California Snowpack 185% of normal, another big snow on the way

From the “California is in a permanent drought due to climate change – because we said so” department comes this good news from NASA, CA DWR, and NOAA

From NASA:

Abundant Snowpack Blankets the Sierra Nevada

March 3, 2017

Snowpack on the Sierra Nevada provides one-third of the water consumed by California citizens, farmers, and businesses each year. For the first time in at least five years, there should be more than enough of it.

According to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the water stored as snow in the Sierra Nevada range was 185 percent of the long-term average for the beginning of March. One year ago, it was 83 percent of the norm. According to the latest measurements from 98 ground-based stations, the average snow-water equivalent in the mountains was 45.5 inches as of March 1, 2017. Snow-water equivalent is an estimate of how much water you would get if all of the snow melted at once.

The abundance of snow is spread out across the mountain range. California DWR reported snowpack at 159 percent of normal in the Northern Sierra/Trinity region, 191 percent in the Central Sierra, and 201 percent in the Southern Sierra. State water scientists noted that the snowpack is the highest it has been since 1983 (the end of a major El Niño event).

At Phillips Station near Lake Tahoe—one of the oldest reporting stations in the region and a site of frequent media interest—the snow depth is 43.4 inches this week. One year ago, it was 24.3 inches, and two years ago it was 6.5 inches.



The maps above show satellite-based estimates of snow-water equivalents across California’s Sierra Nevada as measured by the University of Colorado Center for Water, Earth Science and Technology and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Dark blue areas indicate the deepest snow and most water. Survey results were released on January 6 and February 12, 2017. Note how much the snowpack grew in just six weeks due to a series of intense winter storms fueled by atmospheric rivers.

To derive the snow-water estimate, the researchers combined data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments on NASA’s Aqua and Terra satellites; from ground-based snow sensors from California DWR; and from a computer model. The imagery and data were calibrated against past measurements made in the region by NASA’s Airborne Snow Observatory, which uses lidar to measure the snowpack in yearly spring flights.

The natural-color images were acquired by Aqua MODIS on December 28, 2016, and February 6, 2017, the most cloud-free days around the time of the snow surveys.

According to California DWR, the current water year (which began on October 1, 2016) is on pace to be the wettest on record. In a March 2 report from the U.S. Drought Monitor, just 25.5 percent of California has any measurable level of dryness or drought, and just 4 percent of the state remains in severe drought. At the beginning of January 2017, about 83 percent of California qualified as dry or in a drought; that number was 100 percent at the start of the water year, with 43 percent in extreme or exceptional drought.

News outlets reported that 43 feet of snow have fallen on the Mammoth Mountain ski resort in Southern California this winter. The venue hopes to stay open for skiing until July.


From the CA DWR:

Snowpack’s Water Content Remains Far above Average

SACRAMENTO – The Sierra Nevada snowpack continues to build during one of the wettest winters in California’s recorded history. Today’s manual snow survey by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) at Phillips Station in the Sierra Nevada found a snow water equivalent (SWE) of 43.4 inches. February’s Phillips survey found 28.0 inches of SWE, and January’s reading was 6.0 inches. The March 1 average at Phillips is 24.3 inches.

SWE is the depth of water that theoretically would result if the entire snowpack melted instantaneously. That measurement is more important than depth in evaluating the status of the snowpack. On average, the snowpack supplies about 30 percent of California’s water needs as it melts in the spring and early summer.

More telling than a survey at a single location are DWR’s electronic readings from 98 stations scattered throughout the Sierra Nevada. Statewide, the snowpack today holds 45.5 inches of SWE, or 185 percent of the March 1 average (24.6 inches). On January 1 before a series of January storms, the SWE of the statewide snowpack was 6.5 inches, just 64 percent of the New Year’s Day average. On February 1, the statewide SWE was 30.5 inches, 174 percent of average for that date.

Measurements indicate the water content of the northern Sierra snowpack is 39.2 inches, 159 percent of the multi-decade March 1 average. The central and southern Sierra readings are 49.0 inches (191 percent of average) and 46.4 inches (201 percent of average) respectively.

State Climatologist Michael Anderson said the winter season has been “historic,” especially in the central and southern Sierra where elevations are higher and where snowfall has been near the 1983 record amount.

The Phillips snow course, near the intersection of Highway 50 and Sierra-at-Tahoe Road, is one of hundreds surveyed manually throughout the winter. Manual measurements augment the electronic readings from about 100 sensors in the state’s mountains that provide a current snapshot of the water content in the snowpack.

