New model says more snow at poles, less elsewhere due to CO2

From Princeton and the I haven’t looked out the window lately department:

Forecast is for more snow in polar regions, less for the rest of us (Journal of Climate) Posted on February 22, 2013

Snowfall_figure

A new cli­mate model pre­dicts declines in snow­fall in the U.S. over the next 70 years. Source: GFDL Click on image to enlarge.

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.

Read the abstract.

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Sean

More junk science from climate modelers.

old construction worker

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.

phlogiston

“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?

Jimbo

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.

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/

John Bell

“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?

Latitude

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………………..

Louis

“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 !

Mushroom George

…and the impact on sea level?

Jimbo

More duplicitous horse shit.

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.

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.

clipe
David

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.

Rob Dawg

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.

geran

April 1st comes early this year.
Due to CO2, of course….

Louis

“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

Joe

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???

DaveG

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!

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead in Cowburg

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.

clipe

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

Dave

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.

Louis

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.

OssQss

Ha, wait till round 2 in the US again next week. The arctic snow keeps coming to a state near you, and its not Alaska (*¿*)

Kajajuk

oh goody a new model and fresh speculation how spectacular!

Michael Tremblay

This model fails – it doesn’t reflect the expected results when you look at the observations taken in the past. A Canadian study of temperatures in the Northwest Territory, at Inuvik, Fort Smith, Yellowknife, and Norman Wells, over the period from 1958 to 2005 shows the annual average temperatures have increased about 2.5C – Precipitation, on an annual basis, in the same areas has declined anywhere from 5.5 mm at Fort Smith to 86.3 mm at Norman Wells. ( http://nwtclimatechange.ca/nwtclimatechange/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Climate-Change-in-the-Northwest-Territories-Mar-2009.pdf ) A model which can not duplicate conditions we have already experienced is useless at predicting future events.

noaaprogrammer

Well I guess more snow in the mountains means that glaciers will start growing again. And if the north polar regions get more snow, continental ice sheets may start to grow – all due to global warming! Now they have all their bases completely covered – global warming causes global cooling.

Well, I guess that fear of less water due to snowfall collides with warmist’s prediction of more
rainfall. And doesn’t warming of an area always result in less snowfall and more rain? I boldly predict that when Minnesota’s average winter temperature hits 60 degrees, it will get very little snow.

According to Environment Canada, there is less snow in the arctic due to increased CO2:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/11/05/environment-canada-study-snow-pack.html

Kajajuk

“Despite rising CO2 levels, global temperatures have remained flat over the past 17 years.”
This is not necessarily as strong a statement as it might appear. An increase in net energy in a semi-closed system that doesn’t change the overall temperature may just mean that whatever heat-sink system of the Earth has been activated and temperature shall remain constant until that sink is overloaded and warming continues or another sink system is activated (or both).
Consider boiling ice. The systems stays at around 0 centigrade until all the ice is melted, then the temperature raises in response to the forcing and then remains constant at around 100 until all the water is steam…

So what’s the new model’s predictions for rainfall? Or can it only handle one kind of precipitation?
I also note a severe lack of specificity as to how much less, how much more,per degree of warming? J And that brings up the central issue, which is yet to be satisfactorily resolved : climate sensitivity.

Dave says:
February 22, 2013 at 5:37 pm
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.

Yep! That’s the trigger for the next glaciation. If snowfall exceeds melt in the land areas surrounding the Arctic we are on our way. But fear not. Those climate engineering space mirrors designed to cool the Earth can be turned around and used to melt the accumulated snow.

Kajajuk

It is my understanding that Antarctica (and a lesser extent the Arctic) is a desert with little to no precipitation. The build up of ice is due to sublimation of water vapour on existing ice. I am confused again, or still i am not sure if that isn’t confusing still more.
I am also confused that the prophetic models did not include the topography of the Earth into account. It would be nice if these important soothsaying models where released for public scrutiny,
But i guess that would not be scientific efficacy for the uninitiated. (sarc)

Mooloo

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.
Not if that snow is falling as rain. Or is that “the wrong type” of precipitation?

“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
##############
no models are perfect. even models built to predict how a plane will fly before its even built.
if you look at previous climate model results you can see the areas where topography needed to be improved. One of the issues with models was resolution. You get good global results, but regional skill is spotty. Or you did well on temps and lousy on precipitation.
Kinda like early models that predicted how planes would fly and wings would work. Some cases solve easy.. others not so easy. Luckily smart folks dont give up just because results are not perfect.
Let do a simple example for you.
You probably have a trip computer in your car. Based on the gas in your tank, and your past miles per gallon, the model predicts : 126 DTE. Distance to empty. we put the same thing in fighter aircraft a long time ago. called “bingo fuel” It starts out as a simple model and gets refined.
Its always wrong but strangely enough, wonder of wonders, it saves lives. So, your car computer tells you that you have 126 miles before your tank is empty.
Does that model know about the Hill ahead? about the headwind you will face when you turn south in 36 miles. Nope. would it be more useful if it did? probably, but its still useful. All models, all physics is wrong. but some of it is useful.

North of 43 and south of 44

Latitude says:
February 22, 2013 at 4:54 pm
A small snip …
Three Bears………………..
___________________________________________________________________________
The Bears are innocent leave them out of the discussion.
The modelers however need to look out the windows more often.

