More snow in forecast for Steamboat

Advertisement

Keep up with the conditions

- For local weather conditions and recent coverage of Steamboat Springs weather, visit SteamboatToday.com/weather

- View webcams of Steamboat Springs at SteamboatToday.com/webcams

- For weather information from the National Weather Service, including storm warnings and advisories, visit www.wrh.noaa.gov/

- The Colorado Department of Transportation provides road conditions, closures and traffic cameras at www.cotrip.org. For travel information by phone, call 511 from anywhere in Colorado or dial 303-639-1111.

- Find information about avalanche danger and conditions at the Colorado Avalanche Information Center website: www.avalanche.state.co.us.

- For flight information, visit www.flightview.com/ TravelTools/. By phone, call Delta Airlines at (800) 241-4141; United Airlines at (800) 864-8331; and American Airlines at (800) 433-7300

— Steamboat Ski Area was reporting a 2-foot base and 46 inches of total snowfall Sunday, after a weekend of precipitation in Steamboat Springs that bolstered snow totals less than 10 days from opening day on Mount Werner.

A meteorologist at the Grand Junction office of the National Weather Service said snowfall was expected to pick up again this morning and continue through Tuesday.

“Over the next about 24 to 36 hours, we’re expecting another 6 to 12 inches in the mountains … and in town, maybe in the 2- to 5-inch range over the next 36 hours,” meteorologist Jeff Colton said Sunday afternoon. “It’s definitely going to keep snowing.”

The Weather Service issued a winter weather advisory for Northwest Colorado on Sunday, but Colton said the snow’s light consistency did not present unusually hazardous conditions.

Sgt. Scott Elliott, of Colorado State Patrol, and Sgt. Kurtis Luster, of the Routt County Sheriff’s Office, each said late Sunday afternoon that despite the weather, no significant injuries occurred in vehicle slide-offs or accidents during the weekend.

“We were pretty surprised,” Elliott said about State Patrol’s relatively quiet weekend.

Steamboat Ski Area opens Nov. 24, a week from Wednes­day, with the annual Scholarship Day to benefit the Steamboat Springs Winter Sports Club’s scholarship fund.

Local weather watcher Art Judson said he recorded more than 3 inches of new snow Sunday morning at his home between downtown Steamboat and Mount Werner. Measuring new snow has been a typical occurrence for Judson during the past week.

“We’ve had six straight days of snowfall,” he said.

A federal weather-measuring station on Buffalo Pass recorded a snow depth of 40 inches Sunday, a figure that Judson called higher than average. But he said it’s too early in November to cast predictions about the month, which he noted can turn on a dime when it comes to weather.

“It’s a nice little start, but we have to wait and see if it doesn’t turn off suddenly,” Judson said about the region’s snowfall. “It can do that.”

Colton said this winter’s La Niña weather patterns should bring consistent snow to Steam­boat, with repeated periods of light snowfall during several days likely through the end of 2010.

“It should be a fairly good season up there, at least early on,” Colton said.

Comments

steamboatsprings 3 years, 5 months ago

There is 4-6 feet of snow on top of the mtn. We hiked up and skied it over the weekend.

0

blue_spruce 3 years, 5 months ago

climate change may result in more snow in the near future. however, in the long run, skiing will disappear if we do not change course.

0

seeuski 3 years, 5 months ago

LOL............... Aaaaaaaaaah the sky is falling, I swear it will someday.

What a hoax!!!!!

One word- Climategate...the proof that the data was manipulated is plainly available for all to see. We do need to work together to keep our environment clean from pollution but don't take the wealth of Americans away for a hoax in the name of global governance. George Soros and Maurice Strong, the dynamic duo of world power desires. Your puppet masters.

0

S_G30 3 years, 5 months ago

If you do a little research you will see that over the last 10 years the earth has cooled. You are just plain ignorant if you are conceeded enough to think that the human race could damage the earth. We are mearly a spec on its radar and it could be rid of us all in a second. A volcano when erupting puts out more CO2 that we do in 5 years. Look it up its all there. Bring on the snow.

