Sierra Nevada snowpack at 162 percent of normal, California water supply dream

I notice they avoided calling it a *** dream

From The Watchers

Posted by TW on April 3, 2019 at 19:46 UTC (1 day ago)
Categories: Featured articles, Ice & snow, Water crisis

Sierra Nevada snowpack at 162 percent of normal, California water supply dream

They note:

Snowpack at the station was at 200% of average while statewide snowpack is 162% of average.

“This is great news for this year’s water supply, but water conservation remains a way of life in California, rain or shine,” California Department of Water Resources said.

The state has experienced more than 30 atmospheric rivers since the start of the water year, six in February alone, and statewide snow water equivalent has nearly tripled since February 1, officials said.

Phillips Station now stands at 106.5 inches (270.5 cm) of snow depth and a snow water equivalent of 51 inches (129.5 cm), which is 200% of average for the location. Statewide, the Sierra Nevada snowpack is 162% of average.

Of course being California:

“Based on snowpack numbers, we have the potential for some minor flooding due to melting snow so we remind folks to always stay vigilant and aware,” said Jon Ericson, DWR Chief of the Division of Flood Management.


The state’s largest six reservoirs currently hold between 106% (Oroville) and 132% (Melones) of their historical averages for this date. Lake Shasta, California’s largest surface reservoir, is 109% of its historical average and sits at 89% of capacity.

And, as noted here a couple of days ago, the newly reconstructed Oroville Dam spillway has begun operations for the first time.

Read the full The Watchers article here.

Californians will soon get the obligatory fire season caution because:

Dry winter—fuel will be dried out and cause major fire risk.
Wet winter—there will be an excess of fuel and major fire risk.
Average winter—conditions in California are ripe for major fire risk after years of perpetual drought.

HT/Willie Soon

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 4, 2019 10:08 pm


Please fix the title – it isn’t “162 percent of normal” – it is “162 percent of average”.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
April 5, 2019 7:43 am

Yes, here in California., ‘normal’ means bouncing between extremes.

Patrick healy
Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 5, 2019 1:21 pm

In my naivety I always thought per cent meant hundreds. And the maximum was 100%. So what is this 162% thing?

Reply to  Patrick healy
April 5, 2019 3:23 pm

A percentage is only limited to 100% when its the percentage of a known maximum. If the average snow pack was 100 inches, 162 inches of snow on the ground would be 162% of average. Note the distinction between a percentage of average and a percentage of maximum.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 6, 2019 7:23 am

The reality is, nothing is normal in CA, not even the weather.
The rest of the coutry has been aware of that for decades.

Reply to  jtom
April 8, 2019 4:03 pm

The rainfall is. Using available data for rainfall since 1895, California has no significant trend in rainfall. The only trend is inreasing demand as out-of-staters immigrate in. Even the “droughts” we’ve had are not outside the normal range over We have had some wet years that were three sigma outside normal.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
April 5, 2019 9:23 am

Thanks. I am convinced that meteorologist are taught this slight of hand in the classroom.

Local weather propagandists will report with regularity, when the daily temperature is recorded above average they tell us that the temp, now heat index, because that sounds more menacing, is above “normal”.

Oddly when the reverse occurs: “Temps are below the average for the day.”

The average subconscious mind processes normal as what the Temperature is suppose to be. Average well that is the mean of all the temperatures of days past and subliminally benign.

Propagandists are extremely adept at their craft of making people believe something that just isn’t so.

John M. Ware
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
April 5, 2019 9:52 am

Thank you, R E Jim! I keep saying that there is no norm for weather, nothing to say that weather “should be” this or that. There are averages, not norms. What is a norm? For example: 98.6 degrees F has long been accepted as the norm for human body temperature, because substantial changes from that figure can kill you. 20/20 has been accepted as a norm for vision, as a result of long experience and observation. In the 19th century, playwright George Bernard Shaw was persuaded to visit an oculist to check his vision. After a long and exhaustive series of tests, the doctor told him, “Sir, you have normal vision; that condition is very rare.”

I never apply “normal” to weather. Rather than “normal,” I prefer the term “typical,” though it also is inexact. Today, here in Virginia, the temperature is hovering around 50 F, with on-and-off rain (so far just under half an inch) and strong breezes; is such a set of conditions abnormal for early April? It is about five degrees cooler than average, but everyone here has experienced April days like this many times. It is, in fact, fairly typical. Back on April 2, the temperature range here was from 28 degrees F to 45; now that is chilly for April, though no records were set. Such a day would have been quite typical in January, though about a degree colder than average. For April, it felt cold, but no one here said it was abnormal; rather, with a nod to a former US Vice President, it could have been said to be Old Man Winter giving us a last chilly smooch before letting Spring succeed to its “rightful” position.

