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?
William says:
May 29, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Nice papers, thanks for the links.
“the long term well established ice core record the show a warmer, not cooler climate leads to greater snowfall accumulations”
I always understood this to be true, to some extent, because there is more moisture when it’s warmer and it’s dryer when it’s very cold.
It certainly seems to be true here in the Denver area. We’re already a semi-arid place and when we get those below-zero temps, we rarely have any snow, there’s just no moisture. In fact, we get most of our snow in Oct and March, when it’s warmer.
Thankfully, La Nina seems to be ending, we finally had some good rain this month. It’s actually be a very cool and wet May with double the average rainfall. Although Memorial Day has frequently meant 90-degree temps, it will be 61 and windy tomorrow, but finally into the 70s and low 80s the rest of the week.
That 91-inch base at A-Basin as reported above? I talked to someone at a graduation party today that said it’s 91 inches of slush. There are diehard skiers that don’t care though.
Overall, it all falls within the range of normal. My greatest concern is that we escape any hail before my son’s graduation party in 2 weeks 🙂
The Total Idiot says:
May 29, 2011 at 6:53 pm
In the PNW, from which regional climate is drawn from the N. Pacific, that climate acceleration got vectored to cold. Being that the rest of the US is downstream from us, this region is a vital vectoring factor. We don’t bogart our climate, we share it.
I’m glad to see my comments have been met with such warmth here on my favorite blog and I you don’t think I’d run away from such insightful responses. I did spend some time with the family on this delightful Memorial Day weekend…hope you all did the same and hope you’re all flying Old Glory proudly in your front yard.
Now then, a few things that seem to be in dispute or unclear to some, but are key to understanding why heavy snows are not indicative of approaching glacial advances, and also why the carbon cycle and the hydrological cycle are so closely related and the connection is CO2 in the atmosphere which acts as the master thermostat.
First, some here actually paid attention to the link I provided that showed a greater accumulation of snow during the MWP versus the so-called Little Ice Age. The cool climate of the LIA, which some would think we’re headed for based on the lethargic sun, was not a period of generally huge snowfalls, but of more cold and dry conditions. Yes, of course there was snow, but that was not the main feature…which was the cold. Ironically, during the MWP, as the Vikings were enjoying the mild weather, if they’d been able to measure snowfall accumulation amounts in fine detail, they’d have noticed them increasing as Greenland warmed. Of course, even though the snowfall accumulation was greater (note: please don’t confuse accumulation, which covers one season, with glacial growth, which spans across seasons) all the snow that did fall in winter would melt, at least along the coasts of Greenland, and so there was no glacial growth. Some of you have questioned the accuracy of the ice core records or the fact that there is some controversy about some of the data. The isotope data used for determining snowfall amounts and general temperature is not in dispute. You can quickly google this yourself and read all about snowfall accumulation and ice core isotope data. The bottom lone here is- every time I see AGW skeptics pointing to record snowfall accumulation as a sign that global warming is not happening or of a pending glacial advance, I simply see ignorance about what the longer term history of the ice cores tell us or how in fact glacial periods actually proceed.
In regards to the carbon cycle and the role of CO2 acting as the master thermostat of the planet via the hydrological cycle, the story is quite an interesting one, but the essence of it is this- CO2 acts via a negative feedback process to keep the earth from getting to cold or to hot. That negative feedback process is only possible because of the non condensing nature of CO2. Here’s how it works. When the planets begins to warm essence a bit through whatever forcing, let’s say for sake of argument Milankovitch forcing, the oceans will naturally outgas CO2 and of course more water vapor as well. This of course leads to even more warming and more outgassing and so you get a positive feedback process occurring where a little change at first can lead to even bigger changes over the long term. This, by the way, goes a long way to explaining why big increases in CO2 often lag initial warming in the ice core data. But let’s get back to the hydrological cycle. Eventually, as CO2 reaches some threshold, the hydrological cycle begins to accelerate as there is also lot more water vapor in the atmosphere. Heavy rainfall and snowfall events increase and it is the increased weathering of rock that begins to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and puts an stop to what might otherwise become a runaway GH event. To understand the basic chemistry of CO2 absorption and rock weathering in the hydrological cycle see:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890496003111
Normally, a forcing such as from a warming period of a Milankovitch cycle would slowly raise temperatures enough to gradually begin the outgassing of CO2 from the oceans. This process would be very slow and the though there would be some positive feedback at first from the outgassing, eventually the negative feedback from the increased hydrological cycle would be stronger and thus we see the well known up and down fluctuation of CO2 as shown in the ice cores over the past 800,000 years. This all is the way it’s been until humans found the means to release far more CO2 and far more quickly than the earth has seen in those 800,ooo years. The real question, at least in my mind, is how sensitive is the earth’s climate to this rather large belch of CO2? And how might the natural negative feedback process of the hydrological cycle respond to this belch of CO2, especially considering that the belch is continuing, and that the rock weathering process as a means to reduce CO2 is far too slow to keep up with the rate at which CO2 is increasing.