0

Scott Wedel 3 years, 5 months ago

S_G30, I did a quick google search and do not see that over the last 10 years the earth has cooled. Looks like the earth has been warming for the past 10 years.

What I find on global cooling is a few meteorologists at a conference sponsored by an anti-global warming institute claiming the earth might be entering a cooling period, but that is based upon their models, not 10 years of data indicating the earth is cooling.

A volcano such as the ones in Iceland that grounded plans over Europe is putting out as much CO2 per day as a small European country (ie one with about the world's 50th largest economy) puts out per day. That is way way less than "we do for five years" unless by "we" you meant Routt County which depending upon how calculated is certainly plausible.

0

seeuski 3 years, 5 months ago

So Scott continues to taught data that was proven to have been fraudulent? In their own words those who prepared the reports for the IPCC manipulated and falsified data that the global governance, de-develop the USA crowd uses to scare kids. Great. Even if we did what the climate alarmists want, to take the USA back to the 1867 level of CO2 output, we could only possibly effect .05% of global CO2 output.

I for one don't want to resign myself to tepee living for a hoax.

http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-conservative-in-newark/hadley-cru-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails

OUCH!!!

0

Scott Wedel 3 years, 5 months ago

Seesuki, Your intellectual dishonesty is at least consistent.

Independent reviews of the Hadley data did not find that it was fabricated. They found that it was consistent with other, independent datasets. The full context of the email "admitting" fraud was a complaint about lack of data and the need to interpolate some data.

But keep on making the claim of fraud.

I can ignore the Hadley climate center and still find other weather histories that show global warming. What I cannot find is any dataset showing global cooling.

I doubt there is anyone serious even contemplating 1867 levels of CO2. What concerns people is how rapidly the world is increasing output of CO2 and that a doubling of 2000's CO2 output is likely to happen if nothing changes.

Yes, the USA cannot control the world's output of CO2. But you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing and the EC, in total the world's largest market, and other countries are not far from considering carbon tariffs on imports. USA is risking being on the outside with China while the rest of the world moves to low carbon.

And not sure why efficiency, wind, solar and other renewable energy is such a bad idea versus depending on middle east oil.

0

Jeff Kibler 3 years, 5 months ago

Middle East oil? The top four countries from which we import the vast majority of our petroleum products: Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

Efficiency? Wonderful, it lowers the base load. Wind and solar are fine but are unpredictable and are not very useful for peak load and load following, and will still require spinning reserves, thus wasting energy.

Where do we store the energy generated by wind and solar for subsequent, predictable distribution? Batteries? Pumped storage is great, but requires dams and reservoirs.

I think wind and solar will work best on either an individual or small/local scale. On an individual scale, batteries make sense.

0

seeuski 3 years, 5 months ago

The religion of AGW keeps people like Scott from the facts. Nothing more to see here, it's all been said before. Enjoy the snow, wait, a couple of years ago one of the local AGW faithful said we would have no snow below the Gondola in a couple of seasons. Well, the hockey stick lied.

http://iceagenow.com/Top_Scientists_say_global_warming_is_a_lie.htm

Lets see, some of the data gathering sites:

"His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment. Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator. Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets. In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php

I think I trust these scientists over the George Soros funded ones that were busted in the East Anglia email scam. Global governance is neo-fascism and we are at risk of it, I know how much you despise fascism so open your eyes Scott.

0

Scott Wedel 3 years, 5 months ago

So out of hundreds of thousands of weather stations, that some are questionable causes you to doubt them all? As if Rome and Manchester only have one weather station and no one would notice if one was reporting bad data.

As I said before, you can ignore East Anglia and still find no shortage of climate history data showing global warming. And East Anglia had notable independent reviews and found no improper manipulation of data or scientific fraud.

