Snowfall on Alaska mountains has doubled – climate change blamed

From DARTMOUTH COLLEGE and the “snowfalls are a thing of the past” department.

Unprecedented findings strengthen connections between winter storms and tropical waters

HANOVER, N.H. – December 19, 2017 – Snowfall on a major summit in North America’s highest mountain range has more than doubled since the beginning of the Industrial Age, according to a study from Dartmouth College, the University of Maine, and the University of New Hampshire.

The research not only finds a dramatic increase in snowfall, it further explains connections in the global climate system by attributing the record accumulation to warmer waters thousands of miles away in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans.

The research demonstrates that modern snowfall in the iconic Alaska Range is unprecedented for at least the past 1200 years and far exceeds normal variability.

“We were shocked when we first saw how much snowfall has increased,” said Erich Osterberg, an assistant professor of earth sciences at Dartmouth College and principal investigator for the research. “We had to check and double-check our results to make sure of the findings. Dramatic increases in temperature and air pollution in modern times have been well established in science, but now we’re also seeing dramatic increases in regional precipitation with climate change.”

According to the research, wintertime snowfall has increased 117 percent since the mid-19th century in southcentral Alaska in the United States. Summer snows also showed a significant increase of 49 percent in the short period ranging less than two hundred years.

Time series shows the dramatic doubling of snowfall around North America’s highest peaks since the beginning of the Industrial Age. Inset shows summer (red) and winter (blue) snowfall since 1870. CREDIT Figure provided by Dominic Winski.

The research, appearing in Scientific Reports, is based on analysis of two ice cores collected at 13,000 feet from Mount Hunter in Denali National Park. According to the authors, accumulation records in the separate samples taken from just below the summit of the mountain known as “Denali’s Child” are in nearly complete agreement.

“It is now glaringly clear from our ice core record that modern snowfall rates in Alaska are much higher than natural rates before the Industrial Revolution,” said Dominic Winski, a research assistant at Dartmouth and the lead author of the report. “This increase in precipitation is also apparent in weather station data from the past 50 years, but ice cores show the scale of the change well above natural conditions.”

Once the researchers established snowfall rates, they set out to identify why precipitation has increased so rapidly in such a short amount of time. Scientific models predict as much as a 2 percent increase in global precipitation per degree of warming because warmer air holds more moisture, but this could not account for most of the dramatic increases in Denali snowfall over the studied period.

The research suggests that warming tropical oceans have caused a strengthening of the Aleutian Low pressure system with its northward flow of warm, moist air, driving most of the snowfall increases. Previous research has linked the warming tropical ocean temperatures to higher greenhouse gas concentrations.

The analysis includes a series of dramatic graphs that demonstrate extreme shifts in precipitation and reinforce the global climate connections that link snowfall in the high reaches of the North American continent with warm tropical waters. As noted in the paper, this same atmospheric connection accounts for a decrease in Hawaiian precipitation.

“Everywhere we look in the North Pacific, we’re seeing this same fingerprint from warming tropical oceans. One result is that wintertime climate in the North Pacific is very different than it was 200 years ago. This doesn’t just affect Alaska, but Hawaii and the entire Pacific Northwest are impacted as well,” said Winski.

The research builds on a recent study using the same ice cores that showed that an intensification of winter storm activity in Alaska and Northwestern Canada, driven by the strengthening Aleutian Low, started in 1740 and is unprecedented in magnitude and duration over the past millennium. The new record shows the result of that increase in Aleutian Low storm activity on snow accumulation.

For this analysis, researchers were able to segment the ice core records by seasons and years using markers like magnesium from spring dust to separate winter snow from summer snow. To account for snow layers getting squeezed and thinned under their own weight, the researchers applied four separate equations used in other studies, and in all cases the corrected record shows at least a doubling of snowfall.

According to the paper, while numerous snow accumulation records exist, “to our knowledge, no other alpine ice core accumulation record has been developed with such a thorough characterization of the thinning regime or uncertainties; all of the thinning models produce a robust increase in accumulation since the mid-19th century above late-Holocene background values.”

