50 percent loss: Summit County, location of Breckenridge Ski Resort, Copper Mountain Resort, Keystone Resort and Arapahoe Basin Ski Area; Routt County, location of Steamboat Resort; and Gunnison County, location of Crested Butte Mountain Resort
Steamboat broke their all time record last week for the deepest snow ever measured.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Snow was 15 feet deep Friday at the summit of Buffalo Pass
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS — The snow at the summit of Buffalo Pass never has been deeper than it was Friday morning.
Mike Gillespie, Colorado Snow Survey supervisor for the Natural Resources Conservation Service in Denver, confirmed that the snow depth at the Tower measuring site stood at 180 inches, or 15 feet, setting a record for measured snow depths there that go back to the mid-1960s. The previous record was the 175-inch snow depth recorded on April 25, 1978.
http://www.craigdailypress.com/
Only a denier would fail to recognize that climate models are grossly inadequate.
In the cold, cold light of day, how cananyone model climate?
There are far too many unknowns, unless you are a warmist, in which case you know everything and believe anything. You believe that flood is drought, warm is cold, ice is free-water, and snow is rain.
What is evident, however, that you silly warmists aren’t taking the rest of humanity with you in your ridiculous beliefs, and the blessed climate won’t play ball, either.
Never mind, onward and upward, what’s the next scare which is going to plonk us all in our graves within the next 1, 10, 100, 10,ooo years? (I expect most of them will give you sufficient leeway to be long-gone when everyone discovers that your prognostications are all unfounded rubbish, againn and therefore there’ll be no accountability).
The still-living authors of all those doom forecasts in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s all ought to be rounded up, made to explain and/or apolgise, give back their funding, and serve time in the pokey (and/or stocks).
What more proof do they need that the MODELS don’t cut it??
You do know that a snowy season in one location has nothing to do with the models and global warming?
Record snow has been falling in Colorado almost every year since that forecast was made. This year it extends all the way up to Canada.
Dan, you just answered my ? Old time weather forecasts beats modern day models by a long shot
Record snow “almost every year” since 2006? That is both untrue and irrelevant.
Wrong on all counts
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20071228/NEWS/706100652 http://www.estinaspen.com/20081226241/good-news-record-snow-pow-its-deepcember-on-slopes-again-in-aspen.html http://www.postindependent.com/article/20100505/VALLEYNEWS/100509948 http://www.blueandcream.com/blog/tag/aspen-record-snowfall/
Daniel Packman says:
April 30, 2011 at 2:00 pm
That is both untrue and irrelevant.
Record snow in Colorado is irrelevant but heat in Moscow for a few days is proof of global warming. Got it.
BTW, speaking of leftist propaganda……..
Daniel Packman
How are holding up since Obama lost to Trump over the birth certificate? Are you feeling vindictive like others on the left? Are you also calling Trump a racist?
Here’s one of those left wing news casters losing it over Trump. He thinks he’s making a coherent argument. What are his ratings? 0.1% of the population watches him? And how are the poll numbers on Obama? Lowest ever approval since he became President is what they are saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXrTul_w-So
Global warming will make ski resorts close. And here we are with that happening. We should have listened! Here comes our grandchildren to kill us just like we were told they would!
😉
Daniel Packman
Here’s some more good news for you. It’s a video of political left protesters and a political left Obama fundraiser. They are saying “We paid our dues where’s our change?”
40 second video at link, should be up on YouTube soon
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=87504
President Obama tried to crack a joke after they were done singing but it got a wet blanket response.
When the SF Chronicle, a newspaper that is as far left as a paper can go, calls President Obama a liar he has a problem.
Daniel Packman
Here’s some more from the winner in the birth certificate exchange:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DexKyUT0-r0
Daniel Packman
Here’s a video showing Obama making campaign promises and as President changing and not doing them. The only ‘change’ to be seen in Obama is he himself changing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdq0nN_JLtU
Snowpack in Colorado varies yearly and locally. A few year history of this index says absolutely nothing about global climate change. And in any case recent years have most decidedly not be uniformly above average. 2010, for instance, was bit below average for most regions.
ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CO/Snow/snow/watershed/monthly/2010.gif
Of course. The models are unverifiable and it doesn’t matter.