Reply to  John M. Ware
April 5, 2019 11:34 am

This fellow Virginian wishes old man winter would get his creepy hands off our shoulders, and quit smelling our hair already!!! It’s making me feel uncomfortable. Weather norms have changed from winter, and he needs to change too.



Bryan A
Reply to  ripshin
April 5, 2019 12:33 pm

Joe Biden made a couple of women feel “Uncomfortable” perhaps you could sue the weather for harassment

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
April 5, 2019 11:47 am

Retired_Engineer_Jim, co2isnotevil, Bill Powers

“Normal” is a defined term, much in the same way Luminosity & Magnitude of stars, Hogshead, or Horsepower.
You may make an issue of any of these definitions but the scientific community won’t take notice.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
April 5, 2019 11:48 am

Add John M. Ware’s name to my list of 11:47

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
April 8, 2019 8:53 am

I understand what normal means to science (actually math). We have normal distributions, normal to a line, normalized to the mean, etc. But relative to the climate, especially in California during the rainy season, normal weather and average weather are not even close. The precise use of language is important in science, yet climate science is defined around the fuzziest language of all. It has to be, for if the language of climate science was unambiguously clear, CO2 driven alarmism would have never arisen.

April 5, 2019 12:08 am

It will give You in CA a green spring, a brown summer and black autumn.
Clean up those bushes!

Reply to  Lasse
April 5, 2019 11:38 am

In several places in California, environmentalists won’t let you cut back brush. In fact, on one highway project, the engineer in charge complained he couldn’t clean out silt and debris from a concrete drainage channel, because cattails were growing in it, and it was declared an environmentally sensitive area.

April 5, 2019 12:26 am

And how long before it is back to drought?

The idea that continued drought is OK because extreme weather events will come along and deposit huge amounts of water/snow at irregular intervals is just daft.

California may have the snowpack now, but it is not the regular precipitation it had in the recent past which is providing it.

If I eat 7 burgers on a Sunday, but none for the rest of the week, I’m not getting the same amount of food (though perhaps you guys all eat 7 burgers on a Sunday. I wouldn’t blame you if you did!)

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 12:30 am

How long is a piece of string?

Reply to  lee
April 5, 2019 3:04 am

Half inch lengths:

Tom in Florida
Reply to  lee
April 5, 2019 5:31 am

How Long is a Chinaman.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 5, 2019 11:50 am

Next time use Smoot.

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 1:00 am

I was taught, longer ago than I care to remember, that California (like Australia) is basically a desert. Live there if you want (must); just understand the climate is not conducive to comfortable living for homo sapiens!

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Newminster
April 5, 2019 11:52 am

I haven’t been to CA for a long time, but last time I saw a lot of trees.
Not basically a desert, then!

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 2:26 am

Where do you come from Griff.
The point that is being made that we would see the end of snow ,our children would not know what snow was ,remember this is global warming aka climate change and then we get 162% more snow than average on the Sierra Nevada.
Which planet are you on Griff.
The world has warmed a little since the 1970s when the big climate scare was that the world was heading for an ice age .
The climate changed up a gear and the IPCC was formed to establish that CO2 was causing the warming.
The Arctic Ocean lost ice rapidly and the world warmed about point five of a degree Celsius so 2500 scientists decided to blame CO2 .
Because Co2 was increasing and the temperature was rebounding the scientists shouted in unison we foretold that ,and our climate models are telling us that it is going to get much warmer .
Just as they had foretold the coming of the ice age in the 1970s .
Climate change is a scam and the theory that doubling of CO2 will warm the world more than half a degree is unproven at this time.
There is no proof that most of the warming that we have experienced in the last 30 years has not been caused by natural cycles and there is no proof that CO2 has caused the slight warming.

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 2:47 am

Drought then wet is the pattern for California:

Reply to  ShanghaiDan
April 8, 2019 9:00 am

Exactly. Bouncing between extremes is ‘normal’. Even seasonally where there’s virtually no rain for 7-8 months of the year and a wildly variable amount of rain in the other months.

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 3:19 am

“And how long before it is back to drought?”

