You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Mon, Feb 21, 2011 : 5:37 p.m.

2010-2011 season the eighth snowiest on record so far for Ann Arbor area

By Juliana Keeping


University of Michigan student Nikita Landrum clears off her car, parked on Thompson Street, to run some errands Monday morning during a break from class.

Melanie Maxwell |

This snow season is the eighth snowiest so far for the region since 1880, according to Dennis Kahlbaum, weather observer for the University of Michigan. So far, the Ann Arbor area has received 54.3 inches of snow, compared to an average year of 38.9 inches for this point in the year.

About 51 inches of snow falls during an average snow season in and around Ann Arbor.

The total accumulation this year is creeping up on recent records for total snowfall in a year, but Mother Nature still has a way to go to beat the last record of 89.8 inches, set in 2008.

It could happen.

“We’re way above normal,” Kahlbaum said, explaining that meteorologists track snow on a June-to-July cycle.

And more snow could be on the way today.

Following 9.5 inches that came down locally between Sunday afternoon and this morning, the National Weather Service reported that up to 2 inches of snow could fall this afternoon in Washtenaw and Wayne counties — just in time for the afternoon commute.

A Washtenaw County dispatcher said at 4:30 that there had been a few minor accidents but nothing serious.

Meanwhile in Ann Arbor, trucks mobilized to clear the roads, and crews will be working overnight.

A city staffer who answered Ann Arbor’s “Snow Desk” said 94 miles of major streets were cleared as of 4 p.m. Monday. Now, snow plows will work to clear 200 miles of residential streets, starting with those scheduled for Tuesday trash pickup.

Ann Arbor residents with questions about snow removal can call 734-794-6367 or visit the city's snow removal website.

How was your commute following the winter storm? Are you steeling your nerves for the ride home? Leave a comment below.

Juliana Keeping is a health and environment reporter for Reach her at or 734-623-2528. Follow Juliana Keeping on Twitter


Dog Guy

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 8:35 p.m.

For those new to Ann Arbor, I can explain that "SCIENCE" and "scientific" are short forms of the mantra "Om Namah Science". It may be chanted while awaiting enlightenment or while shoveling snow.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 4:15 p.m.

jcj wrote: "This is what consensus will get you! Put butter on a burn . . . " Yes, all of those things were, at one time, "consensus." And the consensus changed when SCIENCE proved them wrong. And just as there are people who continue to believe the old wives' tales that you cite despite scientific evidence that they are wrong and oftentimes provoke harmful behaviors, the climate change deniers continue to denigrate the findings of climate change science to the detriment of us all. Good Night and Good Luck

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 8:51 p.m.

That's your best example? Vaccines and autism? The ONLY study linking autism and childhood vaccines was a fraud: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> But let's suppose, for argument's sake, that the science of climate change is not as settled as it appears to be. Let's supposes there's a 50-50 chance that it's correct. I carry auto and homeowner's insurance despite the fact that there little chance that something will happen to my home or to my car. I pay for insurance to INSURE against the chance that I might be harmed in ways I don't expect. And the chances of my house burning down and/or of my being in an auto accident is well under the 50% I have allowed for my hypothetical, yet I nevertheless carry insurance. So, in my hypothetical, where there is a 50% chance that GW is happening, does it not make sense to take out &quot;insurance&quot;, in this case the &quot;insurance&quot; being an effort to change our lifestyles so as to reduce carbon emissions? Or are you willing to play Russian Roulette with that 50% chance? But, as I said, the 50% is hypothetical. There are only a very small number of climate scientists who dispute the findings of the vast majority. So we're not betting on a 50% game. You want us to bet on a 5% game, or worse. Me? I want insurance, and I want insurance for my children, for my grandchildren, and for my great grandchildren. If we buy the insurance but didn't need it, they'll never know the difference. But if we needed the insurance and refused to purchase the policy, they will inherit a planet that will be increasingly inhospitable to human life And, yes, science gets things wrong, though your autism example actually argues not. But the evidence here is so overwhelming, and the consequences of doing nothing are so dire, that it is foolishness in the extreme not to &quot;buy insurance&quot;. Good Night and Good Luck


Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 8:02 p.m.