I can understand the average person does not have time to keep up with this…
But for someone that has educated themselves about it……
…what sort of dimwit would still believe any of this garbage
Someone with grand dreams of a socially engineered utopia. “Climate Change” mitigation is by definition wealth redistributive because the poorest are the hottest and the hottest are the poorest.
SHEEPLE!!!
Who or what is the Packman? Is it a bot, or just a resident troll.
There’s always one, isn’t there? I suppose it’ll have to be lumped into the deluded warmist genre, who believe anything that they’re brainwashed into, and doesn’t share the common sense and historical observations that the rest of us, more sane, folk can see and source for ourselves.
“Common sense” means that you are obviously right and count yourself sane. This is very persuasive for you.
Yes, sounds just like warmist rhetoric. You hear it from both sides….in other debates too.
-Scott
Daniel is giving the the talking points. After he has exhausted that list he’ll be gone just like all the others of his ilk.
Daniel says
Snowpack in Colorado varies yearly and locally. A few year history of this index says absolutely nothing about global climate change
So why do alarmists use a few years of below average snow to “prove global warming”?
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6160
You can find all kinds of simplistic and incorrect stuff out there. Read more peer reviewed journal articles and fewer articles from media outlets. And fewer opinion pieces on blogs like this. 🙂
Daniel
You have not answered my point. We are continually inundated with, as you say, simplistic and incorrect stuff which seeks deliberately to increase alarm about global warming.
If you disagree with this, please send your comments to the people pushing it out.
Daniel:
After reading historical records and geological records I found the globe is in a cooling trend interrupted by short periods of warming such as we experienced from 1975 to 2000, give or take a few years because of problems with temperature records. Most likely looking at peak to peak records we see a decline in temperatures for the majority of regions globally. as the actual issue of any warming since 1975 is in doubt and can easily be explained by siting issues and corrupted methods in computing the results.
If it has warmed or not since the 30s is unimportant because long term observations show we have not reached the natural regional temperature levels that were experienced during the MWP which was colder than the RWP which was colder than those warm periods that preceded it. Each warm period getting shorter and a bit colder until the next glacial maximum is reached. It is doubtful we achieved the warmth pf the cold period between the Minoan Warm and the Roman warm period. We just need 2C or warming to last for five or six hundred years so glaciers can recede to their positions and trees can again grow where they grew then.Yes Snow Pack varies considerably in the Rockies from year to year and follows short term trends that are obvious in historic records. Nothing outside of normal variations.
It is obvious you have been reading what passes for scientific research used to support the agenda. They are what if papers that contradict what was once considered science. Kind of like fairy tales.
There is no average or Normal climate . Climate is defined by variable long term weather patterns which means that climate is a range of conditions that can be expected depending on how ocean atmospheric regional weather patterns interact. That is what happened since weather began on this planet and that is what we have experienced for the last 5,000 years of “Civilization”! This has actually been some of the mildest weather conditions in the last 5,000 years.
Per review said area of snow cover would decrease from global warming. But the opposite is happening.
Daniel,
you are following in the same footsteps in saying the same things as a few commenters before you here since this blog began. No matter what data comes along to show you are wrong you all have continued to give the party line. You guys are tediously predictable.
You can find all kinds of simplistic and incorrect stuff out there
You must remember, Daniel, that this sort of fabrication does not just go on in blogs. Some of it comes from govt’s, the IPCC, UN, EU etc.
One of the functions of blogs like this is draw attention to this sort of disreputable behaviour.
You may have noticed one of Steve’s posts yesterday describing how the EPA are attempting to indoctrinate kids with what can only be called outright lies.
It would be a sadder and more sinister world if reporting and discussion of such matters were to be “discouraged”.
Mike: You can look at past data and get an empirical feel for what should come, but that is no substitute for a detailed analysis of the global climate and what drives it. The only way to really do this for such a complex system is with correspondingly complex models. I understand that many people cast a jaundiced eye upon these models and dismiss them out of hand. I think the models currently being built will include sufficient coupling to regional scales that their predictive abilities and accuracy will become clearer to more people. But some people will refuse to be convinced.
Daniel,
If the climate drivers were understood by the models, this article never would have needed to be written. You are placing theory above empirical evidence – which Einstein warned you against.
