Pinapple Express to Bring 2 ft. Rain, 10 ft. Snow to N. Cal.

February 2nd, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In the next week a series of vigorous Pacific storms fueled partly by the current weak El Nino conditions will bring phenomenal amounts of rain and snow to Northern California: over 2 feet of rain and up to 10 feet of snow in the higher elevations.

After a record dry month in San Francisco, the precipitation is much needed in order to recharge the state’s reservoirs, most of which are still well below their seasonal normal levels.

Here’s the Hawaii-to-California “atmospheric river” that is forecast to set up in the next week, typical of El Nino conditions (forecast graphics courtesy of Weatherbell.com, click to enlarge):

GFS-7-day-precip-fcst-feb02-09-2015-W-Coast

As can be seen, even the Bay area can expect 5+ inches of rain. The snowfall portion of the precipitation will be in the Sierra Nevada, with up to 10 feet of new snow forecast:

GFS-7-day-snow-fcst-feb02-09-2015-NoCal

Most of the heavy precipitation, except for extreme N. California, won’t begin until Thursday of this week.


46 Responses to “Pinapple Express to Bring 2 ft. Rain, 10 ft. Snow to N. Cal.”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. RW says:

    WOW, that seems pretty unusual. Must be caused by man like everything else.

    • JohnKl says:

      Wow! Wish I had the technology. Think of the money one could make! You could threaten Obama and Al Gore with an intense ice-age if they didn’t pass on some his Oxy money, under the table mid-East infusions (just ask Al Jazeera) and contributions from Islamic front organizations. Or worse you could threaten to actually WARM the planet revealing to billions of people the higher quality of life, more ample food supply and longer life spans that result. So many possibilities…

      Have a great day!

  2. Darren says:

    Dr Spencer, are you forecasting a HISTORIC storm for California????

    The panic news people will love you.

    And look at all the hot colors on that graph! That has to be manmade.

  3. ren says:

    Let us see circulation. I predict a snowstorms in the north of the US.
    http://www.goes.noaa.gov/dml/comp/goes/nhem/ir2.html

  4. boris says:

    That should be a good start to replenishing the water supply in Ca. provided, of course. that the silliness of millions of acre feet that are being diverted through the Sacramento River Delta and back to sea to preserve the delta smelt could get stopped.

    Dr. Spencer I’ve noticed in the news feeds today that there is an exceptionally active bunch of reporting from the Warmist perspective. Some guys out of Germany and the UK alleging to have ground all the data and demonstrated that deviations in predicted and actual temperatures are within the “random variability” of the models. Mann has a rant on how any one not of his political persuasion clearly doesn’t understand science and that the recent findings have been supporting a more extensive version of the “hockey stick”. As well as quite a few weighing ins on civilizations driven to abandonment by “catastrophic” climate change. Was there a meeting over the weekend that we didn’t get a memo on?

    • dave says:

      “…was there a meeting over the weekend..?”

      “to conspire” means, etymologically, “to breath together.” Further meetings are not necessary, once the basic plan is settled. All that participants have to do is sense when it is time to do their bit. The fifth column rises as one – and usually dies as one.

      As the would-be-speaker of the prologue to “Gnomeo and Juliet” says:

      “This story has been told before – a lot!” before being being eliminated through a trapdoor.

    • Jim Dean says:

      Good point Boris. If our goal is to measure the chaos of the climate by using a “Hockey Schtick”. It would bode well for us to remember the hockey Schtick blade comes to an end and drops off dramatically. Now ponder that for a moment…BRRRR.
      (sarc).

  5. JohnKl says:

    It still won’t end the drought. Nothing will end the drought. It simply means the excess rain will have to be drained into the ocean, the excess snow when it thaws will likely be go the same way and the perpetual crisis maintained. Otherwise, California will be flush with water and the politicians will be left scratching their heads for some perceived crisis to justify their existence and large salaries. Crisis, anti-thesis, synthesis. When a crisis doesn’t exist create one. It proves very difficult for the government to justify ever increasing violations of civil liberty and individual rights, not to mention ever increasing wealth confiscation if a crisis doesn’t exist. The ever present crisis must be maintained no matter how fictional, just like GLOBAL WARMING. Believe me within a very short period of time the usual goons will wax on about warming months ahead and the persistent drought. Imo, every citizen should recognize at this hour of social disintegration that the U.S. no longer exists as a Republic they merely reside in a politically organized Socialist/Islamic insane asylum.