“From the I haven’t looked out the window lately department”
Brilliant.
—–
Louis refers to “More snow at the polls“. Yes indeed, it’s election year in Oz and the government will be doing a massive snow job. [Sorry, Louis, I couldn’t help it.]

Kajajuk

Excellent statement!
A model which can not duplicate conditions we have already experienced is useless at predicting future events.

SAMURAI

What I love about CAGW grant whores is that the more diverse the various scenarios proposed in a plethora of papers, the more likely one of them may reflect a particular phenomenon being experienced at any given time.
Snowfall increasing? “No problem, here’s the paper predicting that.” Less snowfall? “No problemo, here’s the paper.” Less rainfall? “We explained that with this paper.” More rainfall? That was addressed in this paper.” Lack of warming? “It’s buried in the deep oceans, here’s the paper explaining that.”, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum….
It’s hilarious! It’s like trying to nail Mercury to the wall; a theory seemingly impossible to invalidate…. That’s not science, that’s chicanery.
The IPCC is simply getting desperate as their CAGW theory is in tatters. They’re at the bargaining stage of acceptance, soon to followed by depression and ultimately defeat.
Time, people…just time…. They’ll soon destroy themselves, as is the fate for all despots.

eck

Oh, G…d, please let us taxpayers stop funding of these so-called models – they’re mostly worthless.

eck

Mike Bromley: You’ve got it!! May I have your permission to copy this statement in the future? It’s just captured 1000nds of junk “studies” perfectly.

John F. Hultquist

From the weather model is not a climate model is not fully developed comes this astounding result of a model run:
February 22, 2013 Friday evening into Saturday morning
Snoqualmie Pass WA — 47.43°N 121.41°W (Elev. 3086 ft)
Snow showers. Low around 25. West wind 17 to 20 mph.
Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Total nighttime snow accumulation of 6 to 10 inches possible.

Thanks, Global Warming, we need the snow for irrigation water. Locally the water goes into hay that goes to Asia and the mid-East, there passing through the animals (cows, horses, camels), into the ground, back into the atmosphere, and back to the Cascade snow pack. The water goes out to the rest of the world in large containers (big ships), sort of slow, but comes back in streams of the atmosphere. A bit faster.
Program the round trip into your models for improved versions.

FrankK

Another never-ending offal sausage ejaculated from a climate model-grinding machine. When will this ever cease? It’s becoming a total joke. Don’t these d…heads realize their reputations are just being shredded?

Neill

Steven Mosher says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm
How about the model that tells you that the car you are driving, because it emits CO2, will incinerate at a certain raised level of CO2 emitted? So there’s a model predicting this, though it has NEVER been established that the ‘climate’ of your car has one — or the other — sensitivity to a raised CO2 level — that would lead to said car incineration. On the other hand, it HAS been established that when the level of gas in your tank lowers to a certain level, your car will cease operating.

FrankK

Steven Mosher says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm
………………………………………………….
Let do a simple example for you.
You probably have a trip computer in your car. Based on the gas in your tank, and your past miles per gallon, the model predicts : 126 DTE. Distance to empty. we put the same thing in fighter aircraft a long time ago. called “bingo fuel” It starts out as a simple model and gets refined.
Its always wrong but strangely enough, wonder of wonders, it saves lives. So, your car computer tells you that you have 126 miles before your tank is empty.
Does that model know about the Hill ahead? about the headwind you will face when you turn south in 36 miles. Nope. would it be more useful if it did? probably, but its still useful. All models, all physics is wrong. but some of it is useful.
——————————————————————————————————–
Great Scott !!- this is the sort of argument my 12 year old comes up with. What a load of naive rubbish.!! Mr Mesher has finally revealed how his synapses are connected.
Mr Mesher all climate models are useless! don’t kid yourself.

Werner Brozek

Kajajuk says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:22 pm
An increase in net energy in a semi-closed system that doesn’t change the overall temperature may just mean that whatever heat-sink system of the Earth has been activated and temperature shall remain constant until that sink is overloaded and warming continues or another sink system is activated (or both).
So let us suppose the heat sink is the deep ocean where the temperature is about 3.0 C. When will it get overloaded?

Kajajuk (at 6:22 pm) said: “Consider boiling ice. The systems stays at around 0 centigrade until all the ice is melted, then the temperature raises in response to the forcing and then remains constant at around 100 until all the water is steam…”
Damn! Here I was, all set to go off to bed for a good night’s sleep, and now you have me all scared and quaking at the thought that there may be some sort of natural “heat sink” that will eventually become saturated and then “we’re all gonna die!” Quite the pathetic statement, that.
Pu-leez.

Mark Bofill

Steven Mosher says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm
———————-
I completely agree with you Steven. I think pursuing the models are worthwhile even if they aren’t of much use today. Maybe if we keep at it someday they’ll be more useful. However, I think this misses the point. What drives everybody insane IMO is that these models aren’t viewed as grossly imperfect tools that have a long way to go. Results from climate models are being used to justify policy changes that have a very real and severe impact on people as if they were already accurate today. This doesn’t change the truth of what you’re saying, but still leaves people with a pretty darn hostile attitude about climate models. Well, does for me anyways.