Frank Gehrke, chief of the California Cooperative Snow Surveys Program, conducted today’s survey at Phillips and said of his findings, “It’s not the record, the record being 56.4 (inches), but still a pretty phenomenal snowpack…. January and February came in with some really quite phenomenal atmospheric river storms, many of which were cold enough to really boost the snowpack.”

Gehrke said the central and southern regions in the Sierra Nevada are tracking close to 1983, which had the maximum recorded snowpack statewide. “Most of the snow courses are well over their April 1 accumulations, which at (Phillips) is 25 inches,” Gehrke said, “so we’ve busted through April 1 values pretty much at all snow courses throughout the state.”

Water Year 2017’s heavy precipitation is particularly remarkable because of the five dry years that preceded it. Since October 1, the Northern California, San Joaquin and Tulare Basin indices’ rainfall totals are, respectively, 76.5 inches (average is 34.7), 60.7 inches (average is 27.4) and 41.0 inches (average is 19.4). Collectively, the three regions had a total of 178.2 inches of rainfall, or 218 percent of the five-month average (81.5 inches).

Many Californians continue to experience the effects of drought, and some Central Valley communities still depend on water tanks and bottled water. Groundwater – the source of at least a third of the supplies Californians use – will take much more than even an historically wet water year to be replenished in many areas.

California’s climate is the most variable of any state. Historically, it swings from drought to flood and back to drought. In addition, as global warming drives up average temperatures in California, more precipitation will fall as rain, not as snow stored in the Sierra Nevada and other mountains. To help prepare for these ever-wider extremes, Californians can learn ways to save water every day by visiting

Electronic snowpack readings are available at the California Data Exchange Center’s (CDEC) Snow Water Equivalents webpage, For earlier readings, click the calendar icon below the map, select a date, then Refresh Data.

Water Year 2017’s precipitation can be found at CDEC’s Precipitation page. Look in the right- hand column for the Northern Sierra 8-station index for updated rainfall readings in the critical northern portion of the state, as well as the San Joaquin 5-station and Tulare Basin 6-station links.

For a broader snapshot of current and historical weather conditions, see DWR’s Water Conditions and Drought pages.


– 30 –




National Weather Service Reno NV

349 AM PST Fri Mar 3 2017



Lassen-Eastern Plumas-Eastern Sierra Counties-

Including the cities of Portola and Susanville

349 AM PST Fri Mar 3 2017



* Timing: Snow will develop late Saturday afternoon with a

period of heavy snow likely Saturday night. Snow showers to

continue into Sunday.

* Snow Accumulations: 10 to 18 inches above 5500 feet, with the

highest amounts west of Highway 395. 2 to 6 inches elsewhere

including around Susanville.

* Winds: Southwest 15 to 25 mph with gusts up to 50 mph.

* Snow Levels: Around 5000 feet Saturday afternoon falling to

all valley floors by Saturday night.

* Impacts: Snow and gusty winds are likely to produce

significant reductions to visibility and difficult travel,

especially across Sierra passes, in addition to possible

chain controls.


Now is the time to prepare an emergency kit for your home and

car. If traveling consider alternate plans, remember to carry

tire chains, extra food, water and clothing. Once the storm

arrives, travel may be difficult or impossible for an extended

period of time.



Greater Lake Tahoe Area-

Including the cities of South Lake Tahoe, Truckee, Stateline,

and Incline Village

349 AM PST Fri Mar 3 2017



* Timing: Snow will develop late Saturday afternoon with a period

of heavy snow likely Saturday night into Sunday morning. Snow

showers to continue through the day Sunday.

* Snow Accumulations: 1 to 2 feet above 7000 feet with 12 to 18

inches elsewhere including Truckee and the communities

around Lake Tahoe.

* Winds: Southwest 15 to 25 mph with gusts to 50 mph.

* Lake Tahoe Wave Heights: 2 to 4 feet with the highest waves

from midlake to northeastern shores.

* Impacts: Snow and gusty winds are likely to produce

significant reductions to visibility and difficult travel,

especially across Sierra passes, in addition to possible

chain controls. Small boats, kayaks and paddle boards will

be prone to capsizing and should remain off lake waters

until conditions improve.


Now is the time to prepare an emergency kit for your home and

car. If traveling consider alternate plans, remember to carry

tire chains, extra food, water and clothing. Once the storm

arrives, travel may be difficult or impossible for an extended

period of time.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 9:25 am

Interesting. Wasn’t there supposed to be a permanent drought?