    Have a great day!

    • David A says:

      “When a crisis doesn’t exist create one.”

      You really think the California drought was a manufactured crisis?? Based on what evidence….?

      • JohnKl says:

        David A asks:

        “You really think the California drought was a manufactured crisis?? Based on what evidence….?”

        Oh! How about dumping a million acre feet of water into the ocean during a period of low rainfall? Of course many other dubious actions by state officials could be questioned. Some can be found here…

        http://naturalresources.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=5921

        Have a great day!

        Reply

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi David A,

        Sorry, David the link I provide referred to a previous drought! During the recent 2013-2014 drought 1.6 million acre feet of water were disarded. See below:

        http://mcclintock.house.gov/2014/02/california-water-bill—hr-3964.shtml

        “Worse, in the first years of this drought, 1.6 million acre feet of water was dumped into the Pacific Ocean for the care and amusement of the Delta Smelt, when that water was desperately needed to support the threatened human population. That water was taken from Central Valley farmers who now face extinction.”

        Have a great day!

        • Lewis G says:

          John,

          We’ll have no reporting of facts concerning politicians. This is natural science blog. Pointing out that politicians and global warming extremists (I know, it’s redundant) take political action to cause problems for humans and then use the problems for humans as an excuse for more political action, is not allowed.

          Happy Tuesday

          • JohnKl says:

            Sorry Lewis G,

            Some of us received educational training in the OLD DAYS when SCIENCE consisted of the FACTS and LAWS of nature, NOT theoretical constructs and/or SPECULATION. Now apparently political hacks spouting unproven, pseudo-science dribble may be given control over the lives and property of citizens without either their direct consent or due process, unless one believes that a signed presidential executive order in some alternate universe comprises DUE PROCESS. We’ll see how far they can go at coercing U.S. citizens.

            Have a great day!

  6. JohnKl says:

    One caveat exists of course to my previous statement. There exists always the possibility of citizens waking up! Any signs of that happening?…

    Have a great day!

    • Fonzarelli says:

      ZZZzzz…

      • JohnKl says:

        Thanks Fonzarelli for the laugh, I almost nodded off myself! Fortunately, the reality based community still exists to wake one up.

        Have a great day!

        • Lewis G says:

          John, The citizenry is glued to the tube which reports, repeatedly, that humans are the cause of the problem and government is the answer.

          The only hope is that the internet will allow/encourage more people to seek truth. Unfortunately, the people are being inculcated with the IPCC mantra as young as elementary school age, since the government schools are part of the re-education program, and so they grow up thinking they know the truth.

          Having learned the truth and now believing it, it becomes faith and faith, as we all know, is a difficult thing to dislodge.

          Further, as pointed out previously, the high priests of the warmist-extremists will berate any who disbelieve. More exactly, they would condemn them to death by stoning for heresy if they could.

          • JohnKl says:

            Personally, I suggest prayer, vigilance and proper action. Waiting for the masses of people to figure out the mess they’ve created proves too much like waiting for an equatorial summer lake at sea level to freeze over. Theoretically, given the right conditions many things remain possible, but how much time do you have?

            As to re-education programs, I mentioned before a relative of my sister’s husband actually told me that citizens should be sent to education camps to learn what a great job the current president does.

            You stated:

            “Further, as pointed out previously, the high priests of the warmist-extremists will berate any who disbelieve. More exactly, they would condemn them to death by stoning for heresy if they could.”

            That may not be far off. Did you read my previous post on another thread about the jihadi militia training camps here in the USA! Bill O’Reilly reported that 22 of them existed at the time of his broadcast a week or two ago. How many more exist that we don’t know about? Moreover, if I heard correctly at an administration press conference a spokeswoman told reporters airlines and other travel facilities no longer bar entry of Al Queda and Isis members into the U.S. If true, that seems odd? When the U.S. fought the Nazi’s, FDR had the mafia check the docks and workers discovered to be Nazi sympathizers were eliminated. If true, what a difference a couple generations and apparently generally supported indifference to the lives and property of fellow American’s makes.