One example would be childhood vaccines. Which group of &quot;scientist&quot; do we believe? The ones that say they do not cause autism or the one that say they do cause autism? We have the same differing opinions from &quot;scientist&quot; about global warming. My point is that what we thought we KNEW 10-30 years ago is in many cases different from what we KNOW now. Just as what we KNOW now will be different than what we know 30 years from now. I am not saying global warming is a hoax but they could be wrong! And just because Al Gore gets rich promoting it does not mean it is true or false.


Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 7:40 p.m.

While I agree that most if what I cited were wives tales. I don't think you will deny that some of the &quot;science&quot; of 1980 (when we all thought we were so enlightened) has now been debunked. I will try to cite examples.

Stephen Landes

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 3:25 p.m.

Juliana Keeping: Your article is en example of one that would most benefit from inclusion of data in a table. It is not particularly enlightening to provide some information in text format when you apparently know much more. Why not a table showing what the ten snowiest winters were with amounts and dates? If you don't want to create the table yourself how about inserting an image of an existing table or a link to the data table? There seems to be some &quot;global warming&quot; discussion at least in the comments section. Having a table of data showing dates of these heavy snowfall years could add to the discussion.

Lynn Glazewski

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 3:16 p.m.

I can't believe how bad the main roads still were this morning Tuesday at 8:30 AM. Plymouth was icy, and old Ford Rd as well. Even main Ford Rd was icy until I got all the way to Canton city limits, where it was salted and just wet.


Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 2:31 p.m.

This is what consensus will get you! Put butter on a burn Put Mercurochrome on a cut When a child swallows anything that's poisonous give them ipecac syrup Put a tourniquet on a cut Chocolate will give you ACNE Wait an hour after EATING before swimming If you touch a frog or toad, you'll get WARTS These were all consensuses at one time. BUT they are all wrong! Plows are now in the Maple/Dexter area as of 9:30 am

Bertha Venation

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 4:50 p.m.

YEA! I hope they hit Evergreen Subdivision. My little old Mom has been trapped inside her house for days.

Hot Dice

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 6:54 a.m.

The preponderance of belief among scientists of the appropriate authority and credibility is that human activity is influencing climate change to a degree that when measured against models of previous planetary warming behavior is significant. However, if someone is asserting that this absolutely proves anything, they are clearly not a scientist -- falsifiability remains a critical element of all scientific theory. I offer this as an open question for debate: If a large amount of evidence suggests a potentially catastrophic outcome, and if certain actions might mitigate that outcome, is it not prudent to take those actions even if it is not necessarily the case that the catastrophic outcome would be realized through inaction? To go further, by what measure of quantity or quality could we conclude that inaction would be the most appropriate course, given that the consequence of inaction could be catastrophic? Should it be the cost of action? The percentage of models that suggest the possibility of a catastrophic consequence resulting from inaction? Which corporations, political figures or interest groups stand to benefit or lose from either action or inaction? If you reject ALL science that suggests something other than what you already believe, this entire line of questioning might seem offensive to you, but I urge you to consider it for the sake of debate (your true and certain thoughts will forgive you).

David Briegel

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 4:27 a.m.

Shep, You just won't tell us how more carbon is better? LOL. Al Gore's gone, didn't anyone tell you? LOL Maybe you could review &quot;Idiot America, How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free&quot;? Kafkaland deserves a response.


Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 4:03 a.m.

If the &quot;science is settled&quot; by consensus on global warming, why are we wasting a penny of the country's money on research grants to prove global warming? Time to save a few bucks on science that's reached perfection.

Kai Petainen

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 4:01 a.m.

wow. sweet!


Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 3:49 a.m.

