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.
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 (*¿*)
oh goody a new model and fresh speculation how spectacular!
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.
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
“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.
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)
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.
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.]
Excellent statement!
A model which can not duplicate conditions we have already experienced is useless at predicting future events.
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.
Oh, G…d, please let us taxpayers stop funding of these so-called models – they’re mostly worthless.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.