Could be as early as this year. The CA Great Flood of 1862 was followed by a 3-year drought that wiped out the cattle industry there.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 5:35 am

“And how long before it is back to drought? The idea that continued drought is OK because extreme weather events will come along and deposit huge amounts of water/snow at irregular intervals is just daft.”

That’s exactly what the weather does in Calfornia. It goes from drought, sometimes extensive droughts, to wet weather like is happening today. This is the historical weather pattern of Calfornia.

It’s daft to imply that human attitudes towards California weather patterns matters, and/or could change the situation. That is what you are implying, isn’t it, that humans are the cause of this?

This weather pattern has been going on longer than humans have been burning fossil fuels and is not caused by the burning of fossil fuels. If you want to see CAGW in everything, then you will. And you do. You are wrong. No evidence of a human connection to California’s present weather activity. You could prove me wrong if you had such evidence. But you don’t, so you won’t.

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 5:49 am

How long before we get a drought from the Giff troll … we had a drought a little while ago but he is back.

[Let’s not restart the personal attacks. They derail the conversation and dampen the opportunity for advancing the discussion. -mod]

Bob boder
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 6:03 am


You act like California has some “normal” wet climate, California swings from century to century between extreme long term drought and not extreme long term drought with relatively short periods of no draught. The norm is arid conditions and that is why from the very beginning reserve dams were built in California, even when there was a very small population there.
As usual your commentary is baseless and clueless and I really wish you would re-ostracized yourself.

[No need to chase away dissenters. Just consider them as opportunities to correct common misconceptions. -mod]

Bob boder
Reply to  Bob boder
April 5, 2019 8:37 am


Griff is a serial slanderer and liar, he has slandered Dr Crockford, Dr Soon and many other on this site, I have zero time for him and he deserves no respect or defense.

Reply to  Bob boder
April 5, 2019 10:01 am

Propagandist lies (otherwise known as common misconceptions) deserve to be treated as lies.

The purveyor (dissenter) of repeated propagandist lies knows what he is & what he does; and he will not be distracted, insulted, or chased away by honest responses.

He thrives on such. If he had a fit of clarity & honesty, he would come back and thank Bob for the dopamine boost.

Reply to  DonM
April 5, 2019 11:26 am

A perfect description of g.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Bob boder
April 5, 2019 12:00 pm

So the misconception of CA is that it has a single climate type and it has a weather pattern like the doldrums — sameness and boring.
Take a statistics class and you will learn of several types of probability distributions. The, so called Normal Distribution is just one. Uniform and power distributions are also studied, and can be useful in discussing weather.

Christopher Hagan
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 6:14 am

We love ya Griff.

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 6:15 am

Hence mankind invented and constructed RESERVOIRS. Reservoirs are our “grainerys” for water. What’s a grainery? It’s where we STORE grain for the lean years when the crops are meager. Meager because it didn’t rain enough that year. Modern man builds reservoirs to STORE water for drought years.

To expect Californians to live hand-to-mouth (with respect to water) is just stone-aged backward. To expect humans to suffer through drought years … but never should a baitfish experience the low flows of drought is just anti-human ghoulish.

Waste water? No. Use water as intended? Hell yes. Stop telling ME to conserve … and tell the g*dD*mnned State to conserve! Conserve OUR water … for US! For the people.

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 6:16 am

Just like putting $700 in your bank account once can’t compare with putting in $100 every day for a week? Or storing up grain for seven years of pending famine is a bad idea?

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 6:34 am

If griff’s world, there was no drought prior to CO2 breaking through the 280ppm barrier.

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 7:11 am

The answer is, we don’t know.

What we do know from geologic history is that drought comes in cycles as do wet periods, and these cycles vary in length and intensity, and we don’t know why but we have a few ideas related to oceanic and atmospheric patterns.

It is just as silly to claim that California ever had a “permanent drought” caused by excessive atmospheric CO2 as it is to claim that now that there is a permanent wet cycle in play.

And your point is?

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 8:00 am


I did not see your post before I contributed mine.