Always amusing to see human controlled global weather hustlers demanding evidence anything or accusing others of conspiracies!! LOL Lets take another "scientific poll" so we know what we "believe" today! Oh the irony. Starting in the 12th century, we've had this thing scientific method – heard of it? Oh, I forgot - the "debate is over"!! LOL Who declared that in 2004? …they took it down from the web so Google probably won't help - how embarrassing for you. As for the cult's CO2 sect who &quot;believe&quot; the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere dictates the planet's temperature, we have a surprise! Our president agrees with you! With the help of his eco radical Tzar's handy advice, he also "believes" that American consumers not only "contribute" to CO2, but control the earth's weather and wants to do &quot;something&quot; about it!! That's right – the basis of Cap and Tax, contrary to even the most eco hysteric fake science out there at East Anglia, if energy prices rise high enough, Al Gore makes enough profit hustling energy credits and you can't afford to heat your home or drive your car, then the earth will get colder!!?? Change you can believe in!! LOL

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 1:53 p.m.

Wow. Proof that it is impossible to respond logically to run-on sentences and to random angry thoughts. Good Night and Good Luck

say it plain

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 4:30 a.m.

Oy, this is getting into the realm of hysteria, pulease, take the cue from the weather and chill on the programmatic stuff maybe. CO2 'sects'? Really?!


Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 3:37 a.m.

Hmmmm... 294 miles of roads to clear and the city only has 13 dump-trucks and a few pick-ups with plows (according to one of the other articles on this site about the storm) - sounds like city hall is a few trucks short of a full load. Perhaps we could drag the Folly Fountain down to one of the local pawn shops, and maybe get enough money to buy a few more!! After all, WE paid almost a million bucks for that piece of junk, so it must be worth at least half that! (Ya think!?) ... And while we're at it we could see how much they'll give us for the mayor and council!! DARN! - only enough for a Tonka Toy dump truck?! Yup, that's about their speed, ya gotta admit.

Bertha Venation

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.



Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 12:49 a.m.

Another good use for CO2 is that when (not if) you have a panic attack at the realization that man-made global warming is a hoax, simply breath into a paper bag and you'll rebalance your body's need for carbon dioxide and all will be calm again.


Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 12:08 a.m.

Actually, greenhouses pump extra carbon dioxide into them to increase plant growth. I'll bet some of the healthful veggies you eat have had their growth enhanced with extra CO2. Same with forests and flowers. The concentration of CO2 in greenhouses treated this way is measured in several thousand parts per milllion. No harm to the workers only better growth rates.

John B.

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 12:07 a.m.

Once again, as always, this weather is *exactly* what you get from global climate change: more extreme events in more locations. More '100-year' floods, more droughts, more significant snowstorms (in places like Atlanta!), more everything that is out-of-the-ordinary. It absolutely *does not* mean that it's always warmer now than it was last year at every point (or any point) on the planet.

Macabre Sunset

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 12:30 a.m.

And Al Gore promised us immediate super-hurricanes. Please save the cultist nonsense for those who are already converted.

David Briegel

Mon, Feb 21, 2011 : 11:55 p.m.

Isn't it pathetic that the only response that makes any sense is Kafkaland! And the results are devastating to the Arctic and glaciers. Shep, please explain the &quot;benefits&quot; of more man made carbon dioxide. Is it carbon based health food? And I feel certain that will clarify the July -Jun &quot;cycle&quot;.


Mon, Feb 21, 2011 : 11:43 p.m.

Global warming means first and foremost increased water evaporation from the oceans, which in turn means more precipitation, hence more snow.


Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 4:25 a.m.

If this is global warming, I want out. What I want explained is why we could grow crops in Greenland 500 years ago that will not grow there today? I have yet to have a scientist address that and other clear indicators of warmer weather in the recorded past. I remember Global Cooling was all the rage in the 1970's, then Global Warming in the 2000-0008, now Climate Change. I guess the scientists have decided they don't know which way it is going, so climate change it is.

Macabre Sunset

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 12:28 a.m.

Long-term average. Saying this has anything to do with global warming, as proof one way or the other, is the height of idiocy. It's too bad global warming has become a political issue. That ensures we will not handle it correctly or intelligently.


