From the NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH/UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH and the “eh, it’s a model projection” department, comes this claim. So, if it melts earlier, but then melts more slowly, it would seem to cancel out. I’m sure though somebody will find a crisis in this somewhere.
Slower snowmelt in a warming world
When snowpack melts earlier, it also melts more slowly, new study finds
The counterintuitive finding, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, could have widespread implications for water supplies, ecosystem health, and flood risk.
“When snowmelt shifts earlier in the year, the snow is no longer melting under the high sun angles of late spring and early summer,” said NCAR postdoctoral researcher Keith Musselman, lead author of the paper. “The Sun just isn’t providing enough energy at that time of year to drive high snowmelt rates.”
The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.
The findings could explain recent research that suggests the average streamflow in watersheds encompassing snowy mountains may decline as the climate warms — even if the total amount of precipitation in the watershed remains unchanged. That’s because the snowmelt rate can directly affect streamflow. When snowpack melts more slowly, the resulting water lingers in the soil, giving plants more opportunity to take up the moisture. Water absorbed by plants is water that doesn’t make it into the stream, potentially reducing flows.
Musselman first became interested in how snowmelt rates might change in the future when he was doing research in the Sierra Nevada. He noticed that shallower, lower-elevation snowpack melted earlier and more slowly than thicker, higher-elevation snowpack. The snow at cooler, higher elevations tended to stick around until early summer — when the Sun was relatively high in the sky and the days had grown longer — so when it finally started to melt, the melt was rapid.
Musselman wondered if the same phenomenon would unfold in a future climate, when warmer temperatures are expected to transform higher-elevation snowpack into something that looks much more like today’s lower-elevation snowpack. If so, the result would be more snow melting slowly and less snow melting quickly.
To investigate the question, Musselman first confirmed what he’d noticed in the Sierra by analyzing a decade’s worth of snowpack observations from 979 stations in the United States and Canada. He and his co-authors — NCAR scientists Martyn Clark, Changhai Liu, Kyoko Ikeda, and Roy Rasmussen — then simulated snowpack over the same decade using the NCAR-based Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model.
Once they determined that the output from WRF tracked with the observations, they used simulations from the model to investigate how snowmelt rates might change in North America around the end of the century if climate change continues unabated.
“We found a decrease in the total volume of meltwater — which makes sense given that we expect there to be less snow overall in the future,” Musselman said. “But even with this decrease, we found an increase in the amount of water produced at low melt rates and, on the flip side, a decrease in the amount of water produced at high melt rates.”
While the study did not investigate the range of implications that could come from the findings, Musselman said the impacts could be far-reaching. For example, a reduction in high melt rates could mean fewer spring floods, which could lower the risk of infrastructure damage but also negatively affect riparian ecosystems. Changes in the timing and amount of snowmelt runoff could also cause warmer stream temperatures, which would affect trout and other fish species, and the expected decrease in streamflow could cause shortages in urban water supplies.
“We hope this study motivates scientists from many other disciplines to dig into our research so we can better understand the vast implications of this projected shift in hydrologic patterns,” Musselman said.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Keith Musselman MO (Master of the Obvious)
Keith Here’s another “counter intuitive” navel gazing thought for you:
High arctic sea ice summer melts, are always followed by very high refreeze rates.
Negative feedbacks are the norm, not the exception, on Earth. Otherwise there would be no one here to be gazing at navels.
Let’s have a show of hands for those who didn’t know that lower sun angle means slower snow melt, except when it is adjacent to an NOAA thermometer with the usual air conditioner or jet engine exhaust. Yeah, well at least that hasn’t been published before (although it may have been suggested somewhere when, according to 97% Cook, there are 100,000 clisci papers published per decade ), that goes for novelty in climate science..
It is and interesting finding. I see this too at my home at 1000m elevation and 52°N. In January and early February, even at +3°C, snow doesn’t seem to melt. Only the very top layer gets soft. Whereas, now (late February, early March, even at below 0°C, snow will start to melt (on a clear day, when the sun is high).
Agreed Jeff in Cowtown, we got to a high of -7 C today and with the sun higher in the sky, it warms the asphalt and there is actually significant melting at that low a temperature.
That “climate” thingy is a nasty beast to manage!
From the article: “We hope this study motivates scientists from many other disciplines to dig into our research so we can better understand the vast implications of this projected shift in hydrologic patterns,” Musselman said.”
What did the “hydrologic patterns” look like in the extremely hot decade of the 1930’s?
After all, the 1930’s is what you are talking about when you talk about CAGW. Hot, extreme weather. It doesn’t get any hotter or more extreme than in the 1930’s. It’s certainly nothing like the 1930’s today.