            Have a great day!

  7. Group of physicists says:

    Yes Roy – all this snow and your temperature records confirm that there is no warming, and there won’t be until the 60 year cycle heads back up after 2028. But the 934-year cycle will head down after 2058.

    The reason carbon dioxide has no effect is explained in a comment our group has just posted on Judith Curry’s blog. It’s worth repeating …

    THESE ARE THE FAULTS IN THE CLIMATE MODELLING PARADIGM …

    Hansen, Trenberth et al made the huge mistake of thinking they could explain Earth’s surface temperature by treating the surface as a black body (which it is not because there are sensible heat transfers also involved) and then adding the flux from the colder atmosphere to that from the Sun and then deducting the non-radiative outward flux and finally using the net total of about 390W/m^2 in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to get a temperature of 288K.

    Of course to get the right result they had to fiddle the back radiation figure up to 100% of the incident Solar radiation before it enters the atmosphere. Thus they devised an energy-creating atmosphere which delivered more thermal energy out of its base than entered at its top.

    To obtain their “33 degrees of warming” they effectively assumed that the main “greenhouse” gas water vapor warms the surface by 10 t 15 degrees for each 1% concentration in the atmosphere. Then they had to promulgate the myth (proven contrary to evidence) that deserts are colder than rain forests, though they did not enlarge on that and admit their conjecture meant at least 30 degrees colder where there is a 3% difference in water vapor.

    Then they worked out their 255K figure (ignoring the T^4 relationship) and said it was the temperature about 5Km above the surface. Perhaps it is, but they then used school boy “fissics” and assumed the surface temperature would be the same in the absence of their GH gases In fact the surface would receive less solar radiation than the region 5Km further up.

    So they had to reinvent the Second Law of Thermodynamics incorporating two major errors into their version of that law. The first error was to disregard the effect of gravitational potential energy on entropy, and the second error was to disregard the fact that the law applies to each independent process. Their version of the Second Law could be used to “prove” that water could flow up a mountainside provided that it flowed further down on the other side.

    They need to think, like Newton, and realize that when an apple falls off a tree then entropy increases, just as the Second Law says it will. So too does entropy increase when a molecule “falls” between collisions unless, that is, the sum of molecular gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy remains constant and there is thus a gravitationally induced temperature gradient.

    To prove their paradigm they would need to construct a Ranque Hilsch vortex tube and somehow ensure that the huge centrifugal force did not cause a huge temperature gradient in the cross-section of the tube. Until those promulgating the hoax can do that they have contrary evidence staring them in the face.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      So saith the Church of Doug.

      • Group of physicists says:

        If you’re in Sydney some time, Roy or anyone else, contact me if you wish to attend one of our meetings some Thursday night.

        In the meantime, where’s your Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube which doesn’t develop a temperature gradient due to the force field?

        Where’s your study (like mine) regarding correlation between precipitation and temperature records?

      • Group of physicists says:

        Maybe Roy you should run a post trying to refute the existence of the gravitationally induced temperature gradient.

        Before you do, refer to the refutation of Robert Brown’s attempt in the “WUWT errors” page at http://climate-change-theory.com

        Then refer to the refutation of the attempt by “A fan of more discourse” here …

        http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/31/week-in-review-41/#comment-670818

        That will give you an idea of the valid physics you’ll be up against.

      • Group of physicists says:

        How on Earth or in any planet’s troposphere could Roy or anyone not realize that, when the density gradient becomes stable there is thus a state of maximum entropy which is of course the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will evolve.

        Do you deny this, Roy?

        Then, how could a density gradient be stable if the molecules at the bottom did not have more mean kinetic energy than those above? If they didn’t then those above would gain KE as they move downwards in flight between collisions, and so they would have more KE than the ones they collide with at lower levels.

        Does that sound like a state of maximum entropy, Roy?

        Obviously it’s not, because the impact of such collisions would have a propensity to push the molecules at the bottom even further down, so the density gradient would be unstable.

        When the density gradient is stable, the KE of a molecules at a lower level will be equal to that of a colliding molecule which gained KE on the way down from a higher level where its initial KE mist have been less than that of the molecule at a lower level. So it was cooler up there.

        We can deduce that there must be a temperature gradient in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Prove that wrong if you can, Roy.