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 9:33 am

No one has suggested a permanent decline in precipitation. Long term, perhaps, but not forever.

In California, “drought” means “not enough water to meet human demands for growth.” While there will never be enough of any resource to meet human growth demands, growth is only temporary.

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 9:59 am

In 1960 the population of Syria was some 5 million. Around 2014 it was some 22 million.

Self evidently the weather would have to be extremely obliging in order to feed and water that vast expansion.

In 1960 the population of California was some 16 million. Today it is some 39 million

I don’t want to make comparisons to syria about the ability of a sophisticated American state to feed and water it’s burgeoning population but once again the californian climate woud need to be extremely obliging for there to be no problems with water or crops along the way. Unfortunately the weather is seldom obliging for too long


Tom Halla
Reply to  climatereason
March 3, 2017 10:38 am

What you wrote is true as far as it goes. One point, however, is that no water storage has been built in California since the sixties due to environmentalist opposition. The basic premise was that increasing supply would deter conservation.

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 10:00 am

Oh, OK … thanks for giving us the Global Warmist approved definition of the word “drought”. Proving that the word is near-meaningless as it is NOT a scientific term with any DEFINED boundaries of time or precipitation. You get to just make it up … like Jerry Brown has done. And thanks for the implied banal lecture about human population growth, tipping point of limited resources, blah-blah-blah. Yawwwwwn

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 10:03 am

No one has suggested a permanent decline in precipitation. Long term, perhaps, but not forever.

No one is referring to forever, but virtually all hydrologists and climatologists have—repeatedly—said that California’s precipitation future is dire (i.e. “we’re in a drought and we should get used to drought as a permanent fixture of the state based on future climate change predictions”.)

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 10:19 am

Seems like we who live here in CA actually did hear our governor tell us that we were in a permanent drought, in relation to rainfall. Don’t recall him making any other absurd granular definition of drought in the manner you describe.

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 10:26 am

In California, “drought” means…we haven’t prepared for our sanctuary cities

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 10:44 am

“No one has suggested a permanent decline in precipitation.” I think to be correct you should add “… except for the EPA, and perhaps a few others.”

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 11:52 am

Thank you for the link which proves the point that the EPA has intentionally confused climate change with weather to sell a lie. Hopefully with the recent “WASHINGTON CHANGE” we can institute some integrity into the system if we can drain the swamp in Washington and elsewhere.

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 11:53 am


If what you say about storage is correct it suggests that water shortages can only increase as the population explodes. The only way to avoid that is by severe rationing of consumers, whether they be the domestic user watering their lawn or filling a swimming pool or the watering of golf courses and general irrigation. I don’t know how profligate the average Californian is and whether there is scope to cut down water consumption per head?


Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 12:00 pm

RE: the prediction of “dire permanent drought in CA” … do you mean like the DIRE prediction of permanent Katrina-esque Hurricanes ? Not to worry then, I won’t be putting my CA home up for sale anytime soon.

… or did you mean “dire permanent drought in CA” … like the sea level rise that is going to inundate the CA coastline ? Not to worry then, because not a single Global Warmist “true believing” multimillionaire Hollywooden elite has fled their beachfront Malibu Beach home. And even the hipster multibillionaire founders of SNAPCHAT have located the offices in Venice Beach … about 10feet under Al Gore’s BLUE LINE of tidal inundation DEATH !!

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 1:29 pm


Drought means different things to different people and entities, and is more often than not subjective.

But, your definition, “not enough water to meet human demands for growth”, is meaningless nonsense. (I also have a hard time trying to decipher any meaning from the the sentence that follows.).

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 2:57 pm

Eighty percent of piped water in the state is used by agriculture. Imo, it is foolish to think that ignoring who uses the lion’s share of the water in the state will aid the state in resolving future water issues.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 3:33 pm

Tom Halla: …no water storage has been built in California since the sixties due to environmentalist opposition.

I think this is a widespread impression. Perhaps the point survives the exaggeration, I don’t know. But this site suggests that it is only the large (notorious?) projects that have been blocked.