I think if they want answers, they should study history. If they fear hot, extreme weather, then they should study the hot, extreme weather that has already happened. That’s better than computer models.
The Klimatariat don’t dwell in the past, its all about the future under AGW.
If they used their super computers to absorb paleo history the future would have become abundantly clear.
The old joke about the Soviet Union was that only the future was certain, but the past was always changing.
Besides it’s much much cooler in the ’30s now than it was ten years ago thanks to the correction of the temp record, so it’s actually worse than we thought.
What I get out of this is that the former prediction that warming would reduce rainfall and create drought, is now recognized as a flop. So the workaround is that the rainfall is still unchanged, but you will get less runoff because of (blah, blah), so still get drought from a social standpoint (water availability). “even if the total amount of precipitation in the watershed remains unchanged” means, so sorry, the earlier prediction is a flop, and the rainfall amount with warming is unchanged, but just you wait (alarming forecast inserted here).
Look at the temperature plot above 80 N, it seems as though the ice melting is primarily caused by the sun and not the air temperature. Note there are about 100 more days with the mean temperature below freezing before the mean temperature reaches melting yet a lot of melting will occur beforehand. What am I missing.
May need to click on to update
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
That’s easy enough to see. The snow along the fence line that is shielded from the sun melts very, very slowly even though it is 60 F. So slowly that it lasts until the next cold wave that dumps more snow ( which I need to see a doctor about since we all know that it never snows anymore) .
The results are totally invalidated by their general nature. South facing slopes get more sun exposure than north facing slopes, so it is the net amount of south facing slopes in a watershed that determines runoff rate. Also, steep slopes with rocks have higher runoff rates than lower angle and vegetated slopes, and slopes in arid climates have more runoff than those at high latitudes and high altitudes. Vegetation type also matters. So their net effect of their proposed phenomena most likely cannot be measured. It is not whether their phenomena exists, it is whether it is relevant in a basket of all the other effects going on. That is the first test of model viability, and it is unlikely to pass that test.
Some may want to hope that the snow does melt slowly this year, especially in the Sierra’s:
http://freeskier.com/stories/gallery-50-plus-feet-of-snow-in-california-right-now-enough-to-ski-till-summer.
Anyone for June skiing in California?
Worst sunburn I ever got (this coming from a formerly competitive sailor) was late spring skiing in the Alps (April, over Easter, when we lived in Munich). We did the entire Lech- Zurs circuit in a day. Spf 30, no less. No match for the sun/snow combination. So decided to ski only Dec- March. There are reasons sports are seasonal. Pick the right four, and anyone is good to go. Mine are skiing/snowmobiling (winter), fly fishing (spring/early summer), sailing/windsurfing (summer), and hunting (fall/early winter). The only remaining problem was finding enough time off… Some problems are not solvable until the solution no longer matters…
To beutify this discussion ‘Inuit’ words for snow from Phil James,
tla tlapa tlacringit kayi tlapat klin naklin tlamo tlatim tlaslo tlapinti kripya tliyel tliyelin blotla pactla hiryla wa-ter tlayinq quinaya quinyaya slimtla kriplyana puntla allatla fritla gristla MacTla jatla dinliltla sulitlana mentlana tidtla ertla kriyantli hahatla semtla ontla intla shlim warintla mextla penstla mortla ylaipi nylaipin pritla nootlin rotlana skriniya bluwid tlanid ever-tla talini priyakli chiup blontla tlalman tlalam tlanip protla attla in sotla tlun astrila clim tlapi krikaya ashtla huantla by tla-na-na depptla by trinkyi tronkyin shiya katiyana tlinro nyik ragnitla akitla privtla chahatlin hootlin geltla briktla striktla erolinyat chachat krotla tlarin motla sotla maxtla tlayopi truyi tlapripta carpitla
eg., tla-na-na: snow mixed with the sound of old rock and roll from a portable radio
How does ice melt in sub-zero temperatures? That is the question everyone needs to ask. The melting ice is melting due to warm water, not air, and not CO2. CO2 doesn’t warm water.
..considering it’s 90% under water
Let me get this right. They looked at one decade of data and assume that is useful for predicting the future??????? Face-palm.
The old out of range trick. In The Arts of Truth, I used a ‘famous’ AMA journal article that plotted the BMI (Body Mass Index) of Miss America pageant winners. The data confidently predicted that Miss America winners would be dead of starvation by 2020 and the pageant would stop. Absurd. Which was the point of that statistics chapter example.
“When snowpack melts earlier, it also melts more slowly, new study finds…”
“Water absorbed by plants is water that doesn’t make it into the stream, potentially reducing flows.”
And I say to that – so
I say – so good. So far, all the results of global warming have been good.
Slow melting snow upsets environmentalists — for no good reason.