Daniel Packman says:
April 30, 2011 at 6:44 pm
but that is no substitute for a detailed analysis of the global climate and what drives it
What a sorry argument. The usual propaganda drivel. The people doing these “detailed analysis” are masking predictions about what will happen. And ALL of their predictions are wrong.
But you don’t want to look at that. You don’t want to look at the real world. Good for you! Go for it!
BTW, how are you coping internally with what Donald Trump is doing? It certainly looks like he is too much for you guys to deal with. And he has only just begun. Just 18 months to go until November 2012.
Ready for the ride? Keeps your arms and legs in at all times.
Just what do you think Trump has done other than display how wonderful he thinks he is? From a political standpoint, he and Palin are divisive figures that can only help the administration. From a policy standpoint, he can only serve to divert discussion of real issues facing the country and does no one any good.
Ya, he has nothing to do with coughing up the birth certificate.
From a policy standpoint
Ya, Obama is a policy genius. He’s doing wonders for the world. And he’s keeping all his promises in the process.
divisive figures
Yes, yes, I see, Obama has brought us all together.
real issues facing the country
It looks like Obama is more concerned about what’s going on in Libya and Brazil than America.
Thanks anyway for that litany of propaganda Daniel, I mean Baghdad Daniel.
Amino: thanks for your input. I am sure that I will give your detailed and thoughtful comments all the consideration that they are due.
Models only return what they are programmed to. And they are programmed by those espousing the theory. So of course the models will corroborate them.
Daniel Packman
Where are Obama’s grades?
Where are your grades? Why weren’t you elected to the Harvard Law Review? What public figures of any sort have had to release their grades?
Daniel Packman
Have you given consideration to Jon Stewart?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzvIMHXm_Ac
Who gives a flip about my grades?
Good one Daniel. What’s you follow up joke?
Pubic figure?
Has any President ever been asked for his grades before?
Hey Daniel, calm down. Maybe Obama was a straight A student. I’m not making any assumptions. It’s you that’s inferring something.
Daniel Packman says:
April 30, 2011 at 10:17 pm
What public figures of any sort have had to release their grades?
Really?
Daniel Packman
Where are Obama’s grades?
Daniel Packman says:
April 30, 2011 at 6:44 pm
No, very much the opposite. I’ll use another complex in my area of study as an example. Say I wanted to know the pH and buffer capacity of a water sample with a very large number of weak acids & bases that had unknown pKa values. Say there’s also lots of salts and organic solvents too. Well, I could put together a huge set of equations and make an estimate of buffer capacity…I’d have to estimate a lot of pKa values, estimate activity coefficients, guess at effects from organic solvents, assume some arbitrary association constants between the compounds in solutions, and then tie that all together with some Hendersen-Hasselbach equations (for pH) and Debye-Huckel extended law equations (estimating the size parameter for each species too…used to calculate activity coefficients). I’d say the final propagated uncertainty would be as large as a several pH units for pH and a factor of 5 for buffering capacity.
So yeah, I could put that model together and give it a go. Or I could throw the sample onto the pH probe and EMPIRICALLY get a pH value to within 0.02 units and do a quick titration and get buffer capacity to within a few percent. Empirically, that experiment takes a few minutes and uncertainties are an order of magnitude (or 2 or 3) better than the model. Heck, it’d be better than the model even if all the pKa values and size parameters were known for the acids/bases!
The above is probably quite a bit simpler than Earth’s ecosystem. At least there are well-tested equations based on solid PChem for the above! So how can we empirically test the atmosphere? Well, the best we have is historical knowledge. Temps have purportedly gone up what, about 0.6 C in the last 100 years or so? Combined with the best measures of CO2 increase, that indicates a sensitivity of what, 1-1.5 C/doubling? Now, considering if UHI has an effect on that 0.6 C…Spencer estimates as high as 50% I believe. Also, consider that we were likely warming up from the LIA, so our best estimate at a baseline adjustments indicates a positive slope. Given all that, CO2 doubling may lead to what, a 0.5 C increase?…indicating weak to moderate feedback. Considering the apparent historical stability of the system, doesn’t that make sense. And don’t you agree that empirical measurements should work much better than complex models?