Certainly in the 170 year long historic written record there is no evidence of the regular precipitation you believe California was blessed with


Bryan A
Reply to  tonyb
April 5, 2019 12:42 pm

California has basically 2 climate states
Warm Moist – El Nino driven rains
Cooler Dry – La Nina driven droughts

Normal State is either one or the other but hardly ever La Nada

Reply to  Bryan A
April 5, 2019 1:46 pm


JimH in CA
Reply to  Bryan A
April 5, 2019 2:13 pm

In NorCal we have the ‘wet/ rainy season’. …. cool or cold [ 30 degF to 55 degF]. Then we have the warm/hot and dry season, from April to October. It’s green during the wet season and the trees remain green until December, then they leaf out again in March.
It is very comfortable in the foothills , except for the few days that it’s over 100 degF.

JimH in CA
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 8:13 am

I’ve lived in the NorCal Sierra foothills now for 16 years, having moved from SoCal, and we’ve not yet had insufficient rain to meet our annual water needs. I graze cattle on 130 acres here at 900 ft elevation and our lowest rainfall total has been 26 inches in 2012 and in 2017 we got 63 inches. This year we are at 44 inches , with more expected. 44 inches falling on 130 acres would meet my water needs for 800 years . But I cannot store more than a very small fraction of that in ponds.
So, we’ve not seen any drought conditions , which is typical in the Sierras. It’s the central valley and most of SoCal that gets little rain, primarily due to the weather patterns and the low elevation of less than 100 ft.
What I understand is that ‘drought ‘ is just not enough reserved water to meet the demands.
We don’t over draw our wells or drain our ponds dry . Some here do and have to pay for water to be trucked in and put in a 4,000 gallon tank for about $250 .
California get sufficient rainfall to meet all the city and ag needs. The ‘drought’ comes from the enviro groups demanding that 1/2 of the collectable water be let flow unimpeded down the rivers for the ‘fish’.
From the CA water website, all the urban folks use about 11 % of the collected water, so asking them to conserve has little real affect on the available water. It just a political move to force folks to accept more water restrictions and dumb legislation.

Reply to  JimH in CA
April 5, 2019 12:12 pm

Absolutely! And let me add that dumping our reservoirs in “drought” (low-er rainfall) years because ONE Federal Judge said the non-native baitfish require it … is akin to opening a grainery silo and letting all the forest animals eat the grain in low-rainfall, low-natural feed years. It’s insanity! It’s choosing animals over humans! Who in THEE hell determined that it’s more “moral” to save the animals than save the humans? It’s gonna take a famine to reset our bureaucrat’s and politician’s priorities.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 9:58 am

The vast majority of the state will have a drought this Summer.
The reason for this is very simple: The climate zones that cover most of the state are Csa and Csb.
These classifications refer to what is commonly called a Mediterranean climate, the most notable aspect of which is a Summer drought.
The parts that are not Csa or Csb are B climate zones (deserts), and the uplands which are mostly dry Summer D zones.
IOW, almost the entire state consists of places where the normal long term average is either permanently or seasonally dry. And the driest seasons are also the hottest parts of the year.
Calling normal weather a drought is really rather inane.
Is a desert having dry weather in a drought?
I would argue no, because to call it that removes the meaning of the word.

As for this fantasy you have of recent “regular” precipitation in CA, it is obvious you are just making that up.
Impossible to say if you are deliberately inventing a deliberate untruth, or if your brain is feeding hallucinatory input to your glimmering consciousness.
What is for certain is that your statement has no correspondence with actual reality.
Besides for regular seasonal dry weather, which is during many years in many locales completely bone dry with zero rain, there is also a permanent and long established pattern of wetter and drier years with regard to the part of the year when it does tend to rain.
In fact this is evident across the entire southern tier of US states, even outside of the desert southwest.
Texas has this pattern, as does Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and even Louisiana.

There never was any period of time in which California did not have dry weather for at least half of every year.
There has never even been a period where the rains could be counted on in the other part of the year.

Randy Stubbings
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 10:25 am

From the following link: and National Geographic Magazine Feb 2008:

Over the next few years Woodhouse, Meko, and some colleagues hunted down and cored the oldest drought-sensitive trees they could find growing in the upper Colorado basin, both living and dead. Wood takes a long time to rot in a dry climate; in Harmon Canyon in eastern Utah, Meko found one Douglas fir log that had laid down its first ring as a sapling in 323 B.C. That was an extreme case, but the scientists still collected enough old wood to push their estimates of annual variations in the flow of the Colorado back deep into the Middle Ages. The results came out last spring. They showed that the Colorado has not always been as generous as it was throughout the 20th century.

