect until 11 PM PDT this
evening. The Winter Weather Advisory is no longer in effect. * Snow accumulations: 4 to 8 inches below 7000 feet with locally higher amounts possible… the Schell creek mountains and Great Basin National Park could receive over a foot of new snow.”
All that extra CO2 must be up on the Trinity Alps that I see every day, because snow was stuck to trees all week long. In the last week of May, mind you.
Nobody was out here in California in 1816, but we might be joining the NE in a year without a summer.
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 9:27 am
Ian W.,
Here in Denver, (not Greenland), our snowiest months are not our coldest. The ice core record is a good proxy for the advancement of glacial periods over the whole hemisphere. Colder climate periods on earth are more dry than warmer periods. When the next glacial period comes, it will not be marked by record snow but cold summers where whatever snow fell does not melt. During the so-called Little Ice Age the ice core data show less accumulation but colder temps. These are basic facts.
Where do these glaciers come from then? It is snow falling and building up that causes glaciers. No snow no glaciers.
Did we not just read an article pointing out that Greenland glacial ice retreat was a result of snow being at a 10% historical deficit? Are these gents aware that snowfall is a positive indicator of AGW?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/25/filling-lake-erie-one-headline-at-a-time/
Because they came to the opposite conclusion. (And are still trying to obfuscate around that pesky glacier that increased its mass).
This whole dialog with Gates and the silly minutae is maddening!
All it proves is how little we actually KNOW. We have accumulated mucho data, but we are generations away from being able to synthesize it, if ever.
We will never KNOW what the impact of CO2 contributed by humans will be or is at any given time.
Most likey, the major climate developments will be driven by “Black Swan” events (Toba, meteor, celestial happenings, etc.) that will so greatly outweigh human impact that is frankly hardly worth talking about except to continue to advance scientific understanding for the purpose of advancing human engineering to make humans more resilient to natural phenomena.
Socratic Maxim: Knowledge of one’s ignorance is the beginning of wisdom.
The climate system and universe are so chaotic as to be entirely beyond the realm of humans to ever make meaningful predictions about the long-term future… a few days, weeks, months or years is the best we will ever do, and so far we are at the “few days” level of meaningful predictive capability.
So can we just admit that none of us know squat in the big picture?
The problem with Gates is that, while professing an open mind, is suggesting we are moving in on knowing the unknowable. This open mind to future developments is really only useful in the context of extreme humility in what we will ever know.
It is really juvenile to keep talking about what ice cores mean, because no one is close to knowing what they possibly mean for the long-term future. It is most likely that they are completely irrelevant because they will never provide us with actionable information.
Gates, in a non-ad hominem way, is a fool for not knowing what he can’t know.
I don’t care about the impact of CO2 because it is such a small component of the total inputs, most of which are completely beyond our knowledge and certainly beyond our control, as to be irrelevant in the scheme of truly long-term events in the climate and solar system and the well-being (or lack thereof) of mankind.
Engineering is our only hope, if we have one, which we don’t know. But we are genetically endowed with belief in our own future and the future of our kind. Hence we will always try.
Mr Gates: Wisen up!
This whole debate centres around greenhouse gases. You only need a “greenhouse gas” theory to explain why the earth is 33 defrees warmer than the “maximum” blackbody temperature they calculate.
Have you seen the way the IPCC calculate it ?
Kiehl & Trenberth – “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget ”
“Here we assume a “solar constant” of 1367 W m-2 (Hartmann 1994), and because the incoming solar radiation is one-quarter of this, that is, 342 W m-2, a planetary albedo of 31% is implied.”
Wow – did you see that ? Missed it ?
Well think about it – why do they reduce incoming solar radiation to one quarter of the “solar constant” BEFORE applying the albedo to calculate Earth’s blackbody temperature.
Because if they don’t there is no temperature anomaly to explain by “greenhouse gases” – in fact what needs explaining is why is it so cold ?
Interesting argument isn’t it – the “greenhouse theory” in reverse if you like.
The foundation stone of their analysis is flawed – simple Physics as discussed by Dr D Sweger blows their hypothesis out of the water – and water is what saves us from the seeming paradox of why it is so cold not too hot and heating.
R. Gates says: “As noted many times here on WUWT, greater snowfall and rainfall are generally associated with warmer, not cooler climates….”
====================================================
temperatures go up:
http://www.mountaineers.org/nwmj/images/071/071_Glaciers_AT_ChartLg.gif
snowfall goes down:
http://www.mountaineers.org/nwmj/images/071/071_Glaciers_SWE_ChartLg.gif
Human well-being = resistance to chaos (entropy) = order (proportional to energy input)
Therefore, human well-being is directly proportional to the amount of non human energy we can harness to order our surroundings.
There is, for all intents and purposes, infinite energy in our system relative to the plausible human population. Therefore, the imperfection of energy, matter, order exchanges (ineluctable increase in entropy) is not really relevant to the ability to indefinitely increase the order in our immediate systems so as to be better able to resist the forces of chaos that are responsible for our individual and collective demises.
Get it? It is self-defeating not to use all the stored energy, and incoming energy, to order our systems to the maximum extent possible. CO2 is a tiny by-product (in the same way that the infitesimal increase in entropy is) in the scheme human well-being.
I sure wish some people would get some perspective on this. It is much more important to monitor our morals and decency than it is our use of fossil fuels. The danger from succumbing to nihilism (the origin of the CAGW falsity) is billions of times more dangerous than CO2 emissions. What little we know, we know that!
Of coarse, it is just weather, but I can not find anyone in the Mammoth/Mono Lake area that has been so increasing late in the snow season. I have been up all weekend watching the snow fall and trying to figure out when to BBQ. No one here can recall this weather behavior (both May and April). Maybe more AGW can bring more water to the Death Valley area (It must be consistent to “The Theory” as rbateman and others may have it, more heat, more precipitation.). MORE CO2! This is an awesome batch of oxymorons.
R Gates: Has anyone besides me ever told you that you are full of [snip]? What? You don’t keep score.
Marc says:
May 29, 2011 at 3:33 pm
I sure wish some people would get some perspective on this.
====================================================
Exactly right…………
We’re talking about 1/2 of a degree, and almost all of that occurred between 1700 and 1800.