Mon, Feb 21, 2011 : 11:43 p.m.

Looking on the back page of Wednesday's printed newspaper, there in black and white was another example of why the Ann Arbor News is no longer with us. Another conscious disregard for ethics in favor of a nonsensical leftist liberal democrat &quot;campaign&quot;. Regardless of the final nail in the "human controlled global weather" fraud, Climategate, it appears that Ann Arbor dot com's editorial staff will continue the nonsense as we experience one of the coldest, snowiest winters in recent memory. They've printed what is closer to an anonymous wedding announcement then a scientific article. I'm referring to a column that breathlessly &quot;announced" that un-named parties from un-named countries have completed an un-named "study" that has sort of proven (but not really with proof) that heavy rain, snow, hot or cold is all due to "human controlled global warming" and Al Gore was right all along. ….strike that! Due to actual weather, the "Global Warming Fraud" (GWF) has now been re-branded to the "Climate Change Fraud" (CCF). Those among the national press suggesting this "belief" is continuing to devolve into a desperate, pathetic, cult are exactly on track.


Wed, Feb 23, 2011 : 1:37 a.m.

You worship at Al Gore's alter (located in a bank vault near you) yet you are concerned about &quot;facts&quot;? LOL I wonder what about the global warming fraud you think is a fact? ...and by the way, the earth's climate has always changed - you might as well believe in global ocean tides. The issue that confuses so many is Obama's laughable claim that American consumers control the earth's weather based on what they buy or can't afford. Before you disagree with me, you might figure out where your own faith lies.... LOL


Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 1:43 p.m.

Wow. So many &quot;nudges&quot; in your sarcastic, and yet strangely fact-free, post that my ribs hurt. I really do not understand why people, unless they're politicians who are in the bag for corporate interests, so vehemently and angrily deny the simple, incontrovertible facts about climate change.


Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 5:26 a.m.

1. I know your anecdotal evidence for what happeens in Ann Arbor is what happens with GLOBAL warming. 2. If conservative papers are so blessed why is Ruport Murdoch losing money too? Or could it be the business model for newspapers need to change regardless of ideology 3. Climate change has been proven. The debate is over. In fact, I challenge you to sit in your garage with the car running and tell me emissions from an automobile are not dangerous to humans or any living organisms. 4. You do not have to believe science. You can believe that evolution is not real, the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth. That is your choice. It does not change facts.

say it plain

Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 1:24 a.m.

yah, and we know who &quot;among the national press&quot; you refer to, so we can take the strangely mutually contradictory references to both a grand conspiracy to promote the idea that we might be changing our planet via industrial pollution and environmental destruction and also to the 'belief' in climate-change as the focus of a desperate cult with a grain of ice-melting salt ;-)


Mon, Feb 21, 2011 : 11:30 p.m.

Thanks God for Global Warming! Imagine how much worse our winter would be without human caused global warming.


Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 3:04 p.m.

Have not checked the validity of this message. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable. I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 . As reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 88 years ago!


Mon, Feb 21, 2011 : 11:28 p.m.

I think this article left me less knowledgeable about how snow records are kept than when I started. First, how can there be such a thing as a standard, annual &quot;June-to-July cycle&quot;? 13 or 14 months does not a year make. If it is a 13 month overlapping cycle, that can't be true for everywhere in the US. Even though Michigan doesn't get snow in the summer months, there are certainly places like Alaska and Wyoming that do, and you'd end up overestimating the annual snowfall if you tracked it that way. That aside, does the &quot;2008&quot; record refer to the time period June 2007 to July 2008, or June 2008 to July 2009? Finally, this isn't's fault, but am I the only one that's a bit disappointed that the best information our local newspaper can get about snow clearing is a one-sentence quote from some random &quot;city staffer who answered Ann Arbor's &quot;Snow Desk&quot;&quot;? And it would be nice if the city's snow clearing page could be updated with a legible map that's not 12 years old...