    • David A says:

      Is Doug now pretending to be a group of physicists? Lame-o.

      • JohnKl says:

        If they’re something other than voices in his head, Doug would should be able to provide names! Doug?…

        Have a great day!

        • Group of physicists says:

          You are not even prepared to state your own name, and neither is David A or a Fan of more discourse and many others on climate blogs.

          I will discuss the issue as to who has a need for confidentiality when I next meet with them in person. I know that two of the others are also involved with a political party here, so we have to tread carefully. Meanwhile you could read what this (named) physics educator has written …

          “Essential reading for an understanding of the basic physical processes which control planetary temperatures.
          By Doug Cotton on April 21, 2014
          Format: Paperback
          “Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.
          John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)

          • JohnKl says:

            “You are not even prepared to state your own name, and neither is David A or a Fan of more discourse and many others on climate blogs.”

            Group of Physicists is a name? As to the possible correlation between “Group of Physicists” and the moniker “Doug Cotton,” what proof does anyone have that either of those monikers refers to any individual living or dead? Or that either moniker refers to the same person? Guessing the two monikers refer to the same individual and to be fair, as I’ve mentioned in the past I agree with much of what you write but your moniker “Group of Physicists” reads as if you have to PROVE that more people than just yourself agree with your point of view.

            However, the question remains as to what kind of group of physicists exist that you refer to? Do you have your own internal peer review to weed out dissenters? In the end, what is your purpose? To replace the current climate change dogma with yet another theory? Is the purpose of your theory regarding climate cycles to correct the present cognitive dissonance so obvious in today’s popular climate theory’s and/or delusions? Or do you seek to create a cult of Doug to make yourself the high priest of climate prediction? Or something else entirely?

            In any case, internet persona’s can be easily created and disseminated that which has substance will remain. You apparently provided the name of another person who agrees with you. Hopefully, your claims will receive the proper vetting. Accept my apology if I proved too sarcastic, but face it the monikers do seem hilarious.

            Have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:

            Group of Physicists stated:

            “You are not even prepared to state your own name, and neither is David A or a Fan of more discourse and many others on climate blogs.”

            Is “Group of Physicists” a name? Assuming the moniker “Group of Physicists” and “Doug Cotton” refer to same person what is the purpose of the monikers? Readers worldwide have no knowledge if either moniker refers to any individual living or dead or indeed if they refer to same person. It seems as though you need to use the moniker “Group of Physicists” to convince the “silent readers” that more people than just yourself share your view point. Personally, I share a number of your stated views and wish your claims to be fully vetted.

            In any case, how do you know either David or myself haven’t provided our names? If you claim we haven’t provided our full names how do we know you have either?

            If in fact, a group of like minded physicists such as yourself conduct serious research and study regarding climate please provide the location of the facility where you conduct your research, experiments and study.

            Thanks and have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:

            Sorry Group of Physicists for multiple postings, but my first post was delayed in appearing on this thread.

  8. JohnKl says:

    David A asks:

    “You really think the California drought was a manufactured crisis?? Based on what evidence….?”

    Oh! How about dumping a million acre feet of water into the ocean during a period of low rainfall? Of course many other dubious actions by state officials could be questioned. Some can be found here…

    http://naturalresources.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=5921

    Have a great day!

  9. RW says:

    IMO, Doug doesn’t seem to understand the difference between 1st and 2nd order effects, especially with regard to water vapor being the main GHG. He also lumps in the net effect of water vapor with the net effect of clouds, conflating the two together and then claiming water vapor’s net effect is to cool — not to warm.

  10. Massimo PORZIO says:

    Hi JohnKl,
    “Oh! How about dumping a million acre feet of water into the ocean during a period of low rainfall? Of course many other dubious actions by state officials could be questioned. Some can be found here…”

    I never heard about that. I was unaware that so much insanity reached the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

    Now I understand what Fred, a good friend of mine coming from Ohio who lives in Texas now, meant with “stay away from California, it’s not the people but the politicians!”

    Anyways traveling from Los Angeles to San Diego I always found lovely people.

    Thank you John,

    Have a great day.

    Massimo

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi Massimo PORZIO,

      You stated:

      “I never heard about that. I was unaware that so much insanity reached the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.”