The researchers note that the findings imply that regions that are sensitive to warming tropical ocean waters may continue to experience rain and snowfall variability well outside the natural range of the past millennium.

“Climate change can impact specific regions in much more extreme ways than global averages indicate because of unexpected responses from features like the Aleutian Low,” said Osterberg. “The Mount Hunter record captures the dramatic changes that can occur when you get a double whammy from climate change – warming air combined with more storms from warming ocean temperatures.”

However, the researchers also note that the regional findings do not necessarily mean that the same level of snowfall increases will occur elsewhere throughout the mid- and high latitudes.

“Scientists keep discovering that on a regional basis, climate change is full of surprises. We need to understand these changes better to help communities prepare for what will come with even more carbon dioxide pollution in the air,” said Osterberg.

As part of the analysis, the authors suggest that current climate models underestimate the sensitivity of North Pacific atmospheric connections to warming tropical ocean temperatures. They argue that refining the way the modeled atmosphere responds to tropical ocean temperatures may improve rain and snowfall predictions in a warming world.

###

Ho, hum.

From my viewpoint, in their rush to blame “climate change” they missed the biggest factor of all: increased pollution leads to increased cloud condensation nucleii. For example, watch aerosol loads from the pacific hit the southern Alaska mountain ranges:

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
175 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MarkW
December 19, 2017 12:36 pm

That the world has warmed since the bottom of the LIA is beyond question.
That man is responsible for this warming is not.

Delacroix
December 19, 2017 12:50 pm

Deferents, epciycles and equants – aka wiggling the elephant’s trunk

Delacroix
December 19, 2017 12:54 pm

Deferents, epicycles, eccentrics and equants – aka wiggling the elephant’s trunk

pochas94
December 19, 2017 12:56 pm
taxed
December 19, 2017 1:01 pm

This report is important because if it shows that climate warming increases snowfall amounts across the NH.
Then it makes it clearer how a warm climate could set the trigger into climate cooling. Because if the land masses of the NH have thicker snow cover, then that would extend time it takes for the snow to melt away during the spring. Thus extending the time the snow cover lasts into the spring.

Sara
Reply to  taxed
December 20, 2017 5:08 am

And that will make skiers and ski lodge owners very happy. What’s not to like?

A C Osborn
Reply to  taxed
December 21, 2017 2:23 pm

You obviously don’t remember all the Climate Scientists who have been saying snow was a thing of the past and that the then dropping snow fall was exactly what was predicted by CAGW.
Until it wasn’t.

John
December 19, 2017 1:09 pm

The Magic Molecule strikes again

Bruce Cobb
December 19, 2017 1:20 pm

If the snowfall had halved instead of doubled, the cause would also be “climate change”.

Sheri
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 19, 2017 1:45 pm

Of course. They would just search for a plausible way to explain it using the warming.

taxed
December 19, 2017 1:21 pm

Why this is of interest to me is because at the moment the snow mass across the NH is running well above its average. Now the very same thing happened last year and there was a sharp increase in the spring snow extent. Which had until then been declining since the late 60’s. So it will interesting to see if the same thing happens next spring.

December 19, 2017 1:30 pm

Interesting things about that plot… 0.7 is written where I think the author means 0.8, at least by the numeration scheme around that number.

Also, Yes, snowfall in Alaska “doubled” since the industrial revolution… but it also tripled before that on that same plot, and arguably doubled in the same time period previous to the industrial revolution.

But somehow, “man is the only explanation”… funny how it always ends up like that.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Jeremy
December 19, 2017 3:40 pm

Jeremy
“man is the only explanation”

Who said that?

bitchilly
Reply to  tony mcleod
December 19, 2017 6:13 pm

you forgot the sarc tag tony.

Tony mcleod
Reply to  tony mcleod
December 20, 2017 1:59 am

No sarc.
This sort of platitude gets echoed around WUWT so much, here in quotation marks, it no longer gets questioned for the straw man it is.