The California Department of Water Resources, which had funded some of the research, published the results as an illustrated poster. Beneath a series of stock southwestern postcard shots, the spiky trace of tree-ring data oscillates nervously across the page, from A.D. 762 on the left to 2005 on the right. One photo shows the Hoover Dam, water gushing from its outlets. When the dam was being planned in the 1920s to deliver river water to the farms of the Imperial Valley and the nascent sprawl of Los Angeles, the West, according to the tree rings, was in one of the wettest quarter centuries of the past
millennium. Another photo shows the booming skyline of San Diego, which doubled its population between 1970 and 2000—again, an exceptionally wet period along the river. But toward the far left of the poster, there is a picture of Spruce Tree House, one of the spectacular cliff dwellings at Mesa Verde
National Park in southwestern Colorado, a pueblo site abandoned by the Anasazi at the end of the 13th century. Underneath the photo, the graph reveals that the Anasazi disappeared in a time of exceptional drought and low flow in the river. In fact, the tree rings testified that in the centuries before Europeans settled the Southwest, the Colorado basin repeatedly experienced droughts more severe and protracted than any since then. During one 13-year megadrought in the 12th century, the flow in the river averaged around 12 million acre-feet, 80 percent of the average flow during the 20th century and considerably less than is taken out of it for human use today. Such a flow today would mean serious
shortages, and serious water wars. “The Colorado River at 12 million acre-feet would be real ugly,” says one water manager.

Randy Stubbings
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 10:29 am

And another one for Griff from

In 1860 a naturalist named William Brewer set out to conduct the first geologic survey of the infant state of California. When Brewer arrived in the tiny adobe village of Los Angeles on December 2, he noted in his diary that “all that is wanted naturally to make it a paradise is water, more water.” Three weeks later a raging torrent of water—the worst rainstorm in 11 years—destroyed many of the adobes. Such is weather in California.

The ancient record, etched in tree rings, shows patterns similar to those of today: long dry spells punctuated by fleeting wet years. In the year 1130, the rain tapered off and did not start again in earnest for another 40 years. Multidecade droughts show up in tree rings throughout California’s history.

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 11:22 am

More utter nonsense from the pathetic g.

“g. April 5, 2019 at 12:26 am
And how long before it is back to drought?

The idea that continued drought is OK because extreme weather events will come along and deposit huge amounts of water/snow at irregular intervals is just daft.

California may have the snowpack now, but it is not the regular precipitation it had in the recent past which is providing it.”

Funny word you use there, “drought” to describe a land that is normally arid and has reconstructed their past rainfall.
What you call “drought” is perfectly normal in California. California’s history, well before alleged mankind CO₂ emissions, actual droughts occurred that spanned centuries.

The same history shows that California’s recent history is a wet period. California is likely to return to that aridity soon, perhaps very soon.

Instead of applying common sense, g prefers to wave his hands, run in circles, screams and shouts, then pitches face first into the closest dogpile.

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 11:52 am

The state uses 70 million acre-feet of water annually. The state’s 40 million population uses 9 million, the state’s agriculture industry – producing less than 1% of GDP – uses the rest. Any drought affects the pecan and walnut crop most heavily, since they use prodigious amounts of water. The farmers get their water anyway, while cities are hit with restrictions.

Reply to  Lorenzo
April 5, 2019 12:56 pm

Lorenzo ,ask your self this question .
What is most of the water used for in the cities ?
The answer is that most water is flushed down the toilet and used for washing cars and watering lawns.
The farms use the water to grow food that the cities consume .
Farms come under restrictions during severe drought .
The irrigation dams were installed to supply water for farming and to supply towns and cities .
The towns and cities have expanded and more storage should be built but the green brigade have a mind set that water storage is somehow evil and against nature.
Don’t blame the farmers when water restrictions are put in place in your city .
Blame the green movement .

JimH in CA
Reply to  Lorenzo
April 5, 2019 2:34 pm

A correction in the numbers. yes , The urban areas use 11% of the ‘collected’ water, abount 9 M.AF, but the Ag folks use about 30 M. AF, 89% of the collected water. The other 50%, 35 M.AF , that is not collected, is flushed down the rivers for the fish as sued by the enviro and fishing folks.

Reply to  JimH in CA
April 7, 2019 7:30 pm

The dams such as Oroville have a primary purpose of flood control. To maintain the reserve capacity at this time of year water has to be released into the river. Currently Oroville is releasing ~25,000 cfs into the Feather river, if they didn’t do this they run the risk of catastrophic floods.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2019 4:28 pm

“…And how long before it is back to drought?…”

Funny. Less than one month ago (March 12th), you said:

***Of course there’s an ongoing drought…California’s climate IS now one of drought***

Glad you learned something here!

