Forecast is for more snow in polar regions, less for the rest of us (Journal of Climate) Posted on February 22, 2013
By Catherine Zandonella, Office of the Dean for Research
A new climate model predicts an increase in snowfall for the Earth’s polar regions and highest altitudes, but an overall drop in snowfall for the globe, as carbon dioxide levels rise over the next century.
The decline in snowfall could spell trouble for regions such as the western United States that rely on snowmelt as a source of fresh water.
The projections are the result of a new climate model developed at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) and analyzed by scientists at GFDL and Princeton University. The study was published in the Journal of Climate.
The model indicates that the majority of the planet would experience less snowfall as a result of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Observations show that atmospheric carbon dioxide has already increased by 40 percent from values in the mid-19th century, and, given projected trends, could exceed twice those values later this century. In North America, the greatest reductions in snowfall will occur along the northeast coast, in the mountainous west, and in the Pacific Northwest. Coastal regions from Virginia to Maine, as well as coastal Oregon and Washington, will get less than half the amount of snow currently received.
In very cold regions of the globe, however, snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture, leading to increased precipitation in the form of snow. The researchers found that regions in and around the Arctic and Antarctica will get more snow than they now receive.
The highest mountain peaks in the northwestern Himalayas, the Andes and the Yukon region will also receive greater amounts of snowfall after carbon dioxide doubles. This finding clashes with other models which predicted declines in snowfall for these high-altitude regions. However, the new model’s prediction is consistent with current snowfall observations in these regions.
The model is an improvement over previous models in that it utilizes greater detail about the world’s topography – the mountains, valleys and other features. This new “high-resolution” model is analogous to having a high-definition model of the planet’s climate instead of a blurred picture.
The study was conducted by Sarah Kapnick, a postdoctoral research scientist in the Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at Princeton University and jointly affiliated with NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, and Thomas Delworth, senior physical scientist at GFDL.
Read a plain-language summary of the article on GFDL’s web site.
Citation: Kapnick, Sarah B. and Thomas L. Delworth, 2013. Controls of Global Snow Under a Changed Climate. Journal of Climate. Early online release published Feb. 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12–00528.1
This work was supported by the Cooperative Institute for Climate Science, a collaborative institute between Princeton University and GFDL.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More junk science from climate modelers.
Well, the North Pole Region must include the mountains of Arizona, Colorado, Buffalo NY as well as the ski slopes of Vermont.
As I understand global atmospheric physics: the movement of air is from the tropics to the poles at high altitude, dropping down onto the polar areas, sliding from pole to the tropics along the surface of the planet, and then back up again. Cold air in winter comes from the poles, where it has arrived by “falling” planetward, warming by normal adiabatic processes, which means that the air starts out high but colder and denser and at a certain relative humidity, and ends at the ground warmer, less dense (but denser than the air it displaces tropicward) and drier.
So in a warmer world, the air in the poles – still coming from the tropics at high altitude – continues to drop down and warm, dry as before, even if the relative humidity is higher than pre-global warming. The air picks up moisture, as before. As for the Great Lakes effect, this moisture drops out when the air encounters COLDER conditions, cools below the dewpoint, and snow (in winter) falls. Based on fundamentals, if less than dewpoint temperatures are encountered – say, around 0C, whether the final low temperature is -10C or -25C, whatever is excess moisture precipitates.
Unless the climate models say that rising temperatures are going to bring winter temperatures up to dewpoint temperatures, I see FUNDAMENTALLY that dewpoint conditions will be met as we are mostly below dewpoint temperatures for a MOIST air mass during winter. And if the models say that the atmosphere will be more humid in an absolute as well as relative sense, I see MORE snow in a globally warmed world where current winter-quality conditions still exist.
Doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Another climate model? Have these people not grasped the very simple concept that all the previous climate models were wrong?
An infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of keyboards may eventually type out everything that Shakespeare ever wrote. Climate scientists seem to be attempting to try the same logic.
“This too I had foreseen”
The soothsayer, Asterix and the Soothsayer.
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
MORE snow at the poles?
I am growing utterly sick to death of this SCAM. A NEW MODEL for Christ’s sake!
Now, I have been told that declining ice in the Arctic is causing more snow in the UK/. Now more snow in the Arctic. Yet, I was told that less snow in the UK was caused by global warming as well as more snow in the UK caused by global warming. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/snowjobs-are-just-a-thing-of-the-past-er-present/
“However, the new model’s prediction is consistent with current snowfall observations in these regions.”