Since 1970:
Balsam Meadow Dam 1986
Bush Creek Dam 1970
Castaic Dam 1973
Clifton Court Forebay Dam 1970
Diamond Valley Dame 1999
New Don Pedro Dam 1971
Buchanan Dam 1975
Elderberry Forebay Dam 1974
Hidden Dam 1974
Indian Valley Dam 1976
Calero Dam 1982
Perris Dam 1973
Ramona Dam 1988
Warm Springs Dam 1982
Los Vaqueros Dam (expansion) 2012
Martis Creek Dam 1972
McKays Point Diversion Dam 1989
Mojave Forks Dam 1971
New Bullards Bar Dam 1970
New Lake Dam 1976
New Melones Dam 1979
New Spicer Meadow Dam 1989
Olivenhain Dam 2003
Pyramid Dam 1973
Seven Oaks Dam 1999
Cedar Springs Dam 1971
Skinner Clearwell Dam 1973/1991
Stampede Dam 1970
Sugar Pine Dam 1981
Jamestown Mines Tailings Dam 1994

All these dams have associated reservoirs, and the impound capacity is listed. I suppose that many are strictly flood control and do not hold water for subsequent use, but some are sizeable and clearly do.

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 3:46 pm

I think it’s highly unlikely that Syrians are not as dumb as Californians. (NO sarc).

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 4:26 pm

Juan Slayton.
Thanks, indeed, for a good input.
From your dates, there are very few projects that appear to have been completed this century.
I note [and, being fallible, there may be others . . . .]: –

Since 2000: –
Los Vaqueros Dam (expansion) 2012;
Olivenhain Dam 2003.
There was –
Diamond Valley Dam 1999
Seven Oaks Dam 1999
Jamestown Mines Tailings Dam 1994 [Auto – 23 years ago . . . . . . ]

Not sure if these are intended to impound water for future use. Let us assume they are.

In half a generation, or more, it seems to this Eye from across the Atlantic, that California (or those who largely control the state) have sought to make water a bigger problem for the citizens of California.

In a rain-swept London Town!!!

Reply to  Michael A. Lewis
March 3, 2017 8:17 pm

Drought means the water utility can impose a rationing scheme and charge more for going over the ration.

george e. smith
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 3, 2017 1:01 pm

Well we are actually letting all that excess water flow out into Monterey Bay so we can get back to our normal drought conditions that we have all gotten used to.
So that 185% snowpack is just a flaming nuisance, and we just have to get rod of it as soon as possible.


Tom Halla
Reply to  george e. smith
March 3, 2017 1:12 pm

The Sierras mostly empty into San Francisco Bay, not Monterrey Bay. The Sacramento/San Joaquin delta is just inland of the bay.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
March 3, 2017 7:18 pm

Well thank you Tom Halla for correcting me.

How silly of me to think Sierra snow melt waters that run into the Sacramento, San Joachin, and Mokelumne Rivers could end up in Monterrey Bay, instead of piling up in San Francisco Bay.

So I guess Sunnyvale will get flooded when San Francisco Bay overflows.

Sorry to have mislead people.


Reply to  Tom Halla
March 5, 2017 6:13 pm

Perhaps this is God’s way of mocking the “permanent drought” crowd. It seems to happen a lot.

Reply to  pyeatte
March 5, 2017 7:12 pm

That and the Gore Effect.

March 3, 2017 9:34 am

F’ing global warming messing up permanent drought predictions. I wonder what the ACGW models showed…

Reply to  jimmy_jimmy
March 3, 2017 10:17 am

Wouldn’t this be a small example of negative feedback? More snow = higher albedo = cooler world.

Stephen Wilde
March 3, 2017 9:38 am

I’m visiting Yosemite in May. Looks like the waterfalls will be in full spate 🙂

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 3, 2017 2:59 pm

That is a great time to view the falls.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 3, 2017 6:21 pm

There is always a possibility that such a large snowpack at altitude, may not fully melt during this summer. All that white reflective snow.

It could be amusing to let the word slip to the progressives. That way they can start whooping about a CO2 ice age; California dreaming.

Many of the higher locations in the Sierra’s hold snow quite late.

March 3, 2017 9:39 am

We cannot predict rainfall year to year but one hundred years from now we are confident about. I see. Let me get right to work jacking up everyone’s cost of living based on your remarkable predictive skills.

Had my palm read once by a maybe gypsy. She was also very convincing.

Reply to  Troe
March 3, 2017 10:59 am

Now she is a member of the Union of Concerned Gypsies (UCG), with funding from the UN.

NW sage
Reply to  Resourceguy
March 3, 2017 6:06 pm

Don’t forget that 97% of Gypsies agree!

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  Troe
March 3, 2017 6:29 pm

It’s like this, don’t ya’ see…

Climate ophthalmologists have succeeded in correcting climate far vision. So seeing 20/20 far into the future and even correcting far into the past is no problemo.