“…If I eat 7 burgers on a Sunday, but none for the rest of the week, I’m not getting the same amount of food (though perhaps you guys all eat 7 burgers on a Sunday. I wouldn’t blame you if you did!)…”

Not getting the same amount of food as what? What the hell kind of comparison is that? Seven burgers on Sunday and none for the rest of the week compared to what? Did you mean one burger per day?

This incoherent babble is as bad as last time – where you claimed 3 x 7 = 20.

***“…If I eat 3 meals a day, then switch to eating the equivalent of 20 meals once a week (were it possible) I’d still technically have eaten the same amount…***

Reply to  griff
April 6, 2019 7:40 am

“California may have the snowpack now, but it is not the regular precipitation it had in the recent past which is providing it.”

You mean regular like this:

comment image?w=746

California has never had “regular precipitation”, it is known as “mediterranean climate” or Cs in the Köppen classification.

Reply to  tty
April 7, 2019 7:15 pm

The meaning of ‘regular’ in British english is different than in American english so griff might have meant something different than you interpret.

Rod Evans
April 5, 2019 1:10 am

After all the droughts, fires, hail storms, floods, mud slides, and restrictions on personal freedoms, in California, it is a good job they don’t have earthquakes, no one would want to live there

Reply to  Rod Evans
April 5, 2019 1:48 am

Take some wellingtons when you go to the cafe.

James Clarke
Reply to  Rod Evans
April 5, 2019 6:09 am

The weather in California is fine, behaving as it has for untold Centuries. The problem is in the way Californians behave…especially at the polls.

Reply to  James Clarke
April 5, 2019 8:13 am

I remember water restrictions as a kid in Berkeley. Late 60’s or early 70’s.

Also remember periods of torrential rain as a teen in Sonoma County, and periods of little or no rain.

That’s California.

John VC
Reply to  Joey
April 5, 2019 8:42 am

much the same here in the part of Texas where I live. Average is 30 inches /year, and in the ten years I’ve been here, that’s pretty darn accurate. 40 inches one year, 20 the next. Long term droughts are typically broken by flood producing deluges. I’ve seen lake Travis go from the old river channel being exposed ( near Smithwick ) to flood stage over night. I’ve seen the temperature drop 30 plus degrees in an hour. It’s just Texas weather, and has been that way for a long time now.

April 5, 2019 1:45 am
April 5, 2019 1:47 am

“Californians will soon get the obligatory fire season caution because” ROFL…
Because California always has a fire season 😁

william Johnston
Reply to  4TimesAYear
April 5, 2019 6:58 am

They must do this because some folks have a short memory. Just like the warnings after the first snowfall in the upper plains. “Slow down, be careful, leave early, have your survival gear in the vehicle”.

April 5, 2019 1:51 am

It’s only temporary I’m sure (they’ll say).

April 5, 2019 1:56 am

Dry winter—fuel will be dried out and cause major fire risk.
Wet winter—there will be an excess of fuel and major fire risk.
Average winter—conditions in California are ripe for major fire risk after years of perpetual drought.

It seems you have the script.

Jean Parisot
April 5, 2019 5:26 am

What are the snow pack estimates in the ArkStorm scenarios?

JimH in CA
Reply to  Jean Parisot
April 5, 2019 3:09 pm

I can’t imagine the huge snowpack from an Arcstorm. The high Sierras have 50 feet of snow now, with 50 inches of rainfall. During the 1861-1862 storms, the 2,000 ft level had 100 inches of rain in December.! The resulting huge rainfall had 10 -20 feet of water in the central valley. Sacramento was under 10 ft of water. After the waters receded the city added 10 feet of fill , putting the 1st floor of buildings as a basement.
BTW, Sacramento and Stockton are both ocean ports, 67 miles inland.
It wasn’t until July of 1862 that the water drained from the valley.

April 5, 2019 6:17 am

If the public could only grasp the importance of CYCLES, the doomsday climate insanity of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would evaporate like a rain puddle on a hot, sunny day.

Reply to  Ghandi
April 5, 2019 4:01 pm

give her another 20 years and she’ll understand. although it might make it worse … eg maxine waters.