I love that sentence! Hey, who needs models if we have observations?
first there’s not enough snow in the Arctic, Greenland, Antarctic, glaciers at high altitude and on and on…
…and that’s a bad thing cause we’re all going to die
now there’s going to be more snow at the poles and altitudes….
…and that’s a bad thing cause we’re all going to die
Three Bears………………..
“This finding clashes with other models which predicted declines in snowfall for these high-altitude regions.”
There can be only one explanation for this: Global warming causes climate models to produce erroneous and contradictory results. It also distorts the laws of physics and unravels the very fabric of the space-time continuum.
So we can all relax, then? – That’s a relief…whew\sarc !
…and the impact on sea level?
More duplicitous horse shit.
Look, let me tell you about model clashes and errors of serious concern.
My advice to any scientist who wants to have a good and steady income to go into climate astrology. You just press enter. print, submit to peer review, publish and voila! You are set with your ill gotten gains, you can feed your family in a dishonorable way and still feeeeeeeel you are saving the world with your crap.
Not everyone got the memo.
http://www.680news.com/2013/02/17/blue-mountain-to-invest-10-million-in-new-trails-terrain-and-chairlift/
Funny Northern Japan is not at the poles and they have recieved 5m over the last few days. I guess CO2 has moved Japan. Also The Northeast is having a top 10 snow season and Moscow is having the most snow in a century. All these places being pulled to the poles by a trace gas in the atmosphere.
Most excellent. The science is settled for the next 70 years. There is no need to fund any further research. Right? Right? Crickets.
Despite rising CO2 levels, global temperatures have remained flat over the past 17 years. So where, again, is the link between CO2 and temperature? It doesn’t exist.
Scientific soothsayers like Sarah Kapnick should take a peek out the window every now and then. They might notice that Mother Nature isn’t cooperating with their super-duper (but hopelessly inadequate and often times rigged) climate models.
I wish the hyperventilating Warmist scaremongers would put a sock in it. Their theory of CO2-induced runaway global warming has been discredited seven ways from Sunday by a growing body of skeptical scientists. They should acknowledge their misbegotten beliefs, set their egos aside and salvage what remains of their tattered reputations.
April 1st comes early this year.
Due to CO2, of course….
“The model is an improvement over previous models in that it utilizes greater detail about the world’s topography – the mountains, valleys and other features.”
But that would mean that previous models weren’t perfect. So how did 97% of climate scientists reach a consensus based on models that were all faulty? Is there still room for improvement in the models or have they finally corrected the last possible flaw? /sarc
But, but, but…….
I thought the extra snow we’ve been having in the UK (you know, the stuff we won’t get any more) was now known to be caused by global warming?
Since when is Anglesey in the Arctic circle???
As I expected, a slow moonwalk back from were all goanna die models, from no snow ever again to ……Bla… Bla…. I will bet any warmer especially our local alarmist millionaire David Suzuki That the Coastal mountains above Vancouver, BC will have record amounts of snow in 20 – 30 – 50 or 100 years. Never mind Whistler Mnt just 70 miles away. The mountains get huge dumps like the last 2 years and then slumps, its just weather.
I’m off to ski in bottomless snow tomorrow!
A new [fill in study type here] finds that [fill in climate phenom here] could [state type of change] as CO2 increases. In a warming world, [these kinds of things] may [increase decrease get worse] so [propose weird solution].
NOTHING new here. Saves on actual writing time.
My horoscope for today (New model)
Sometimes, you just have to go on faith. You’re at a crossroads right now — and time is running out. You need to decide which way you’re going soon, and you won’t have the luxury of knowing all the information you want to know about your options. The good news is that you’re in a very solid lucky phase, where your instincts can fill in the blanks and help you take a calculated risk. So even if you’re not completely sure, go in the direction that just feels the most comfortable now.
I’m off to bed. It’s “the direction that just feels the most comfortable now.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/horoscopes/sagittarius
More snow at poles leads to accumulation of several hundred meters of snow at the poles that leads to glaciers that decide to move south (and north) from the poles that leads to another ice age. Global warming = ice age.
Mushroom George says:
…and the impact on sea level?
That is an interesting question. More snow at the polls should result in an increase of ice on Antarctica. That should decrease sea levels or at least slow the rise. More snow for Greenland would have the same effect. But I’m not sure what it means for the Arctic. Would the extra snowfall help keep the ice cap from melting? Or does their new model still predict ice-free summers at the north pole in the future despite more snowfall?
In any case, If the results of this study can be believed, it would allow the world to relax somewhat about the effects of feedbacks on global warming. If more CO2 causes more snow and clouds at the polls, that would be a negative feedback and would argue against the idea of runaway global warming or catastrophic sea level rise.