-Scott
Above should say:
-Scott
Scott
I’m getting the impression Daniel is getting everything he’s saying from global warming web sites that provide prefabricated rebuttals and he doesn’t understand the science himself.
Well Amino,
If that’s true, I hope someone here, including Daniel, learned something from my example. It’s pretty common knowledge for people working in the operational sciences…empiricism always trumps theoretical when the empirical knowledge is there.
-Scott
I think the models currently being built will include sufficient coupling to regional scales that their predictive abilities and accuracy will become clearer to more people
===================================================
And I think you just said that everything so far has been total BS……………..
So Daniel tell me, with their less than zero track record so far, how will we know when they get it right?
Latitude:
A one hundred percent improvement of zero is still zero.
Daniel:
With parameters that can be tweaked to fit and the current displayed lack of understanding of weather patterns. The best we can expect from climate models is GIGO. You can put lipstick on a pig but it remains a pig. A solid waste disposal company was one of my clients and they actually sprayed scent on their piles of waste in an attempt to reduce complaints about smell. Depending on weather conditions the scent made no difference it still smelled like S###! Without a group of unbiased researchers taking over to start from scratch Climatology is in a downhill slide like an avalanche and just starting to pick up speed. You do know what happens to people that get in front of an avalanche?
There is a common complaint that climate models can’t predict weather. They are not designed to do that and long term weather prediction is currently impossible. If you really think that the lack of weather prediction is an indictment of models, then you misunderstand the entire problem. Aside from starting models out with given initial conditions, what parameters are you referring to?
You should tell people to quit doing that and making press releases about the results.
In 20 years the evidence should be sufficiently obvious that even biased skeptics will have to admit they were wrong.
Daniel,
I believed that story 30 years ago when I first heard it.
20 years of evidence? Great comedy! Maybe you can audition for MadTV.
stevengoddard says:
April 30, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Daniel,
I believed that story 30 years ago when I first heard it.
I remember 1976 accompanying the 30 years too. I think we have to forgive Daniel. He seems new to this and isn’t good at it yet.
Daniel:
There was a housing tract built close to the local sewage treatment plant and they opened their sales office on days the wind blew from the south, which was most days. Once the papers were signed the people were stuck with the smell when the wind blew from the north. Climatologists remind me of scam artists! The more I read of what they produce the stronger that impression gets!
Try reading more sources to get a better “scents” of the smell. Generalizing that all climatologists are scam artists is both offensive and silly.
Did you ever hear of ClimateGate Daniel??
Daniel there is a major difference between Climate Scientists and Climatologists. By the way twenty years is not enough time ti determine a trend when natural weather patterns are known to have a periodicity of 60 to 80 years. Even the current fad of claiming average weather over a thirty year period represents climate shows a lack of understanding by these fools. It was understandable before the PDO was recognized in the 90s but with knowing about AMO, AMOC, AO, AAO, IOD, SOI, PDO and others that display similar characteristics or trending primarily one way or another twenty to 40 years at a time. Thirty years is just short term weather.
I do hope to be offensive because I have been offended by the SCAM Artists calling them selves Climatologists.
The additional 20 years I suggested is in the context of expected increases in CO2, improved modeling, and enough time to get enough sense of the natural variations within the few year to few decade period.
Hansen now claims that scenario B is the right one – because forcing is tailing off logarithmically.
Daniel Packman says:
May 1, 2011 at 12:03 am
The additional 20 years I suggested is in the context of expected increases in CO2, improved modeling, and enough time to get enough sense of the natural variations within the few year to few decade period.
So you are saying they have changed their predictions along the way. So even though they continue to get their predictions wrong how many more years are you will to give them before they finally get anything right? Is there anything they could do that would doubt their hypothesis?
It a scientific practice, or is supposed to be, that when a hypothesis doesn’t get supporting evidence it is wrong.
Just for the record the snow depth at the summit of buffalo pass was 201 inches on 5/3/2011. La la la Nina
But changes to precipation is one element – temperature is another. All the pines and a lot of the spruce in Northern colorado and Southern wyoming are dead. This scale of change is climate related due to increased temperatures.
But the snow is great
ROFLMAO. I live in Northern Colorado, not far from Wyoming. You might want to try that out somewhere else where people might believe you.