Indeed Whistler/Blackcomb has had the second most snow in a season since they kept records.
But it’s only weather trivia really, however when climate alarmists a few years ago said that ski resorts will have to close you have to point these things out.
If more warming means more snow, why were we bombarded for years and years and years with the threat of all the ice melting and sea levels rising to flood cities and islands disappearing and polar bears dying?!
There really is an extraordinary disjunct in thinking to go from this to claiming more warming means more snow.
Marc,
I put no boundaries on what humans can know and even can control. I think one day we will understand the climate more thoroughly than even the most optimistic person might believe possible today. Why one part the universe wishes to understand itself is one of the mysteries of our existence, but yes, climate science will advance and some day future generations will probably look back to the climate debates of today and chuckle at the foolishness, arrogance, and ignorance of both sides.
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Are you seriously trying to tell us that snowfall and temperatures are inversely related? So ice ages are warm periods, and interglacials are colder?
There are limited situations in which warmer temperatures cause atmospheric moisture leading to snowfall. But snow needs cold temperatures. Can you outline for all of us the mechanism by which snow forms at warm temperatures above zero C?
I guess you forgot to add to your explanations the physics behind how the white color of snow actually decreases, rather than increases, planetary albedo.
Last time I looked, there seemed to be relatively little snow around the equator while most of the snow appeared paradoxically at the poles with the lowest temperatures. Odd – these must be unreliable non peer reviewed sources of information. Now of course we know that it’s the other way around- Africa is permanently snow-bound while Antarctica is taking bookings for beach holidays.
Anyway I guess its whatever it takes to keep the CAGW show on the road.
The problem is that Warmists used to blame the lack of snowpack / extent on ………………………global warming. Please show me where you have ever set them straight that the lack of snow was due to a ‘cooler’ climate????
Please reply to this question as I am interesed in your answer.
R. Gates, I really am interested to learn here. What were snow conditions or lack thereof outside of the ice core areas? Did these areas (presumably lacking ice core data) get more or less snow during the warmer climates of the past? Anyone?
“When”? Are you stating that even if we continue spewing out man-made greenhouse gases it won’t be enough to stop the next glaciation? No runaway Venus style warming? Is this your position? Please clarify and I do acknowledge that you are 25% sceptical of AGW.
If you’re wondering where the heat has gone, it’s all here: in New Zealand. Just had the warmest May on record, which came on the back of an exceptionally warm April and a long, golden summer that lasted into March.
Blooming lovely it is. And our power bills are tiny.
Sadly for our friends across the Tasman, it has been the opposite in Australia.
R. Gates says:
May 29, 2011 at 11:02 pm
First, some here actually paid attention to the link I provided that showed a greater accumulation of snow during the MWP versus the so-called Little Ice Age.
Cherry picker.
Time and again, I keep reminding you that there are four (4) states to climate, not two (2). Just because you have two instances of climate which fit your idea does not mean that cold is dry and warm is wet. Nature is far more capable than you imagine, and your notion is contradicted by data.
This thread is NOT about CO2 rates or belching.
It is about the catastrophic failure of AGW theories to explain what has happened in the real world. The Pacific Northwest is both colder and wetter the past 2 years.
But, there’s more to it than that.
The El Nino should have put more snow down than the La Nina, if we are to believe your warm=wet, cold=dry claim.
In the real world, Nature is stranger than fiction.
Nature rained on that parade, shifting gears and leaving poor AGW stuck in the mud.
Edim says:
May 29, 2011 at 12:22 am
The cooling is getting more and more difficult to deny.
