2006 : Climate Models Predicted 50% Loss Of Snow At Steamboat, Colorado

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

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/

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.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to 2006 : Climate Models Predicted 50% Loss Of Snow At Steamboat, Colorado

  1. Old Goat says:

    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).

  2. Latitude says:

    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

  3. Old Goat says:

    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.

    • Daniel Packman says:

      “Common sense” means that you are obviously right and count yourself sane. This is very persuasive for you.

      • Scott says:

        Yes, sounds just like warmist rhetoric. You hear it from both sides….in other debates too.

        -Scott

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        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.

  4. Paul H says:

    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

    • Daniel Packman says:

      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. 🙂

      • Paul H says:

        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.

      • Mike Davis says:

        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.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Per review said area of snow cover would decrease from global warming. But the opposite is happening.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        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.

      • Paul H says:

        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”.

      • Daniel Packman says:

        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.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        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.

      • Daniel Packman says:

        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.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Ya, he has nothing to do with coughing up the birth certificate.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        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.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        divisive figures

        Yes, yes, I see, Obama has brought us all together.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        real issues facing the country

        It looks like Obama is more concerned about what’s going on in Libya and Brazil than America.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Thanks anyway for that litany of propaganda Daniel, I mean Baghdad Daniel.

      • Daniel Packman says:

        Amino: thanks for your input. I am sure that I will give your detailed and thoughtful comments all the consideration that they are due.

      • slp says:

        The only way to really do this for such a complex system is with correspondingly complex models.

        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.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Daniel Packman

        Where are Obama’s grades?

      • Daniel Packman says:

        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?

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Daniel Packman

        Have you given consideration to Jon Stewart?

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Who gives a flip about my grades?

        Good one Daniel. What’s you follow up joke?

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Pubic figure?

        Has any President ever been asked for his grades before?

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Hey Daniel, calm down. Maybe Obama was a straight A student. I’m not making any assumptions. It’s you that’s inferring something.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Daniel Packman says:
        April 30, 2011 at 10:17 pm

        What public figures of any sort have had to release their grades?

        Really?

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Daniel Packman

        Where are Obama’s grades?

      • Scott says:

        Daniel Packman says:
        April 30, 2011 at 6:44 pm

        The only way to really do this for such a complex system is with correspondingly complex models.

        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

      • Scott says:

        Above should say:

        indicating weak to moderate negative feedback

        -Scott

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        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.

      • Scott says:

        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

  5. Latitude says:

    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?

    • Mike Davis says:

      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?

      • Daniel Packman says:

        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?

    • Daniel Packman says:

      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.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        20 years of evidence? Great comedy! Maybe you can audition for MadTV.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        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.

  6. Mike Davis says:

    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!

    • Daniel Packman says:

      Try reading more sources to get a better “scents” of the smell. Generalizing that all climatologists are scam artists is both offensive and silly.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Did you ever hear of ClimateGate Daniel??

      • Mike Davis says:

        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.

      • Daniel Packman says:

        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.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        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.

  7. Robert Skor says:

    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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s