Water not making it into the stream upsets environmentalists — for no good reason.
Okay, we’re upset now. Find a reason and win a free toaster!
Notice he didn’t try to qualify it…
Is it .01% less?
If the science is settled and quantified, why is this result a surprise to the Alarmist community?
CBC was on a “Global Weirding” track again today saying that the 2016/2017 extreme winter with big snowfalls on both coasts along with low temperatures and warmer less snowy prairies is due to “Global Warming/Climate Change”.
Now where have I heard this before?
Oh, yeah, in a story from them a couple of years ago quoting some studies from NOAA and quoting guess who/ (Tom Karl). Why am I not surprised?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/global-warming-linked-to-several-extreme-weather-events-1.2781420
Guess you can find an “ex spurt” to give you whatever “facts” you want.
So does that apply to glaciers?
Counter-intuitive Claim: Greater obesity occurs in a health-informed society. People sit more to read about how to become healthy; hence, burn fewer calories.
“As the world warms, mountain snowpack will not only melt earlier, it will also melt more slowly, according to a new study by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).”
The most useful aspect of this revelation is that it is and will be impossible to measure with any kind of confidence or reliability at all.
It’s the perfect new science scenario to provide endless opportunities for speculation, pontificating, presumptions and refinement about something which can never be measured therefore never fully refuted either.
I follow many arenas. It’s the same with every topic and issue.
Let’s face it.
The modern world has produced so many jackasses that they have infected everything with endless BS.
Ever see the movie limitless? It’s like we have real world people taking pills that expand the capacity to dream up crap. They’re 50 steps ahead of any effort to correct or stop them.
The summary of readers here appears to be
A) This is obviously true and engineers have known this.
B) This cant be true because a model was involved.
C) This is neither true nor false, it just means AGW predicts everything.
The summary of Steve’s post seems to be that he may have missed the point.
I have to go with C too.
It may surprise the authors of this piece of drivel to know that, by simple observation during the many seasons I was on ski patrol it was obvious that direct energy from the sun was/is NOT the primary driving force of snow melt – fast or slow. Wind IS! considering the very high energy reflecting ability of snow cover there should be no surprise that energy transfer from warm wind to cold snow is far greater in magnitude. Add a nice warm rain and melt rates go WAY up. It takes a LOT of energy to melt snow and direct photons from the sun cannot provide enough. Therefore, trying to correlate sunshine with melt rate is futile (like the Borg say – “Resistance is Futile”.
If it melts slowly the ground water builds up, the stream level goes down. The world temperature lessens microscopically because of reflection. Tree growth becomes strong and healthy.
Tucker Carlson is taking Bill Nye on right now!
And Nye shucked and jived.. Would not answer basic easy questions. When pressed on his rant to have skeptics jailed you could see dismay in his face. He went around the bend when tucker stated that he believed the climate changes but mans influence is very questionable and unsettled.
I thought Nye was going to explode… Priceless…
I’m watching Bill Nye the Science Guy being interviewed on TV and what a charlatan! How can anyone place faith in an obvious con man – he and all the others pushing the climate scam are doing great harm to science. He just claimed if it weren’t for Man’s activity the world’s climate now would be just like it was in 1750. And he claims the science is settled.
At least these scammers have made me skeptical of everything, which is a good thing – if they can’t prove it, they can shove it. What with politicians, celebrities, and other assorted losers looking for their 15 minutes, I’m not buying crazy, we’re all full up.
“The Sun just isn’t providing enough energy at that time of year to drive high snowmelt rates.”
A possible presumption here is that radiation from CO2 is now melting the snow. Another is that warmer CO2 laden air, having absorbed terrestrial radiation from the (snow?), is now preventing the snow from radiating to space at its former capacity. Yet another possible presumption is that CO2 laden air, having absorbed terrestrial radiation somewhere warmer, moves in and melts the snow by conduction like a hot iron.
All of these possibilities are conceivable. The first is the weakest in the traditional sense because the absorption spectra of ice and water are nearly identical. Snow, like any water surface, consumes 15 micron radiation in far less thickness than a human hair. So far so good, but as usual for us dumbass naked apes, there is a caveat. Gravity enters the picture and the melted dozen or so microns percolate down just as if it were rain.
Just admit it. We don’t know what is going on. There is little danger in what we know so far. The danger is what we don’t know.
Let’s quit advocating and get to work.
Nice picture of KT22. Looks like an early morning picture on a powder day just as the chair opens.
Reminds me of “African Genesis” by Robert Ardrey. He mentioned several speculations on the causes of the ice ages. One, proposed by a meteorologist, was that the sun warmed up, causing more rain in summer and more snow in winter. The snow gradually built up into glaciers because summer melt couldn’t keep up with additional winter snow.