Climate ophthalmologists have not yet been successful in correcting climate near vision, however. Seeing the next few years, or even last year, still is a bit blurry and not within our reach.

Hope that brings it into focus for you…

Les Francis
Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
March 4, 2017 3:22 am

Are you sure you don’t mean Climate Onanologists?

Stephen Wilde
March 3, 2017 9:40 am

It is due to solar induced wavy and more equatorward jet stream tracks. Typical of quiet sun cooling periods.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 3, 2017 10:28 am


Matthew R. Epp
March 3, 2017 9:43 am

Will California Kids know what snow is? Perhaps we should make a field trip for kids from England, Southern California and every other place where snow will never fall again?

Robert Wykoff
March 3, 2017 9:48 am

The good news is that I recently read an NPR article that assured me that the floods are “absolutely consistent” with what is predicted in global warming models and will become much more frequent in the future. (Unless drought returns, then that will be more frequent)

Reply to  Robert Wykoff
March 3, 2017 10:09 am

… not to mention, being “absolutely consistent” with what is predicted in global warming models, since AGW predicts absolutely every possibility, which means that it cannot be disproved, which means that it violate Popper’s Law of Falsifiability, which means that it’s pseudo-scientific drivel at best.

This is why I don’t put any credibility into predicting the climate future, because if the future scenario is 100% opposite from the original claim, it’s still supposed to be 100% accurate? I wish I got paid like those government scientists do to come up with complete nonsense.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  AZ1971
March 4, 2017 11:48 am

A theory which predicts all the possible manifestations of weather but cannot put them in accurate time frames essentially predicts chaos and non-linearity in the system. Leave them alone to prove chaotic climate by their own devices.

March 3, 2017 9:54 am

Such typical FAKE NEWS “officially” issued by NASA … no, not the content of the article as much as the intentionally weak headline. “Abundant” snow in the Sierra ? “Abundant” ? Could you even imagine a more passive word to describe this seasons snowfall ? Of course not. I am willing to bet that it took several weeks for NASA to find an “acceptable” adjective to describe this seasons MASSIVE, UNBELIEVEABLE, RECORD SETTING, HUGE, DEEP, UNPRECEDENTED … etc. snowpack in the Sierra.

PS … 2011 was also an “abundant” (read: record setting) snowfall year in the Sierra … and LAST YEAR was above-average. Nothing to see here … move along.

Reply to  Kenji
March 3, 2017 6:12 pm

Yah but you don’t understand science, that is a result of warming / sarc. Most people are tuning this garbage news out now anyways. Unless they have cognitive dissonance. There was a headline on the cover of the Vancouver Province last weekend that claimed that in 30 years, Vancouver climate would be like San Diegos’.

March 3, 2017 9:55 am

Coming to a headline near you: Catastrophic California floods and snowstorms caused by CO2.

Reply to  accordionsrule
March 3, 2017 11:51 am

Here’s an even better one …

Ohhhhh the HORROR of “TOO MUCH WATER”, “TOO FAST” … earthquakes !! I see a Hollywoody DISASTER film coming … to “teach” all you SUV drivers how you’ve RUINED gaia … ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

george e. smith
Reply to  Kenji
March 3, 2017 7:21 pm

Kenji is getting much better coverage these days, since being accepted into the hallowed halls of the UOCS.

Way to go there Kenji !


March 3, 2017 9:55 am

What politicians and their willing handmaidens in the media put out is not the nuanced definition of drought in California. That would be interesting and informative but useless in driving a narrative.

AGW is a political narrative first, a quasi religion second, and a sloppy fraudulent abuse of science third. The skeptic community is not about parsing words. We aim to push the whole thing and it’s promoters straight into the dustbin of history. You may chuckle at that but most of us here are veterans of a similar win. We have the fortitude to get it done.

March 3, 2017 10:02 am

“In addition, as global warming drives up average temperatures in California, more precipitation will fall as rain, not as snow…” What a strange sentence to throw in an article about snow being nearly twice normal.

michael hart
Reply to  skorrent1
March 3, 2017 5:49 pm

Yes. A reasonable person might say “Well it doesn’t seem to have started doing so yet.”

March 3, 2017 10:08 am

“Heads up: Dry weather returns Tuesday”

I bet a lot of folks are happy at that forecast!