Once again I ask you to support with data your claim that there is ongoing global cooling. That is your claim and I cannot find any such data. I can find claims that it will happen in the future, but not that it is already happening.

Considering how CFCs have basically been banned around the world without any obvious neo-facist global government, I am not partially concerned that laws passed in the USA to help move us towards a globally competitive future will affect the rights of US citizens any more than not being allowed to pour gasoline into a storm drain is a consequential restriction upon my rights.

0

seeuski 3 years, 5 months ago

Then you have no clue what Cap and Trade is designed to do, and will do, to YOUR pocket. I am going to play in the snow that isn't supposed to be here, see ya.

I will produce some science on the cooling trend later.

0

seeuski 3 years, 5 months ago

Oh, and your argument defending the data gathering sites is like Dan Rather saying "ignore the fraudulent documents and trust the story" in regard to the fake Bush National Guard papers. It destroys the bearer.

0

Scott Wedel 3 years, 5 months ago

US already has cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide emissions from major sources such as power plants. I guess I failed to notice that resulted in a neo-facist global government limiting my rights as an US citizen.

I did not say that bad data is acceptable. First, the overall trend is hardly the result of a handful of sites. Second, climatologists already see the need to take into consideration the heat bubble effects of major urban areas. Third, you appear to argue that no one would notice if a weather station suddenly reported a temp of 150 when jet wash hit the weather station. Or that one weather station was consistently reporting warmer temps than the rest of the ones spread around the city.

If you want to argue that relying upon bad data sources destroys the credibility of the person making the argument then you have just argued that you are not credible. You are the expert at relying upon sites with serious credibility issues.

0

grundy 3 years, 5 months ago

We can always count on seeuski for our daily dose of politicized tripe. We've heard it before, we'll hear it again, I dub thee the energizer bunny!

0

Scott Wedel 3 years, 5 months ago

Jeff, actually wind and solar are very useful for dealing with peak loads. Peak load generally occurs during the summer on hot sunny days due to air conditioning units. That is not far from peak solar and often during peak wind. The most profitable locations for wind is not always the place with the most wind, but the place with the most wind when the price paid per kwh is the highest (ie afternoon winds).

It actually make more sense on a larger scale when the renewable energy can simply be used when it is generated while reducing the output of other power plants. That is a major part of Ritter's plan to retrofit power plants to nat gas because those can quickly adjust power produced to meet needs.

0

seeuski 3 years, 5 months ago

This video interview sums up the way these conversations go all over the world. Facts don't matter, just ones faith of their own emotional connection to the issue. Sad indeed. Scott, you certainly seem a bit more knowledgeable than this lady in the flawed data you use.

http://newstime.co.nz/lord-monckton-adresses-a-greenpeace-campaigner-on-global-warming.html

0

Scott Wedel 3 years, 5 months ago

Pretty funny and it means what? That a random meeting on the street wasn't a top level debate between experts presenting their best arguments? That people should research the topics which they are passionate about? That in this conversation you play the role of the passionate ignorant?

How many days ago did you promise evidence of ongoing global cooling?

0

jimmmmmm 3 years, 5 months ago

Will someone please tell Seeuski and Sean Hannity that weather is not climate. Thanks.

0

seeuski 3 years, 5 months ago

Scott, not only are you angry, you are lazy. Here is some data for you, and it is not Sean Hannity's. LOL, jimmmmmmmmmm.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14504

This makes the point I agree with... "Climate change — it happens, with or without our help." http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

0

Scott Wedel 3 years, 5 months ago

That is the best you got? I find it funny how you think you have a case. You don't even type in Argo Willis to google to find any other references?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page3.php

“First, I identified some new Argo floats that were giving bad data; they were too cool compared to other sources of data during the time period. It wasn’t a large number of floats, but the data were bad enough, so that when I tossed them, most of the cooling went away.