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 20, 2017 6:07 am

I’m not sure why you would highlight the industrial revolution if you were not trying to blame mankind’s energy use activities. Why bother denoting such an arbitrary time period if the point is to examine natural changes?

paqyfelyc
Reply to  tony mcleod
December 21, 2017 8:16 am

YOU did, Tony. Didn’t you rules out any other explanation ? I may be wrong, though: just refresh our memories with other explanation you think contribute (with quantification, if you have any)
😉

Editor
December 19, 2017 1:36 pm

Yet again, another Supernatural findings….they ought to stick to Science and leave this supernatural bit to the love-beads-and-flowers set : “but ice cores show the scale of the change well above natural conditions.” If the snowfalls are not “natural”, what is?
It is a bit odd that they’d like to “blame” increasing snow (in an Alaska predicted to be snowless in 50 years) on “climate change” and then point out it started in 1740.

It is interesting that the ice cores show increasing snow falls…but certainly isn’t down to CO2 or industrialization.

Sheri
December 19, 2017 1:44 pm

I can predict with 99.99% certainty that ANY finding whatsoever can be caused by global warming. With the right input parameters, more snow, less snow, no snow are all caused by warming. If there were less snow, they would have found a way to explain it using warming. It is absolutely ludicrous that this is in any way considered science and not a long term con.

Nature is defined as “whatever makes today look wrong”. Other than that, it’s a meaningless word. It just gets worse and worse, out on a limb to the tiny branches at the end…….

Reply to  Sheri
December 19, 2017 2:42 pm

Global warming now also causes global cooling. Which is why the climate charlatans changed their marketing brand name to Climate Change.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 19, 2017 3:43 pm

joelobryan
“climate charlatans changed their marketing brand name to Climate Change.”

Are you sure about that?

Bob boder
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 19, 2017 4:05 pm

Tony

I am sure you are dishonest

Sheri
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 19, 2017 6:00 pm

tony: The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide’s impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned “inadvertent climate modification.” Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: “if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”3

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker’s usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used “global warming.” When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used “climate change.”

This is from pmm.nasa.gov

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 19, 2017 11:55 pm

Tony,

I am quite sure about the re-branding of AGW to Climate Change circa mid-2000’s, circa 2007-2008.
2008 was the Change year for Global Warming to Climate Change branding. The IPCC’s AR4 made that clear due to the inconvenient Climate temperature hiatus that was setting in. The Climate-Gate emails also reinforced the fact that the GMT hiatus had become inconvenient to the message of global warming. A re-branding effort commenced. Like any propaganda campaign (marketing) effort must undertake.

David A
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 20, 2017 4:20 am

Tony M, perhaps you can tell us which acroynym best describes the theory of extremely strong negative consequences to human life due to a global increase in average temperature caused by human emissions of GHGs.
Proposal number one; C.A.G.W.
Proposal number two; C.C.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 21, 2017 9:24 am

wikipedia is a nice time stamp.
“climate change” article was created 3 april 2002. It was referring to older, much more extensive “global warming” article, and only 3 lines long, worth quoting:
“The term climate change is sometimes used to refer to all forms of climatic inconsistency, but because the Earth’s climate is never static, the term is more properly used to imply a significant change from one climatic condition to another. In some cases, ‘climate change’ has been used synonymously with the term, ‘global warming’; scientists however, tend to use the term in the wider sense to also include natural changes in climate.”
So obviously, “climate change” was NOT synonymous with “global warming” at that time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&oldid=86995
In the relevant talk page, you’ll also find a Jul 2004 (UTC) discussion on whether “climate change” is/ is not / should not be “code for anthropogenic global warming”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change/Archive_1

Bottom line : “climate change” as a synonymous of “global warming” emerged after 2002, around 2004.

Also: “global climate change” was redirecting to “climate change” from 2004 to 2014, when it was changes to “global warming”.

Toneb
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 21, 2017 11:51 am

“Which is why the climate charlatans changed their marketing brand name to Climate Change.”

