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.
Kajajuk says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:22 pm
“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).
————————
One of the problems with your argument is that you seem to be operating under the premise that the burden of proof that CO2 doesn’t drive large temperature changes is on the skeptics. It is not. No theoretical account of AGW I’ve ever heard argues what you’re offering in speculation. If you want to argue that position, the burden is on you to support it with details. For skeptics, it’s enough to say, gee, CO2 levels are rising and temperatures have remained flat over the past 17 years; that probably isn’t consistent with the theory of AGW we’ve been presented with.
Ditto on Mark Bofill’s statement! And also, in engineering everybody knows that models, using well known principles of physics, are very useful, to say the least. Current climate models are far from being useful.
Just when you think everyone in this industry is batsheet crazy they come out of the woodwork to offer proof.
New computer model == new best swag != evidence not in line with observation.
How many times does Dr. Pielke (Sr.) have to say it: Multi-decadal regional climate forecasts have no skill.
It doesn’t matter how much topography you add to a model without skill, the revised model still has no skill.
I think we should give the modelers a break. It must be very frustrating for them to be unable to figure out what warming causes without any warming to verify against.
Ditch all funding to anything to do with climate models. Ditch all climate models. Ditch the IPCC and the UN. Every last one of them is leading us deeper into the mire.
Let me see if I can put it another way…
THEY. DON’T. WORK.
Werner Brozek says:
February 22, 2013 at 7:36 pm
So let us suppose the heat sink is the deep ocean where the temperature is about 3.0 C. When will it get overloaded?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Only temporarily when a mass of sufficient water squeezes the magma into the deep oceans, if we are supposing the least likely heat sink.
Sleep well dear Bennett.
We are all going to die. Not likely to be climate related….err…no metal hat wearing in July, though.
LOL!!!
“One of the problems with your argument is that you seem to be operating under the premise that the burden of proof that CO2 doesn’t drive large temperature changes is on the skeptics. It is not.”
Mark Bofill, unfortunately, the triumphant Leftist dominance of the media, the academy and governments DOES mean that the burden of proof is on the skeptics. Ah, for saner days…
I have a list of models which predict next weeks lottery numbers. I have had to produce a few possible scenarios of course but I am sure that one of my 40! / (34! 6!) models is correct.
Msg to climate modellers … your models are crap, keep them and the subsequent opinions to yourselves … when your models can predict ALL PARAMETERS with 95% accuracy you will have earned the right to be listened to. Until then, STFU !
February 22, 2013 at 8:19 pm | davidmhoffer says:
I think we should give the modelers a break. It must be very frustrating for them to be unable to figure out what warming causes without any warming to verify against.
——————
LOL, modellers should give us a break, we’re sick to death of their BS … paid enough taxes and incurred enough long term debt on account of their arrogance and ignorance.
Another half backed study when reading Leroux makes weather and climatology clear and logical…
Sure it’s settled science – it’s settled that modern whiz-bang computer models predict nothing and everything simultaneously…
I’m hoping the information that NASA gave to China is as messed up and confusing as the information we get from NOAA.
This window? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/in-drought-stricken-heartland-snow-is-no-savior.html?nl=afternoonupdate&emc=edit_au_20130222&_r=0
Mark Bofill says:
February 22, 2013 at 7:50 pm
No theoretical account of AGW I’ve ever heard argues what you’re offering in speculation.
If you want to argue that position, the burden is on you to support it with details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It was a postulate, with an analogy. The statement that i quoted was not the result of a strong argument because it is easily rendered not necessarily true by my very simplistic thought experiment. Rest assured that the statement i quoted could still be sufficiently correct. I did not prove or dis-prove anything, only tried to raised reasonable doubt.
OK i will try. Now i know from Monty Python that argument is not mere contradiction so i shall start off with an assumption, albeit a very naughty one hereabouts.
To wit, the Earth is warmed by the sun. This warming is the result of incident radiant energy.from the sun. Consider the Earth is in balance, as a whole, so that the net energy delivered is sufficient to establish a habitat for the lifeforms which exist on this orb. Now for some reason there is an increase in net energy to the system. The average global temperature increases. This increases the surface temperature of the vast oceans on the planet and the atmosphere. This takes a much longer time since the heat capacity of water is much greater than air. The partial pressure of water is greater for warmer air. The evaporation of water requires energy and the condensation releases energy to the air, but the clouds involved reflect sunlight. Meanwhile some of the warming air is moved to regions of accumulated ice and the ice melts, this requires energy too. Water vapour condenses and this releases energy that warms the warmed air and allows for more water to evaporate. The overall effect is to establish the system at a higher energy state like a massive quantum state. The new “quantum” state has a constant average global temperature that is not that much higher than before due the masses of matter involved. The ice region(s) continue to melt, but at a slower rate (possibly? hopefully?). As the water rises and the glacial regions rebound faster. The mass of water sinks the ocean floors. Meanwhile the distribution of mass on the spinning planet is being rearranged and the sun, the moon, and the sloshing water tug on the stability of the system. Earthquakes and volcanoes increase in frequency. Ejecta from the increased volcanism provides aerosols that reflect sunlight and increase water condensation. This would cool the system except that the air is getting warmer and warmer, which allows more water to evaporates…
No doom and gloom, necessarily, just an argument that the conclusions from, “Despite rising CO2 levels, global temperatures have remained flat over the past 17 years” is not necessarily true..
“So where, again, is the link between CO2 and temperature?”, it may be hiding in the complexity of the system you reduced to an average.
The current cold spell in my country should definitely be due to AGW, since the model is a brand new one and hence must certainly be correct. /sarc.
When I last looked at a map the UK was not a polar region. When I looked out of the window for more days this year than for a quarter of a century we have had serious levels of snow by our standards. Why do climate scientists not think to compare their models with reality before releasing them? Do they not think reality matters compared to the elegance of the mathematical tricks used to get the wanted answers?
So we can all relax as cold weather will return to the Poles whilst the rest of the world lives in warmth.
As regards Mosher and the 97%……unbelievable.
In 2002 NASA launched the Aqua Satellite and its first job was to look for hot spots in the Troposphere…none found. In 2004 and with no more warming the IPCC changed Global Warming to Climate Change. An all embracing catch all phrase that they could use for any weather event. This is documented in Climategate…one scientist is even caught saying Global Warming Freezing will not be believed by the media.
The 97% is pure fiction. They evidently only interviewed 77 people and 75 agreed but we don’t know what the question was or how it was put or who these scientists were.
In the real world….and backed up by last weeks survey only 36% believe in AGW…..meaning 64% do not.
As a back up to this the Oregon Petition signed by American scientists opposed to Kyoto has 31,000 signatures amongst them 9,000 with PhDs. All 31,000 have detailed their qualifications.
It should also be noted that the planet has been cooling since the Climatic Optimum……10,000 years ago. Empirical data….real time…real world.
What happens in the Arctic is very little to do with CO2
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Arctic.htm
‘We had some grant money. We need to publish something to get some more’……….
Let me just clarify something, polar regions dont mean the poles. I live in the polar region (northern sweden).
Ahhhh, the Globalists have finally fabricated a study that predicts a pattern of precipitation that enables them to tax and overcharge for water, along with putting heavy restrictions on it.
They were having issues with the logical consequences of warming, that more moisture evaporates into the atmosphere and it rains more. But this, along with the empirical evidence of increased precipitation in many urban areas doesn’t fit their Orwellian world government resource strangulation and crushing of the economies in order to push through their world slave state.
Cherry picking a couple of areas and claiming they fit the models does not a validation make.