The digging led him to the data from the expendable temperature sensors, the XBTs. A month before, Willis had seen a paper by Viktor Gouretski and Peter Koltermann that showed a comparison of XBT data collected over the past few decades to temperatures obtained in the same ocean areas by more accurate techniques, such as bottled water samples collected during research cruises. Compared to more accurate observations, the XBTs were too warm. The problem was more pronounced at some points in time than others.

The Gouretski paper hadn’t rung any alarm bells right away, explains Willis, “because I knew from the earlier analysis that there was a big cooling signal in Argo all by itself. It was there even if I didn’t use the XBT data. That’s part of the reason that we thought it was real in the first place,” explains Willis.

“So the new Argo data were too cold, and the older XBT data were too warm, and together, they made it seem like the ocean had cooled,” says Willis. The February evening he discovered the mistake, he says, is “burned into my memory.” He was supposed to fly to Colorado that weekend to give a talk on “ocean cooling” to prominent climate researchers. Instead, he’d be talking about how it was all a mistake.

Note the lack of a conspiracy - he was ready to give a talk saying his data showed ocean cooling until he realized he had bad data.

So the article you cite uses data that the source of the data says is bad. What were you saying about people that cite known bad data?

0

Scott Wedel 3 years, 5 months ago

That is the best you got? I find it funny how you think you have a case. You don't even type in Argo Willis to google to find any other references? BTW, your article looked suspicious to me when he called himself an "independent scientist" (very egotistical to consider himself independent and so many others not independent) and that the Argo data was hard to access when Nasa had it easily accessible.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page3.php

“First, I identified some new Argo floats that were giving bad data; they were too cool compared to other sources of data during the time period. It wasn’t a large number of floats, but the data were bad enough, so that when I tossed them, most of the cooling went away.

The digging led him to the data from the expendable temperature sensors, the XBTs. A month before, Willis had seen a paper by Viktor Gouretski and Peter Koltermann that showed a comparison of XBT data collected over the past few decades to temperatures obtained in the same ocean areas by more accurate techniques, such as bottled water samples collected during research cruises. Compared to more accurate observations, the XBTs were too warm. The problem was more pronounced at some points in time than others.

The Gouretski paper hadn’t rung any alarm bells right away, explains Willis, “because I knew from the earlier analysis that there was a big cooling signal in Argo all by itself. It was there even if I didn’t use the XBT data. That’s part of the reason that we thought it was real in the first place,” explains Willis.

“So the new Argo data were too cold, and the older XBT data were too warm, and together, they made it seem like the ocean had cooled,” says Willis. The February evening he discovered the mistake, he says, is “burned into my memory.” He was supposed to fly to Colorado that weekend to give a talk on “ocean cooling” to prominent climate researchers. Instead, he’d be talking about how it was all a mistake.

Note the lack of a conspiracy - he was ready to give a talk saying his data showed ocean cooling until he realized he had bad data.

So the article you cite uses data that the source of the data says is bad. What were you saying about people that cite known bad data?

0

seeuski 3 years, 5 months ago

Come on Scott, You keep trotting out these youthful idiots like Josh Willis who is a part of the scam and on the dole. The only confirmed BAD data was used by Al Gore and the IPCC in the so called "settled science". East Anglian Climategate has ruined all credibility from those like Willis. What you talkin bout Willis? Now go out and enjoy the snow caused by your global warming.

And I was ready to talk about some things too but saw that the air temps changed and I had to cancel. Haha. I got a laugh at that one, that proves this trolls credibility, YEA right.

0

seeuski 3 years, 5 months ago

Final thoughts on this one Scott, Our differences are this, I believe that climate change is a permanent natural occurrence and you seem to accept the ideology that man is causing the climate to heat up or cool down or have hurricanes or anything else that happens and has happened before in nature. I sadly feel that you and those that go along with that are nothing more than pawns being manipulated by global elitists like George Soros and Maurice Strong to achieve their goals of global governance. I, and I hope most others, see through this scam and will stand against the loss of our freedoms to it.