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

“In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker’s usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used “global warming.” When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used “climate change.”
Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

During the late 1980s one more term entered the lexicon, “global change.” This term encompassed many other kinds of change in addition to climate change. When it was approved in 1989, the U.S. climate research program was embedded as a theme area within the U.S. Global Change Research Program”

Gabro
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 21, 2017 12:12 pm

Toneb,

“Climate change” from more CO2 has so far been entirely beneficial, and will remain so for the foreseeable future, just as Arrhenius and Callendar imagined. Increased crop yields and more vegetation in general, even where no new irrigation projects have gone in or agricultural chemicals have been used, have resulted from having more plant food in the air, if those benefits be included in “climate change”.

BillP
December 19, 2017 2:29 pm

It amuses me the way that “climate scientists” can always explain why what just happened was caused by man made greenhouse gasses.

However, they have a unbroken record of failing to predict what will happen next.

Reply to  BillP
December 19, 2017 2:31 pm

This is untrue. They always predict accurately that something will happen next, and something always does.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
December 19, 2017 2:39 pm

… and it can be predicted with 99.9999% (6-nines) accuracy that they declare they need more money to study it. Because of course, the climate scientists declare that good public policy must be based on good science. So if you are not willing to fork over the mega-bucks to science, then you are, by extension, obviously not interested in good public policy.

See how that works?

December 19, 2017 2:30 pm

Most of those peaks are volcanoes. Decreased heat flux waning after an eruption would slow down melt and allow more snow to hang around. This may be a post-eruptive equilibrium being re-established that means nothing in terms of tropical stuff going on.

December 19, 2017 2:35 pm

Here is a Science paper from before (1994) the climate scam thoroughly infected and disrupted an honest study of climate, natural variability, glaciers, sea ice, etc.

Quantifying Global Warming from the Retreat of Glaciers
Johannes Oerlemans, SCIENCE VOL. 264. 8 APRIL 1994.
http://i63.tinypic.com/rku5is.png

Now, in the post-science era of climate science…
Here is a scanned image of the Science magazine I received today (19 Dec 2017).
http://i63.tinypic.com/70f7rn.jpg

So which is it?
Q: So does Global warming cause advancing glaciers, or retreating glaciers?

A: In the post-science era, CO2 can do anything. Now all observations of changing glaciers are due to the Magic Molecule’s effects on climate. That is how you know we are in a post-science era of climate paganism.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 19, 2017 2:59 pm

I just love that “Ice runs wild in a warming world” schtick from Science magazine.
No alarmism there, nope. Solid science…not, augghhh. Science is dead. Stick a fork in it. Killed by rent seekers who were enticed and ethically destroyed by politicians with an agenda.

Hugs
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 20, 2017 12:51 am

The null hypothesis has been replaced with ‘climate change’. You have to have strong evidence to argue that some climatic change is not happening, or is not due to the ‘climate change’, i.e. GHGs. It used to be very different in the nineties, but the last 20 years have been extraordinary. Everything is now caused by GHGs by default.

December 19, 2017 2:49 pm

There are some interesting points made in the article, but then they say ” Previous research has linked the warming tropical ocean temperatures to higher greenhouse gas concentrations.” with no elaboration on the claimed “link” to CO2.

John V. Wright
December 19, 2017 2:53 pm

My takeaways from this meaningless study:
1 – Warmists said that children “won’t know what snow is” (because of AGW).
2 – Now warmists say there is far too much snow (because of AGW).
3 – None of the models predicted this ( …er…….).

These scientists could never have specialised in human biology because to do that you need to know your arse from your elbow.

tony mcleod
December 19, 2017 2:58 pm

From the post:
From my viewpoint, in their rush to blame “climate change” they missed the biggest factor of all: increased pollution leads to increased cloud condensation nucleii.

Do you really think they rushed? This has been predicted for decades.