March 3, 2017 10:10 am

Lets hope for a cool spring and a slow melt, to help recharge downslope aquifers.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  ristvan
March 3, 2017 9:30 pm

Here on the eastern slope of the Washington Cascades the “cool & slow” thing is ongoing. As yet there is no flooding and summer irrigation water looks good.
Things at our elevation of 2,200 feet are getting a bit sloppy each mid-afternoon. Down stream, at under 1,000 feet, the snow is almost gone and the surface is drying some. Work in fields and fruit plots is underway below about 800 feet, but not much.

March 3, 2017 10:11 am

lts not just California where the SWE is above average.
Right across the NH the SWE is above average.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  taxed
March 3, 2017 9:46 pm

comment image

March 3, 2017 10:17 am

It’s ironic that the most ardent believers in ‘climate change’ seem always to be the most astonished when the climate does actually change. Whatever has been the pattern for the last few years, they all too often assume to be permanent.
In such people’s minds, it appears, the climate only changes when humans do something bad.

March 3, 2017 10:22 am

Anyone want to place bets as to how much of that snowpack, once it begins to melt, will be pumped into the ocean (leading to another water shortage)?

Reply to  Todd
March 3, 2017 10:55 am

Well … we have ALREADY seen Oroville DUMPED (due to governmental malfeasance) … and all other major reservoirs have already been steadily DUMPED to make way for snowmelt … better HURRY UP and take photos of our FULL reservoirs … because YOUTUBE will be full of drained reservoir pictures very soon.

Reply to  Todd
March 3, 2017 12:13 pm

Todd, they are just getting ready for the next permanent drought by releasing all the water now.
True Courtney, but climate makes weather. The crystal ball seers couldn’t predict rain in either Australia or California. The gave the same warning in Australia as California.. permanent drought. They run the alarmist up to the max, then when the periodic rains appear, look climate change right before our eyes.

Reply to  Todd
March 3, 2017 12:39 pm

No Worries Todd, Governor Moonbeam is all on it !

And that’s not the only thing that Moonbeam is on…

March 3, 2017 10:35 am

Whether that is good news or bad news is in the eye of the beholder. Don’t think many outside WUWT will find this good news. I think it’s great

March 3, 2017 11:01 am

There are a lot of comparisons these days to the early 1980s. Give it another few years and the comparisons with be against the coming ice age era of the 70s.

M Courtney
March 3, 2017 11:14 am

Weather, not climate.

March 3, 2017 11:16 am

Let us hope that the reconstruction of the EPA will remove a significant part of the obstacles to a sensible approach to expanding water capture and storage. Dams and canals can get built to prepare for, not the next drought, but the one after that. Part of the problem is that endless obstruction and court challenges create a circumstance that no big useful project can be done in anything like a timely fashion. Vast tracts of land and suspension of rules about endangered species only applies to “green” projects like solar, and wind generation instead of truly important water capture and storage with its concomitant hydro power. Shasta, Orville, and San Luis Reservoirs are big pluses to the environment and the economy.

Reply to  fossilsage
March 3, 2017 12:57 pm

Was that a typo? I hope your meant “deconstruction” of the EPA”.

Reply to  fossilsage
March 3, 2017 8:57 pm

fossilsage: “Vast tracts of land and suspension of rules about endangered species only applies to “green” projects like solar”
Boy did you ever hit it on the nose! It is stunning how we never hear about the impact of huge out of sight wind farms 15 -20 miles of the coasts of places like the Netherlands or Denmark, or wind farms miles away from populated areas, like in California( let alone the costs of unnecessary power lines in some cases hundreds of miles long)

March 3, 2017 11:21 am

Along with the atmospheric rivers a other important factor for the cause of this heavy snow.
Has been the amount of high pressure sitting over the northern Pacific and Alaska area. Which has had the effect of splitting the jet stream into two. These highs over the Pacific have forced the jet into the Arctic. Where it brakes away and then allows a more zonal jet to reform in the mid Pacific. Which then sets up these atmospheric rivers. When this splitting happens it then been driving cold air down across NW North America and into the Pacific.
Where when it run into the warm moist air of these atmospheric rivers it gave extra punch to these rivers.
lt shows how large amount of water would have taken out of the oceans and dumped on land as snow to build up the ice sheets.

Reply to  taxed
March 3, 2017 11:28 am

Last part of my post should have ended with “to build up the ice sheets during the ice age”.

March 3, 2017 11:28 am

Damn you, globall warmining! DAMN YOU!!!!!!

March 3, 2017 11:36 am

Of course it will, they need to save the Delta Smelt, the heck with farmers and their crops which sustain us humans.