0

hereandthere 3 years, 5 months ago

What exactly is "global governance". Some kind of strange plot devised by Goldfinger? Or perhaps Mini Me?

0

Scott Wedel 3 years, 5 months ago

Sees, Youthuful idiot??? Read your own article. According to the article that you cite, Willis is the guy in charge of Argo that gathered the Argo data that your guy cites as showing there is ocean cooling.

My final thoughts on the issue is that it is a relatively easy calculation that no one disputes that the earth would be around -40F if there was no heating from greenhouse gases. So why anyone thinks we can go from 180 ppm to 300 ppm currently and on a path to 400 ppm without having any effect defies common sense. Why anyone would be willing to bet so much that there will be no effect is foolhardy. Oops, sorry US ag, you now get 10% less yield. Oops, sorry Florida, shouldn't have built so much so close to sea level. Awfully expensive bet to lose.

0

seeuski 3 years, 5 months ago

Sorry Scott, I can explain, or better yet, this may explain why the youthful scientist challenged the ocean temp data.

"PASADENA, Calif. - Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., has been honored by President Barack Obama with the 2009 Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers. The award is the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. government on young professionals in the early stages of their independent research careers." (early stages of their careers) http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-108 "Willis uses satellite data as well as data collected at sea to study the impact of global warming on the ocean. His studies of ocean warming and sea level rise have been widely used by colleagues around the world and were cited in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That report shared the 2007 Nobel Peace prize with Vice President Al Gore. Willis frequently lectures to the public and works with students to educate them about climate change issues and human impacts on global warming."

So lets see what else Willis says: "Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in charge of the Argo data, said in March 2008: "There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant"." The obvious conflict of interest is astounding here Scott. This guy floats his new data collectors on the surface? And calls it global warming. You trust this "youthful scientist" who recently won an award from Obama for claiming the data indicates what Obama wants? Global warming.

This is similar to the head of the CBO, Elmendorf, who claimed that the Obamacare bill would increase costs and then Obama called him into the Oval Office and presto chango, the data was changed in Obama's favor. That dog won't hunt, and also CO2 is necessary for plant life and global warming in past centuries produced those facts.

0

seeuski 3 years, 5 months ago

@hereandthere

use google for yourself on global governance and George Soros, that way you won't have to say my sources are flawed, they'll be yours.

0

Scott Wedel 3 years, 5 months ago

Sees, What did the articles say? That in early 2008 that the initial data from Argo showed that the oceans were slightly cooling. There was no attempt to hide or cover it up because it was thought to be the best data they had available. There are enough other observed effects such as glaciers melting that all the ocean cooling would have meant is yet another challenge to try to understand all of the dynamics of climate change.

But then later in 2008 that Willis compared readings from a few Argo sensors and found those few were reading colder than other measurements in that area at that time. And those other measurements were agreeing with Argo sensors elsewhere so he had a handful of bad sensors. When he removed (or adjusted for them) then the data no longer showed significant ocean cooling. When he used the same technique on older sensor data he found those tended to be slightly warm. Thus, by using other people's more precise measurements in the same area at the same at sensors, he was able to calibrate the sensors to be more accurate and the net result is that the oceans are not cooling. Note that Willis did not have to say all Argo sensors were bad to make the data say the oceans were not cooling, just a few. So if the oceans were really cooling then it'd be showing up across the board, not just a handful of sensors.

But to you that is proof of a conspiracy. So be it. I think this blog is a perfect example of what a denier has to ignore and think is essential. It is obvious that nothing could convince you because anything that would cause you to question your beliefs is the result of a conspiracy. Takes a special sort of mental process to cite a guy that says that the Argo guy Willis has this data and then when Willis finds a few bad sensors then Willis is part of the conspiracy.