Anthony, in your rush to blame “aerosls” you’ve neglected to comment on the elephant in the post: the strengthening Aleutian Low pressure system with its northward flow of warm, moist air, driving most of the snowfall increases.

bitchilly
Reply to  tony mcleod
December 19, 2017 6:30 pm

i don’t care how long it has been “predicted” for tony (sure it wasn’t a projection 😉 ) the alpi index does not support your position. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figure-4-The-Aleutian-Low-Pressure-Index-ALPI-Solid-lines-and-black-circles-are-the-new-ALPI_289528658_fig4
i think i will have to assume bob boder is correct.

December 19, 2017 3:06 pm

From March last year
“‘There was just no snow’: climate change puts Iditarod future in doubt”
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/24/iditarod-climate-change-sled-dogs-winter-alaska

December 19, 2017 3:06 pm

A big “i.e., the climate is changing all the time” should have been added to the end of this post, just in case some people think it changes according to their favorite theory. Why debate something that simply is?

December 19, 2017 3:27 pm

First it causes cooling,
then it causes warming.
Next it causes similar,
Then it causes nothing.

What am I?

Reply to  Jerome Lurtz
December 19, 2017 4:57 pm

A CO2 molecule

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Yessss. CO2’ses preciousss yessss!

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 19, 2017 10:40 pm

well unless you are a 11-15 micron lambda photon, then CO2 is invisible. So who can argue with invisibility of action?

haverwilde
December 19, 2017 4:22 pm

The Anchorage paper headline includes this: Snowfall in Denali National Park has increased dramatically during the era of human-driven global warming.

Nice touch that “era of human-driven global warming” can’t miss a chance at inflicting a little propaganda.

Old44
December 19, 2017 4:56 pm

“modern snowfall in the iconic Alaska Range is unprecedented for at least the past 1200 years”
Does this mean the disappearing glaciers are in danger of being buried by too much snow.

SAMURAI
December 19, 2017 7:53 pm

Leftists have been declaring for decades that CAGW will shutdown ski resorts worldwide and even said such crazy things as , “Soon, kids won’t even even know what snow look like.” (Dr. Viner, CRU/IPCC,2000).

Not so much.

Higher than “normal” snowfall events have caused: Antarctic land mass to increase by 100 billion per year for over 30 years (after NASA said for decades it was LOSING 100+ Billion tons per year), the Deep South just experienced its largest and earliest major snowfall event ever recorded, last year, Northern California had one of the highest annual snowfall accumulations ever recorded, Siberia recorded temps below -52C in November (a new record low for November), Greenland’s net Ice mass is expected to INCREASE by 44 Billion tons this year (NASA says the largest increase 100+ years), etc…

As both the PDO and AMO will soon be in their respective 30-year cool cycles and as solar cycles continue to collapse for the next 50~70 years, record low global temps, snowfall events, falling global temp trends, and polar ice mass increases will be the “new normal”..

Leftist CAGW advocates will continue say: increased snowfall, polar ice mass increases and falling global temp trends are consistent with CAGW projections, but eventually, people will realize CAGW is a complete bust.

Leftists are getting desperate.

Dave Fair
Reply to  SAMURAI
December 20, 2017 12:41 pm

If CO2 explains everything, it explains nothing, SAMURAI.

Darwin wyatt
December 19, 2017 8:45 pm

It looks kind of like a hockey stick…

David A
Reply to  Darwin wyatt
December 20, 2017 4:27 am

Yes, and, despite its flaws, we know that the cause of the blade changed in 1950 from natural to human.

John F. Hultquist
December 19, 2017 10:36 pm

modern snowfall . . . for at least the past 1200 years … far exceeds normal variability.

. . .carbon dioxide pollution in the air . . .

If there had been a very slow increase in snow beginning 1200 years ago along with a ‘very slow increase’ in carbon dioxide pollution (sic) then the authors might have found something. However, we can ask how many ppm change did they find back than to cause this ‘shocking’ result?

The use of the word “pollution” suggests an agenda (secure more funding ?).
I think they have gone well beyond the data.
Namely, they found an increase in snow on Mt. Hunter.
They should not try to reason beyond that until they have listened to Richard Feynman explain science.

observa
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 20, 2017 5:14 am

Fools rush in while wiser heads await the homogenised, pasteurised data.