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.
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.
The atmospheric models are shown to completely wrong calculating the temperatures profiles in the atmosphere, we know that:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/klotzbach-et-al-revisited-a-reply-by-john-christy/
Based on these calculation, and incremental from year to year error the models runs into a modellers nirvana far away from the reality.
It would be as if your car computer would have a bias at calculating a fuel consumption consumption based on extrapolating the last 300 meters with a continuous increase for each future meter, adding consumtion based on the increased slope. You’ll see suddenly you have gas for 5-10 miles before your tank is empty and 1 mile later a +2000 miles average before your tank goes empty.
With such computer you would ignore the model and look how empty/full is your tank.
How anyone here can judge this study is beyond me.
Firstly none of you non concensus huggers are worthy to question the climate sages and secondly more studies are clearly needed to solve this issue so we can build bigger better computers to ask more questions such as ‘if we keep asking stupid questions will the climate fearing sheep keep handing over their money?’ and ‘how long can we keep this scam up?’ or ‘do I actually get paid to make this stuff up?’. Thirdly we are the Chosen and only we may ask the questions.
You may say something about observation but seriously it’s far too scary to look out the window when we can create a CGI version that is much safer especially when someone else is picking up the tab for our raging climate paranoia.
/sarc
Less snow on inhabited places , more snow captured at Antarctica to mitigate sea level rise. More snow to feed glaciers and provide mountain streams with water. What’s not to like about this CO2?
Steven Mosher says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm
“ no models are perfect. even models built to predict how a plane will fly before its even built.”
What utter tripe! Models that predict (not “project” NOTE!) how an aircraft will fly are constructed using known engineering principles, physics and flight characteristics.
The models constructed for climate (i.e. general circulation models) “projections” are based upon nothing more than an individual programmer’s viewpoint of what climate parameters should be used. In short, scientists are trying to reduce the complex chaotic behaviour of the climate down to a set of mathematical equations, in the HOPE that they can then begin to understand the processes that are going on.
Here in North East England we have sub-zero temperatures and over an two inches of snow with more falling as I type this. We were told thirteen years ago that this would be “a rare and exciting event” and our children would never see snow. Well mine have seen it many times over the last three months and many more times over the last four winters. We were told by the “experts” that AGW would cause drought and that we should be digging up our gardens and replacing the plants with drought resistant ones. It is a good job I didn’t buy grape vines which would now be dead, which was one of the other recommendations.We have had one of the wettest summers ever, this winter will have temperatures well below average and these “experts” are still churning out misinformation about snow being confined to the poles, which they told us would be melting a few weeks ago. It is a pity that the domain name http://www.confused.com has been taken as it would be ideal for an AGW website!
The “experts” have made one very fatal, basic error in their predictions; they have confused climate with weather. Climate is very stable, weather is not, just because we have had a period in the nineties and noughties with above average temperatures does not mean that this will continue. The key word is “average”, meaning just that and nothing else. The odds are that we will have as many cold, snowy winters to come as we have had mild, dry winters in the past, but of course there may be exceptions, because that is what British weather does!.
More model crap!
I would expect more snow at the poles due to it being colder there. I do not need a model to tell me that.
I totally agree with James Griffin, above but never read Mosher.
‘A new climate model predicts’ words that increasingly sound like they have all the scientific validity of ‘knock, knock whose there ‘
It’s time to send all these folks a case of glue to sniff – maybe their models will actually start getting better.
Models all the way down. I thought that the Himilayan and other elevated glaciers were melting away. I thought the Arctic would be ice-free because of soaring temperatures. Don’t forget those wise words of Dr David Viner, “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”.
“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).”
Read what you just wrote. You are admitting that there are other forces in nature that have a stronger effect on our climate/weather than CO2 drives the climate hype.
I guess that I must be having a “Senior Moment” again. So now we are going to have more snow at the poles where we have just lost all the ice and the sea levels will Rise/fall/ go East/West what the hell. My brain can’t take all this contradiction.
