Snow chances still lurking next week; Climate saga continues

0.8″ of fluffy snow showers Wednesday PM in Waconia

Snow chances still linger for next week

4th warmest winter on record likely for metro

Climate change – science vs. policy

5 mn.jpg

Weak upper air disturbance triggered a few snow showers Wednesday

(MNDOT cam)

Snow chances still loom next week?

I keep getting asked “Hey Huttner, are we going to get any snow soon?”

The answer is an unqualified yes, probably.

The forecast models are still trying to lock on to a change in the upper air pattern next week. The jet stream should snake down into the central USA next week. Exactly where it ends up will determine who get the snow, and who doesn’t.

It still looks like Minnesota may be in line for a lighter snow system on Monday into Tuesday.

The models then suggest two major system later next week into the following weekend sweeping through the central USA. The latest (GFS) version takes the first one towards Chicago by next Wednesday. That track could produce heavy snow in Wisconsin.

A second strong system is advertised close to Minnesota by the following weekend.

5 monnn.PNG

GFS still hints at snow chances in the next two weeks.

Track errors can literally be hundreds of miles this far out, so it’s too early to tell if these systems will materialize. But it’s more than we’ve had to talk about for weeks. And the pattern change does suggest our chances for getting some serious Midwest snow continue to grow for next week.

Stay tuned!

Climate Chage 2.0: What we know and what some continue to deny

My MPR colleague Bob Collins has a great write up today about a new effort to obfuscate climate science in schools, and why “Climategate” was an unsuccessful attempt to discredit the overwhelming body of solid, credible climate science.

“Today’s climate change debate is stoked by news of a “leaked” attempt by the so-called Heartland Institute to create a K-12 curriculum on climate change that appears to undermine the generally accepted science.

Discover’s Bad Astronomy blog says the documents appear to be legit:

“[Dr. Wojick’s] effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”

That seems clear enough, doesn’t it? From that, it sure sounds like they want to dissuade teachers from teaching science. I imagine there will be a lot of spin about how this quote is out of context, or a typo, or something alone those lines. Perhaps. But I remember all the hammering real scientists took when they used jargon in their emails to each other, jargon which was gleefully misinterpreted to make it seem as if these scientists were faking data. Interesting how this is pointing right back at them. Just as I said it does.

When it comes to all this, the comparison to “Climategate” springs to mind, but there’s one enormous difference: Climategate was manufactured, a made-up controversy (what I call a manufactroversy) that had no real teeth — as was its failed sequel. The emails released weren’t damning at all, and didn’t show scientists tinkering with or faking data. As much as the media made of it, as much as climate change denial blogs played them up, it has been shown again and again that Climategate was all sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

There’s a disconnect between climate science and politics.

Here are some indisputable facts about climate science:

1) Global CO2 levels are rising rapidly. This is a documented, measured increase.

5 gg.PNG

2) The vast majority of climate scientists (97%) believe there is a human caused component of climate change.

5 tt.PNG

More from EPA:

“There is now clear evidence that the Earth’s climate is warming:

• Global surface temperatures have risen by 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) over the last 100 years.

• Worldwide, the last decade has been the warmest on record.

• The rate of warming across the globe over the last 50 years (0.24ºF per decade) is almost double the rate of warming over the last 100 years (0.13ºF per decade).

The evidence of climate change extends well beyond increases in global surface temperatures. It also includes:

• Changing precipitation patterns.

• Melting ice in the Arctic.

• Melting glaciers around the world.

• Increasing ocean temperatures.

• Rising sea level around the world.

• Acidification of the oceans due to elevated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

• Responses by plants and animals, such as shifting ranges.

Projections of Climate Change

At the current rate, the Earth’s global average temperature is projected to rise from 3 to 7°F by 2100, and it will get even warmer after that. As the climate continues to warm, more changes are expected to occur, and many effects will become more pronounced over time. For example, heat waves are expected to become more common, severe, and longer lasting. Some storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent, increasing the chances of flooding and damage in coastal communities.

Climate change will affect different regions, ecosystems, and sectors of the economy in many ways, depending not only on the sensitivity of those systems to climate change, but also on their ability to adapt to risks and changing conditions. Throughout history, societies and ecosystems alike have shown remarkable capacity to respond to risks and adapt to different climates and environmental changes. Today, effects of climate change have already been observed, and the rate of warming has increased in recent decades.”

It’s worth saying one more time: Climate science is clear about climate change facts. Policy makers and politicians are the ones who decide what to do about it, that’s climate change policy.

PH

PH

  • Elizabeth T

    re: sowing doubt

    There’s a wonderful book entitled “Doubt Is Their Product” by David Michaels, currently the director of the federal OSHA. I highly recommend it. Written for a lay person, it explains how “They” create doubt and then sell it to the Public to explain why the Public should believe Them and act against the Public’s own best interests. The tobacco lobby is a great example.

    All one needs to do is say “Scientists Doubt This Theory”, without explaining that the only person in the world who doubts it is some 2nd grader in rural Tajikistan.

    Or use the word “Theory” as if it inherently means “We’re not really sure this is true”. Which is why we have the theory of gravity, for example. Because scientists are willing to change their minds, we’re not seen as reliable or credible.

    by the way – where could I find data on how much precipitation we have gotten this winter? I’m sure you can tell me, but where could I find it easily? The NWS site I found only has the past few days listed.

  • Randy in Champliln

    Elizabeth: I will take a shot at answering your question. Goggle NWS Chanhassen, on the home page click on the Climate, chose monthly preliminary data, choose the city, archived data, the month you want and click on go. The columns I think you want will be 7 and 8. Hope that helps.

  • prk166@gmail.com

    I enjoy the weather and meteorology. I do not enjoy the climate / ideology crap.

  • Paul

    I enjoy the weather and meteorology. And, I enjoy the climate change information. In my view, it’s incredibly important, and relevant to this blog. Keep it coming.

  • Jennifer

    I also very much enjoy the climate change information. We need to stop ignoring what is happening in regards to this topic. This is the only place that I’ve found where this climate change is talked about so honestly. I appreciate it.

  • david

    I find it hilariously ironic how some people, like prk166, call science “ideology” when it’s inconvenient for their personal lifestyle, yet will totally embrace, and even demand the latest scientific advances when it comes to health care, communications, computers, etc….

    People that don’t “believe” in science should look up the definition, it’s not a religeon…objective observation of the world around us to gain knowledge and understanding…open to peer review, ie, reproducable conclusions, even when viewed from different perspectives.