Reply to  PeterInMD
March 3, 2017 11:42 am

this was pointed to Todd at 10:22AM

March 3, 2017 at 10:22 am

Anyone want to place bets as to how much of that snowpack, once it begins to melt, will be pumped into the ocean (leading to another water shortage)?”

Chris 4692
Reply to  PeterInMD
March 3, 2017 9:19 pm

None of it will be pumped. It will go by gravity.

March 3, 2017 12:34 pm

Informative but still that “Global/Warming/Rain” instead of snow crap ? !


The “Leftists” will always lie, lie, lie and lie, that/it is their native tongue, and that is what leads them !

Winter 2016/2017 could end up with Snow Depths exceeded 1000ft in the High Sierra’s, yet still the lies will continue !!!!!!!

Hell has no reprieve and is “never” satisfied…

Has “anyone” taken a recent peek at the Arctic Ice Extent for March, 2017 ?

Umm Ya, 95% normal, but still the scum idealogs at the NSIDC will again report a “complete “falsehood” stating that the Arctic is at record lows banking on the extremely stupid/naive/ignorant idiots who will “believe” their lies even when the “eyes” tell them differently ? ! ?

Like the old Loney Tunes Cartoon…, “People are Stupid” !


March 3, 2017 12:51 pm

Good news. Maybe now the price of walnuts and almonds will drop.

Reply to  RobRoy
March 3, 2017 1:00 pm

And avocados. Remember 3 for $1 Haas in season? Rollin’ in guacamole.

Clyde Spencer
March 3, 2017 12:55 pm

DWR said, ” In addition, as global warming drives up average temperatures in California, more precipitation will fall as rain, not as snow stored in the Sierra Nevada and other mountains.”

So, for a wet lapse rate of 0.5 deg C/100 m, and an average temperature increase of 1.0 deg C/century, in 10 years we can expect the average snow line to be 20 m higher than the current average. Does that warrant the DWR warning?

March 3, 2017 1:30 pm

I know it has been globally cooling, that is why it is snowing….
it is uah and some others saying it is warming
so, how does that work out for you?
[could it be that the satellites are wrong because the sun is just too hectic for the probes?…then I was right about that too….]

March 3, 2017 1:31 pm

And how is it with the other mountainous regions, e.g. in the Rockys. According to this graphic, they also have an extremely thick snow cover. I would assume that the snow in some regions is up to 15 meters (49 feet) high and that in the months of March, April and May will still come a lot. This is amazing. The Super-El Nino ensures enormous snowfall in the northern regions. The incredible 2017 Greenland snowfall has already been discussed.

But its not only the snow depth. Also the Snow-Extent is higher than 2016:
comment image
comment image

Good News. Nothing to give an alarm from seaice1 for the snowpack.

Svend Ferdinandsen
March 3, 2017 4:30 pm

Whenever there is more or less than wanted, blaime it on climate change.
Climate change is the mother of all excuses.
Think of anything that could be harmfull , and then make a connection to climate. It works every time.
In a strange way a good day during the year is never caused by climate change. It is only the bad weather days that is caused by climate change.
What an amazing science.

george e. smith
Reply to  Svend Ferdinandsen
March 3, 2017 7:24 pm

How’s the Greenland ice holding up there for you Svend ??

Haven’t seen your shingle for a good while; good to see you still kicking.


tom s
March 3, 2017 7:02 pm

Almost made it thru without the global warming dinger dinging…..and so it did at the end of the article. Compliments of NOAA.

March 3, 2017 7:32 pm

Is California more tectonically active during the drought years or the abundance years?

Reply to  Carla
March 4, 2017 6:02 pm


Location: USA
YearL 1975
Magnitude: 5.7

The earthquakes at Oroville Dam may be the best studied RIS sequence in the world. Oroville, the tallest earthen dam in the US, was built on an active fault line in the 1950s. In the 1970s, the area experienced an unusual series of earthquakes, including the biggest one (M5.7) in 1975, which occurred 12 kilometers south of the reservoir. The dam impounds 4,364 cubic kilometers of water, and was built on a fault previously thought inactive. Prior to the earthquake, the reservoir level was drawn down to its lowest level since filling. The US Geological Survey (USGS) subsequently a found strong link between the quakes and the refilling of the reservoir.

Earthquakes Triggered by Dams

…How Do Dams Trigger Earthquakes?