I think I will stick with Weather. Whether on not there is global warming/cooling climate change, I still have to get up in the morning & the sun still rises. If the models are wrong, the designers are wrong yet they still keep coming back. I think it is all horsemeat!
I maintain that I don’t give a cent’s worth on climate model results until those who do them invest their retirement money in such a way that an economic computer model of their choice predicts. Until then I’ll consider them expensive numerical masturbation.
Computers are just fast idiots. They don’t care what makes up their instructions, yet they, and their instructions are not to blame. Thankfully, the slow idiots feeding rubbish into fast idiots just make themselves look idiotic faster.. 😉
I would be grateful if somebody who has access to the publication could give a link to the temperature fits of the model to the past and its future predictions, since in the abstract they are playing temperature against precipitation. I want to remind this very interesting curve that Lucia published on her blog sometime ago.
Seems that all models fail to predict or hind-cast the absolute value in temperature, and incidentally that is why they use anomalies to claim good fits for the past. The truth is that we live in temperature environments, not anomalies. I am curious what type of temperature fit they have with the data and what their prediction for the famous IPCC anomaly curve is. My intuition tessl me that in this model of theirs the predictions will be on the yellow line or a bit below.
The best models come from hobby shops and take several hours to put together. Everything fits perfectly and you can embellish it with your doodads but the essential elements are sturdy and robust.
“More snow at the poles”. This is a meaningless statement. “More” is a qualitative word (e.g. one more snowflake) and nobody lives at the poles. Besides if there was significantly more snow at the poles doesn’t this mean the Arctic ice extent would rebound and sea levels eventually drop as the world’s fresh water accumulated over the south pole once again?
Oh – its a new COMPUTER MODEL – in that case it must be right – all the others have been, haven’t they..?
Haven’t they..??
I saw the word “model” and I should have stopped reading.
However, I’m a glutton for punishment so I read it through to the end.
All I can say to the ‘researchers’ who hoovered up grant cash for this rubbish is, “have you no shame?”
old construction worker says:
February 23, 2013 at 4:45 am
Exactly! Thanks for noticing.
Like a chorus of angels, so many consensus’ in the land of “free” speech; precious
“The models may be able to push the envelope on any night television”, stay tuned.
Steven Mosher says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm
“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.”
So you seem to imply that they have a better model now. Now, here’s my offer: We wait another 20 years before dumping that model into the dustbin to see whether it is right.
In the meantime, no further taxpayer dough for climate modelers. Because the West is broke. If they manage to find a socialist billionaire who feels the need to pay them, fine.
And of course – no climate insanity subsidized projects until we have a little bit of proof of predictive skill of this new improved climate model.
Alternatively, we could lock the hole bunch of parasites up right now.
Kajajuk says:
February 22, 2013 at 9:59 pm
…
“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.
———————-
That’s all very well and good, but seems to miss the point I was making. It may be hiding in the complexity of the system. It may be lurking in the oceans. It might be shooting a mini-series in Hollywood. Or maybe it just isn’t there, for reasons we don’t understand. Maybe the AGW theory is just plain wrong somehow.
The point I was making is that the temperature record over the last 17 years isn’t making a very persuasive case for AGW. We can sit around and B.S. all day about what might maybe could be going on. What we can actually state though, is that the temperature record over the last 17 years isn’t making a very persuasive case for AGW.
Steven Mosher says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm
if you look at previous climate model results………..
===================
You can say anything…….which results are you talking about Mosh?
Wetter or dryer, hotter or colder, more snow or less snow, more hurricanes or less hurricanes? and on and on……
It must be hell to work in a profession where you have no verification and validation……………
…..but no matter what happens….some model some where predicted it…..so you’re right
They are giving the “purpose” of the paper away right at the beginning, when they say:
” … as a result of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide”. Does CO2 have to DOUBLE to create warming? They are just throwing in some propagandistic buzzwords, a serious scientist would never use this kind of wording.
I found the definitive model; we are all DOOMED…get your check book out.