      My post only scratched the surface, you’d be surprised. If America once again endeavors to secure Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness many things remain possible. However, the current regime doesn’t appear to think along such lines. A few months ago a gentlemen passed out Lyndon LaRouche tracks in front of some market place along PCH. Lyndon LaRouche was an FDR democrat with imo somewhat wacky viewpoints. However, what followed next seemed surreal. After regaling the current political regime with eyes darting in different directions, he told me cops would be along to move him away from the road-side. Sure enough within a few minutes they came and apparently forced him to move. 1st Ammendment anyone? Constitution law of the land?

      Have a great day!

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        Hi John,
        I don’t know how it works there in the US, here in Italy many (like me) strongly believe that if one is an absolute incapable then he/she became a politician.

        IMHO the problem is that despite the current average people has a good instruction, many (if not most) still believe in ideologies. So they tend to believe and vote the politicians who support the chimera they love to believe exist. This despite, themselves are critic about their politicians once they are elected and after having “tasted” their methods.

        Unluckily, I think that there is nothing more to say 🙁

        Have a great day.

        Massimo

  11. Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
    It seems like this weak but persistent El Niño is having its effects felt.

  12. Go Whitecaps!! says:

    Here’s Lake Shasta again. 2,000,000 AF and rising.

    http://cdec.water.ca.gov/jspplot/jspPlotServlet.jsp?sensor_no=3636&end=02%2F03%2F2015+10%3A57&geom=huge&interval=90&cookies=cdec01

    Let’s see what February brings California.

    • JohnKl says:

      So far last Fall and this Winter has brought copious amounts of rain, but we could have a global flood as in the days of Noah and California would remain in a drought!

      Have a great day!

      Question: What would happen if Socialism came to Saudi Arabia?

      Answer: Nothing at first but after 5 years there would be a shortage of SAND!

    • An Inquirer says:

      Lake Shasta’s graph is another example of what scales on a graph can do for impressions. At first, I thought Lake Shasta’s levels had gone up ten times. Then I read the vertical scale — Shasta’s level has only doubled.

  13. Go Whitecaps!! says:

    Hi John. Look at these pictures. It would appear that rain fall not river drainage was causing the drought.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/MODIS-dec-23-2013-2014-green-CA.jpg

    • JohnKl says:

      Wow! I’ve seen the pictures before but the images only underscore the prime political problem! How do you create a shortage with so much abundant snow and water throughout the state?!!! Don’t under-estimate California politicians they can create shortages and economic debacles like few have imagined, if given half a chance.

      Have a great day!

    • An Inquirer says:

      The impression from the current picture is that there should not be a present problem with the drought. The land looks very green and the mountains look very white! However, the official keepers of the record drought say that drought is as bad as it ever has been.

      That Palmer Index is just too iffy for me — its claims just do not match what we see with our own eyes. And I wonder if the Palmer Index considers not only the moisture level of the soil but also water levels of reservoirs. With higher population levels, reservoir levels are going to fall faster and longer in a drought.

  14. Norman says:

    Doug Cotton,

    Here is a link to an article you may find of great interest. It discusses your theory (it is not new). You may find the article interesting. I believe the authors conclude the atmosphere would be isothermal if it could achieve a state on equilibrium (but not certain).

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.ametsoc.org%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1175%2F1520-0469%25282004%2529061%253C0931%253AOMEP%253E2.0.CO%253B2&ei=wCrRVK6NIMiVyATw4YJg&usg=AFQjCNH5aiwSb_9sgEyTNDgE7JV8QJdv9Q

    This post is off-topic for a major storm in California but since Doug did come into this post I thought the article could help out.

    Doug is far from wrong but not completely correct. Complex it seems.

    Doug the articl also provides the email of the author. Maybe you could hone your theory by email discussion if he chooses to interact with you.

  15. Norman says:

    Doug,

    A quote from the article.

    “Despite these proofs, the issue
    remained a source of contention and confusion; for example,
    a common misconception was that gravity would
    change the nature of thermodynamic equilibrium so as
    to create a vertical temperature gradient.”

  16. Interior Designer On The RunNeed advice on your house interior decorationClick herewe fly our interior designer to your house and advice you for free armanrahim

Leave a Reply