In a paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams, Dr. V. P Jauhari wrote the following about this phenomenon, known as Reservoir-Induced Seismicity (RIS): “The most widely accepted explanation of how dams cause earthquakes is related to the extra water pressure created in the micro-cracks and fissures in the ground under and near a reservoir. When the pressure of the water in the rocks increases, it acts to lubricate faults which are already under tectonic strain, but are prevented from slipping by the friction of the rock surfaces.”…

Johann Wundersamer
March 3, 2017 9:17 pm

From the “California is in a permanent drought due to climate change – because we said so” department comes this good news from NASA, CA DWR, and NOAA

From NASA:

Abundant Snowpack Blankets the Sierra Nevada

why not – Price Waterhouse Cooper is fired

and what’s heard lastly of

The Big Three credit rating agencies are Standard & Poor’s (S&P), Moody’s, and Fitch Group. S&P and Moody’s are based in the US, while Fitch is dual-headquartered in New York City and London, and is controlled by Hearst.

Big Three (credit rating agencies) – …

Johann Wundersamer
March 3, 2017 9:29 pm

“The moment in question saw Pricewaterhouse Cooper’s Brian Cullinan hand Warren Beatty the wrong envelope as he went on stage with Bonnie and Clyde co-star Faye Dunaway to present the evening’s final award for Best Picture. La La Land was incorrectly named in place of actual winner Moonlight.”

Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway knew the moment they read it’s wrong.

But they held a printed list in their hands. What’s not to believe?

When the printed papers, to be bought before reading, through 30 years tell ‘ CO2 is bad ‘ – what’s not to believe?

March 4, 2017 12:37 am

Seems that in the US in winter, east coast warm means west coast cold, and vice versa. The US is about half a Rossby wave wide I guess.

Reply to  ptolemy2
March 4, 2017 8:09 am

Yes, the supply of incoming Joules is limited, unlike the assumption underlying the climate feedback model.

March 4, 2017 2:45 am

Come spring thaw they’ll all be whining and screaming about the flooding and how THAT is driven by ‘global climate change’ and CO2. What they should be doing is upgrading their hydrological infrastructure to accommodate 200% of the average seasonal precipitation. Anybody with an understanding of Poisson statistics can tell you that is the absolute minimum for which one should be prepared.

Michael S. Kelly
March 4, 2017 6:22 am

I lived in the Inland Empire of Southern California for (“28 (horrible) years, and experienced several droughts. Before moving there, I heard of many more – mostly on “The Tonight Show.” Johnny Carson told drought jokes during the drought, and when the weather changed and deluged California, he told jokes about the state officials refusing to declare the drought at an end (“We’re drowning in the drought” was one I recall). This happens regularly, and it’s happened regularly for hundreds of years of recorded history. Focusing on a few years and declaring it “climate change” is complete bullshit.

March 4, 2017 7:27 am

AGW causes extreme snow falls , children will not know a winter without deep snow .
For such is the ‘heads you lose , tails I win ‘ nature of climate ‘science’

March 4, 2017 8:06 am

This also means a cooler summer in the mountains as the snow pack will reflect significant solar energy all summer long.

Berényi Péter
March 4, 2017 10:22 am

California Snowpack 185% of normal, another big snow on the way

As California Gov. Jerry Brown projected permanent drought conditions due to climate change for the Golden State even in last year and he never errs, it can’t be anything else but a diluvial wet drought.

It is certainly worse, than we thought.

March 4, 2017 10:25 am

not to worry!

i’m sure the idiots in charge here in #Failifornia will let most of that water run out to sea…

we’re stupid like that.

Reply to  redc1c4
March 4, 2017 6:04 pm


March 4, 2017 2:34 pm

Kids aren’t going to know what snow is.

March 4, 2017 3:17 pm

I have a friend who is a first responder firefighter in California, and that includes the fire seasons. He referred to the ‘governor’s’ message that it was ‘permanent’ drought, whereas all the older Forest Service people, who had seen many, many seasons of fire, drought and rain in California said that the ‘drought’ would end this year (2017) or at the latest next year (2018). They were ignored. The drought ended. End of story.

March 5, 2017 9:08 pm

The 1′ or more forecast at 6000′ for last night was an underestimate and at least an additional foot fell during the day today and there’s more on the way. The snow is so deep here at Squaw, it’s blocking second story windows and roofs are collapsing. Above 8000′, the average depth is well over 20′. Mammoth Mountain has a 30′ base at 10K feet and now say they will be open all summer long. Squaw is saying skiing until July 4.

There’s not such thing a an ‘average’ winter here, it just bounces between extremes and he current extreme is one of my favorites, Lets see a climate model predict this …

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights