Snow all the way from Yosemite to British Columbia – Where’s the media on this?

Video – Montana and Idaho under winter weather advisory as well as the southern Cascades.

Thanks to Guy Wilson for this video

15 thoughts on “Snow all the way from Yosemite to British Columbia – Where’s the media on this?”

  1. Yep, two feet of snow at Whistler, British Columbia, however it also looked like a former typhoon went that way, so not that surprising. Yesterday I said two feet of snow, although my math might not have been right on, it was the correct general idea, and the intuition was right on. I even heard Mammoth mountain might be open for skiing early already, in California, where all they focus on is the ongoing drought instead of snowpack. True, Los Angeles is dry. However it’s also semi arid to desert in it’s natural state, and the Corps of Engineers designed it to shed water, concrete channels to the Pacific after freak storms more than 50 years ago.

  2. Although the meteorologists try to hide the cooler than average temperatures in the West by standing in front of them and not talking about them, they still show through for those that are curious. By the way, they are forecasting about 6 feet plus of snow for Greenland? Definitely see if that verifies, that’s glacial.

  3. That looks like winter snow pack to me, and certainly not a AGW flash in the plan, which will melt by next Tuesday.

  4. Just wanted to comment on Robert’s ideas, So the oceans are warm now, and a change in circulation patterns would produce those massive ten-story snowstorms… Isn’t that how it would work? I get the part about the warm oceans providing the fuel for these massive snowstorms, and in turn the amount of snow that falls (several stories, and more with additional snowstorms, etc. ) would provide the albedo to cool the world in a short time. But any snowstorm requires two things: freezing temperatures and moisture. How/where does that cold air originate, if the oceans are so warm right now and affect the temperature of the atmosphere so much?

    • Solar Grand Minimums reduce the amount solar energy absorbed by the world’s oceans. Hence the peer review comments on the other blogs regarding that the Warming Hiatus is real. Yet regionally, China for example, is reporting cooling. The US would have reported cooling this year but for the EL Nino event last winter. The Northern Hemisphere will defiantly report cooling for the next 10 years but blame it on PDO and NAO reversals.
      Already the NH polar freeze has started early in September, with the temperature at or below 260K north of 80 Latitude. That cold is expanding at high latitudes and at High Altitudes. Intense cold and snow has affected Russia during early October, similar to the weather patterns of the last Grand minimum Dalton during 1812.
      Both the Pacific and the Atlantic are in negative oscillations, these 10 year cycles lead to very cold winters. So as Robert suggests, a freezing cold set of Continents coupled with Atlantic meridional driven Tropical Storms from a warm seas leads to significant snow falls on Greenland and in the high Arctic. The Ice cap refresh is under way.

  5. Now the sun is starting to reach my criteria.

    My claim is the 11 year sunspot so called normal cycle and the climate will not show a relationship because the noise in the climate system obscures the slight solar changes not to mention the variations within the 11 year sunspot cycle from maximum to minimum conditions cancel each other out.

    Only when the sun enters extreme prolonged periods of inactivity or activity for that matter are those two issues nullified and hence a solar /climate connection is able to be established. It is no longer obscured.

    I have come up with the minimum solar parameters needed in order to accomplish this by looking at the historical climatic record and how it has responded to solar activity. It shows each and every time the sun enters a protracted period of extreme inactivity the response in global temperatures has been down.

    That is fact and until data shows otherwise I think the case for a solar/climate relationship is strong.

    In addition the sun drives the climate therefore logic follows that any change in solar conditions has to have an effect on the climate to one degree or another. The point is how large is the effect and is it large enough to overcome the noise in the climate system which can obscure small minor solar changes.

    The other side is what are the extreme solar changes in regards to degree of magnitude and duration of time needed to change the climate through solar activity changes themselves and associates secondary solar effects?

    I am sure every one agrees that if solar changes are extreme enough there would be a point where a solar/climate relationship would be obvious. The question is what does the solar change have to be in order to be extreme enough to show an obvious solar/climate relationship?

    Again I have listed the solar parameters which I think satisfy this issue.

    • I agree with you on the idea that time is necessary for changes in the Sun to “flow through” to Earth’s climate response.

      When the Sun began the grand maxima set of cycles in the mid 20th century with the 4th largest sunspot cycle followed by the largest ever reliably recorded it only took a single low cycle following to result in the “global cooling” reported in the late 60’s and early 70’s.

      After that the cycles ramped up with 3 successive large cycles coinciding with unprecedented global warming up to about 2000.

      Cycle 23 and 24 are less active again coinciding with the inescapable fact of the “pause”.

      Cycle 22 was remarkable with the shortest rise to maximum reliably reported and a very short overall length.

      What happens next is anybody’s guess but the correlation o the Sun’s activity with a delay of a cycle or more is better than that of CO2.

    • Salvatore – I think the heat stored on Earth from 150 or so years of high solar activity will not be erased in 1 or 2 low solar cycles. But it also depends how low, perhaps in theory if there were no sunspots for 20 years that could potentially erase 150 years of warming from high solar.

  6. I have put forth those solar parameters /duration of time which I feel are needed to impact the climate and I think gong forward the solar parameters I have put forth will come to be which will then manifest itself in the climate system by causing it to cool. I dare say I think it has started already.

    How cool it is hard to say because there are climatic thresholds out there which if the terrestrial items driven by solar changes should reach could cause a much more dramatic climatic impact.

    Terrestrial Items

    atmospheric circulation patterns

    volcanic activity

    global cloud coverage

    global snow coverage

    global sea surface temperatures

    global sea ice coverage

    ENSO a factor within the overall global sea surface temperature changes.

    Solar Parameters Needed and Sustained.

    cosmic ray count 6500 or greater

    solar wind speed 350 km/sec or less

    euv light 100 units or less.

    solar irradiance off by .15% or more

    ap index 5 or lower

    Interplanetary Magnetic Field 4.5 nt or lower

    Solar Flux 90 or lower

    Duration of time over 1 year following at least 10 years of sub solar activity in general which we have had going back to year 2005.

    We should know within a year as prolonged minimum solar conditions become entrenched.

  7. ROBERT: I am getting a wee bit of stick on Facebook commentaries about the timeline temperature graph indicating warmer temperatures than today for most of history, being truncated at the right hand side recent period showing modern warm period. Could you clear this projection to show that. Thanks. First real falls of snow on the Cairngorms over the last few days.

Comments are closed.