But, whether or not the oceans are cooling, whether or not this year is warmer or cooler than last year, does not matter. Because it is foolhardy to the extreme to think that we can double or triple the concentrations of a greenhouse gas without it having an effect. It'd be just as easy for a denier to pull out data and deny quantum mechanics. The reason we don't hear people making that claim is because there isn't big money with a political interest in trying to confuse the public and politicians on quantum mechanics as there is for climate change.

And East Angila was not shown to be a fraud or such. Two independent reviews found no academic fraud and that their data was similar to other data. But once again, the only part of the story you believe are emails taken out of context, but not the independent reviews.

As said, no hope of convincing you. Only point of responding is to prevent other people from being able to credibly suggest you are right.

0

seeuski 3 years, 5 months ago

Scott, You are fully in the tank. The East Anglia U provided the results of a self administered investigation. Josh Willis is a member of the find the warming data community, and after the proof of the global warming conspiracy and then the name enhancement to "climate change" you want me to accept that the new revamped data samples provided by Willis, the Obama global warming achievement recipient, that have been changed by him to show a warming trend are true? If by Al Gores calculation several years ago that the oceans would rise 20' wouldn't we be seeing at least a substantial change or evidence by some major rising by now? I mean that photo of the Polar Bear riding the last bit of ice sure scared the heck out of the children, and now Nissan has a warm and fuzzy commercial of that last Polar Bear coming on land and finding the proud new owner of the battery powered car so he can wrap his cute little Polar Bear claws around him and hug him for saving the planet. Sorry, I have seen to much contrary evidence along with the fraud to find myself in your predicament of faith that we are doomed. The only reason our food supply will lesson,as you threatened earlier, is by Government manipulation via several acts one of which we saw play out in California when this Administration cut off the water to farmers for the sake of some minnows. You can't provide true data because there has been none except that which has been manipulated for one purpose, so I can't and won't be a follower of your faith on this, sorry again.

0

hereandthere 3 years, 5 months ago

Actually See, I am not worried about "global governance" taking my freedoms away. Ironic, but it is you that I have to fight for my freedom to use pot, not George Soros. That 800 pound gorrilla in the room is named hypocracy.

0

trump_suit 3 years, 5 months ago

So I guess we can call this "Cool Gate"?

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-21-climate-report-questioned_N.htm

Seems as though there might be some underhanded deeds here don't you think See? You should be all over this, it looks just like one of your favorite conspiracies except that it did not come from Glen Beck.

0

blue_spruce 3 years, 5 months ago

fact : oil companies, the best example of "big money" that there is, have an undisputed political / economic interest in trying to convince the american people and the world that global warming does not exist.

there are trillions of $$ at stake for these companies.

now, on which side of this issue is there a "conspiracy" going on?

0

seeuski 3 years, 5 months ago

What a bunch of loonacy. Hey blue_spruce dig this fact: BP and Shell are in on this climate change hoax because they stand to make huge money off of you and me while they drill for oil in other Countries also partly funded by you and me from our POTUS,George Soros' puppet Obama. http://www.larouchepac.com/node/14810 And there are other sources, including these groups own websites to back up these dealings. "BP has more Democratic lobbyists than Republicans. It employs the Podesta Group, co-founded by John Podesta, Obama’s transition director and confidant." http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/Opinion_Editorial/BP_OBAMA_BOTH_PUSHING_CLIMATE_LEGISLATION/31037

Lets see, John Podesta who runs "The Center for American Progressives" and is one of many George Soros funded globalist groups, no nothing to see here fellas, back to your pipes.

I continue to feel sorry for those of you who really do care about our environment but are being used by global profiteers as pawns in this money and power grab. We all will suffer a future of dread at what may transpire unless YOU people open your eyes. @hearandthere, smoke all the dope you want, I don't care about you're pot habits personally, just the cartels that use profits from illicit drugs and kill people. I have said it before for anyone who wasn't listening like "hearandthere", If the public votes to legalize pot then so be it, as of this moment it isn't so I abide by the law. Thank you, thank you.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.