Of course. April months in Holland, ranking since 1706:
1. 2011
2. 2007
3. 2009.
Hottest, of course.
It snows somewhere, thus disproving global warming? How about global snow cover, Anthony?
It’s important for balanced reporting to understand that, just as the Western USA has this huge snowpack, that Europe has had the warmest spring in decades. 32C in Switzerland in April! Drought in France and Germany causing damage to major crops. Drought in SE England too.
Over here, the warmers are playing on the European story.
You are playing on the US story.
The truth is that climatic variations a long way from the mean are currently present, both warmer and drier as well as cooler and wetter.
It takes a fine, honest and analytical judge to determine what that actually means in terms of ‘climate change’……..
Logic:
Premise #1. The best and the worst that additions of CO2 can cause are short and long term weather pattern parameter change (making cold fronts warmer and warm fronts warmer). CO2 cannot directly produce warm air, snow, rain or drought, only weather pattern parameter change can do that.
Premise #2. The mechanism behind CO2’s affects is not strong enough to out-perform, negate, or reverse contradictory weather pattern parameters (not enough energy produced compared to that found in natural variability), but it has been hypothesized that it can produce worsening of weather pattern parameters that would trend in the same direction (the warm fronts are getting worse).
Premise #3. Logically, the only thing you can say about the power of CO2 is that it can only have secondary affects, and only when conditions are favorable to it, not contradictory to it. Warm fronts must then be the place to look for weather parameter change as a result of increased CO2.
Premise #4. Since it is hypothesized that CO2 must cause increased warming in warm air over land temperatures (and to a far, far, far greater degree than it would cause on ocean surface water temperatures), we should see warm front weather pattern parameter change over land masses that slopes with the CO2 measure. Alas we are not seeing that. There has been no change in warm front parameters that are worse than what could be entirely explained by natural drivers. And, as I alluded to earlier, its possible mitigation affects on cold fronts cannot currently be extrapolated from natural variability.
Logic’s Conclusion: Gates, your only recourse is to state that the heavy snow and colder air is related to a natural weather pattern parameter that has out performed CO2’s ability to impose on it. Which logically leads to the only conclusion you can make. CO2’s affects are buried in natural weather parameter variability. So far, it has not been shown capable of making favorable parameters significantly worse (warm fronts are not warmer and storms related to the clash between weather pressure systems are not getting worse), and cannot overpower energy available in natural weather pattern systems to lessen unfavorable parameters beyond the confines of natural variability.
Gates, I would suggest an area of inquiry: look into the possibility of decreasing cold records, and increasing warm records to determine whether or not you have a weather leg to stand on (based on logic, CO2 must affect weather parameters, if it does not demonstrate this, the argument must end).
We are seeing a spate of cold records being made. I wonder what the trends are in terms of these temperature records over the same time period that CO2 has been increasing? (I know what they are so my wonderment is for the sake of the conversation and possible enlightenment continuing).
Don’t make the following error: If you were to say that CO2 will have an affect on the average but not on the extremes, logically you will have proven my point and scored one for the opposing team. A change in average without affecting extremes proves that CO2 affects are confined within natural variability and can safely be ignored.
http://www.weather.gov/climate/getclimate.php?wfo=pdt
…if I can get the link to work
http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=pdt
CO2 Fear is a mental problem.
Anything is possible says:
May 29, 2011 at 11:42 am
____
Quite so…we had our ‘summer’ back in April. It has rained all day here in the Cotswolds and is cold (11C at gone 1pm when we went out in the car). My other half is now lighting the stove. My hands are cold as I type.
Rhys Jaggar says:
May 30, 2011 at 6:21 am
__
It is cold here in southern England, and now wet.
We’re due to drive through Tioga Pass on 28th June. What are the odds it will be open on that date?
This means more snowcover in June leading to increased albedo leading to cooling.
Rhys Jaggar says:
May 30, 2011 at 6:21 am
April is but one month. The snowpack accumulated over 6 months time.
The Western US had a spring….back in February. It did not last.
The snowpack has.
Pamela Gray says:
May 30, 2011 at 6:49 am
It appears to me that CO2’s ability to force climate is drowned in the tsunami of natural variability, and on both ends. The Coming Ice Age and the GW theories both got swept out to sea, and all we got was a trace.