Jim Rose
April 5, 2019 7:11 am

The snowpack presents a substantial flooding risk for the Central Valley. If a warm tropical rain falls on the snowpack for a couple of days, the snowpack could melt suddenly and release tends of inches of water all at once. This is by far enough to exceed the capacity of the flood-control reservoirs.

Steve Oregon
April 5, 2019 7:13 am

This year is a repeat of the very wet and snowy 2017 that wiped away the California drought.
2018 brought back the drought chatter and here we are with another total saturation.
Everything is full or near full with run off ahead.

No drought anywhere in the state is pretty rare.
Hardly any drought nationwide
An increased frequency of wet years may be indicating an impressive wet cycle.

The persistently dry Santa Barbara county is enjoying a stellar year.

April 5, 2019 7:27 am

Rather fascinating that there is so much snow in the Nevada deserts in the lee of the Sierras.

April 5, 2019 7:46 am

I wouldn’t pretend to know too much about California, my only trip there was to San Francisco many years ago.

However, reading the very early editions of the ‘US weather review’ dating to the 1850’s in one form or another, available in the Met office library, several things struck me.

The first being that all the reports year by year since the 1850’s seemed to show it as often a hot dry and drought prone region, but that at times it had epic falls of rain and snow.

The second thing that struck me was how tiny the population was in the 1850’s and how rapidly it has grown since, together with all the resultant demands for irrigation, manufacturing, golf courses drinking water etc etc.

I have no idea whether the storage capacities of water have kept up with the population growth over the last 150 years but as the state continues to boom surely there is a finite limit to population unless the water concerns have been actively addressed

Reply to  tonyb
April 5, 2019 10:21 am

Short answer is they haven’t. California has not any meaningful new storage since the early 70s, and I expect nothing has been approved since the California Environmental Quality Act was enacted. And that was how many millions of people in LA and the San Francisco area ago?

April 5, 2019 8:36 am

This is normal California climate. Don’t listen to the chicken littles in Hollywood.

John F. Hultquist
April 5, 2019 9:00 am
David S
April 5, 2019 9:26 am
Reply to  David S
April 5, 2019 10:10 am

Yes, and it wasn’t long ago the eco-loons were moaning about the “drying up” of the Great Lakes….

Joel O'Bryan
April 5, 2019 10:27 am

More Good News on the Permadrought that isn’t:

The upper Colorado River snow pack is currently 132% of the average for this date. And the peak average date is tomorrow, 6 April.
This snow determines how much Lake Powell will get and how much water managers can release to the downstream Lake Mead that gets so much press coverage.

Some relevant links for WUWTers viewing pleasure:

For the Colorado River and its reservoirs, 2019 is now a better snow year than 2017’s bountiful snow.
And more snow and rain coming Saturday for the Rockies.
comment image

The problem isn’t climate change or even droughts, those are “fake” problems. They are contrived inventions to conceal political malpractice, because droughts though not “predictable” by specific years-ahead, they are predictable by historical occurrence.
The real problem is human demand on the available water supplies has steadily increased and few to no additional storage has been added for many decades.

April 5, 2019 10:57 am

I am hereby issuing the naming rights for the snow pack as the Jerry Brown Permanent Drought Snowpack to go along with the Jerry Brown Rail Line to Nowhere.

Bob boder
April 5, 2019 11:49 am

Moonbeam snow pack

April 5, 2019 11:57 am

Howler: “… after years of perpetual drought.”

April 5, 2019 1:41 pm

Meanwhile, in northwest Montana, we are only at 79% of average. California stole “our” snow!

We’ve had 2 bad fire seasons in row, and 2019 could make it 3 if we get a lightning bust or two.

Gunga Din
April 5, 2019 3:09 pm

The 97% of Climate Scientist’s predictions of “Climate Change”‘s effects on California.
“Perpetual Drought” or “Perpetual Flooding”?
Flip a coin.
It’d be just as scientific.

Old Woman of the North
April 5, 2019 7:10 pm


What was the rain/snow total in California when Sacramento was flooded for 6 months in around 1865?

A documentary by Michael Portillo, Railroad journeys in America, saw him looking at the foundations that are 13 feet below the present buildings and roadways in the old town part of Sacramento. Both the American and Sacramento rivers and the central valley seem to have been inundated, so I guess it was a very wet and snowy winter.

Reply to  Old Woman of the North
April 6, 2019 7:55 am

More than 9 feet of rain in Nevada County and 36 inches in Sacramento:

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights