University of Manitoba Publishes an End of Snow Prediction

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

As Russian Arctic towns struggle with an unexpected early hard freeze, and Northern Europe struggles with harsh temperatures, climate scientists have announced that rain will dominate Arctic snow events by 2060.

Rain to replace snow in the Arctic as climate heats, study finds

Climate models show switch will happen decades faster than previously thought, with ‘profound’ implications

Damian Carrington
Environment editor@dpcarrington Wed 1 Dec 2021 03.00 AEDT

Rain will replace snow as the Arctic’s most common precipitation as the climate crisis heats up the planet’s northern ice cap, according to research.

Today, more snow falls in the Arctic than rain. But this will reverse, the study suggests, with all the region’s land and almost all its seas receiving more rain than snow before the end of the century if the world warms by 3C. Pledges made by nations at the recent Cop26 summit could keep the temperature rise to a still disastrous 2.4C, but only if these promises are met.

Even if the global temperature rise is kept to 1.5C or 2C, the Greenland and Norwegian Sea areas will still become rain dominated. Scientists were shocked in August when rain fell on the summit of Greenland’s huge ice capfor the first time on record.

The research used the latest climate models, which showed the switch from snow to rain will happen decades faster than previously estimated, with autumn showing the most dramatic seasonal changes. For example, it found the central Arctic will become rain dominated in autumn by 2060 or 2070 if carbon emissions are not cut, instead of by 2090 as predicted by earlier models.

“What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay there,” said Michelle McCrystall at the University of Manitoba in Canada, who led the new research. “You might think the Arctic is far removed from your day-to-day life, but in fact temperatures there have warmed up so much that [it] will have an impact further south.

“In the central Arctic, where you would imagine there should be snowfall in the whole of the autumn period, we’re actually seeing an earlier transition to rainfall. That will have huge implications. The Arctic having very strong snowfall is really important for everything in that region and also for the global climate, because it reflects a lot of sunlight.”

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/30/rain-replace-snow-arctic-climate-heats-study

The abstract of the study;

New climate models reveal faster and larger increases in Arctic precipitation than previously projected

Michelle R. McCrystallJulienne StroeveMark SerrezeBruce C. Forbes & James A. Screen 

Nature Communications volume 12, Article number: 6765 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

As the Arctic continues to warm faster than the rest of the planet, evidence mounts that the region is experiencing unprecedented environmental change. The hydrological cycle is projected to intensify throughout the twenty-first century, with increased evaporation from expanding open water areas and more precipitation. The latest projections from the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) point to more rapid Arctic warming and sea-ice loss by the year 2100 than in previous projections, and consequently, larger and faster changes in the hydrological cycle. Arctic precipitation (rainfall) increases more rapidly in CMIP6 than in CMIP5 due to greater global warming and poleward moisture transport, greater Arctic amplification and sea-ice loss and increased sensitivity of precipitation to Arctic warming. The transition from a snow- to rain-dominated Arctic in the summer and autumn is projected to occur decades earlier and at a lower level of global warming, potentially under 1.5 °C, with profound climatic, ecosystem and socio-economic impacts.

Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27031-y

You might think climate modellers are pretty courageous making such a radical prediction, given the long term decline in Holocene temperatures, the history of failed “end of snow” predictions, the long term and statistically significant drop in Antarctic temperatures, and some very snowy recent Northern winters, but there seems to be a prevalent view amongst climate modellers that models are more significant than data.

As John Mitchell, Chief Research Scientist British MET once explained, “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful”.

4.4 28 votes
Article Rating
160 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Zig Zag Wanderer
December 1, 2021 6:03 pm

I can’t wait for the end of end of snow predictions

Sara
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 2, 2021 4:59 am

It will work this way: all the snow will be dumped on our yards and front/back porches, our rooftops, transit routes, highways and grocery stores. Clothing stores will be spared so that people can get inappropriately thin summer clothing to wear during The Big Freeze and Snow Disaster of 2060. Meantime, condos to rent will be built on the (rapidly diminishing) ice shelves of the Arctic circle, but will sink before anyone can rent them, creating some peculiar havens for northern pike, belugas, and walruses. Polar bears will move south.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Prove that it won’t happen. (sarc)

Duane
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 2, 2021 9:47 am

Peak snow!

Mike
December 1, 2021 6:05 pm

”2060”…… What can you say anymore? At least with all these papers there will be plenty of stuff to start your fire.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike
Rich Davis
Reply to  Mike
December 2, 2021 4:49 pm

2060 is almost 40 years from now.

By 2060, commercialized fusion power will be, let’s see…I guess about 40 years off in the future!

Zig Zag Wanderer
December 1, 2021 6:06 pm

Rain will replace snow as the Arctic’s most common precipitation as the climate crisis heats up the planet’s northern ice cap, according to research.

The research used the latest climate models, which showed the switch from snow to rain will happen decades faster than previously estimated

There you go again, confusing pre-determined model output as ‘research’. *sigh*

Last edited 1 month ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 1, 2021 10:39 pm

Agreed. More than anything else this paper is strong evidence that the models are FUBAR.

Nigel in California
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 1, 2021 11:18 pm

“…will replace… …will happen…”

You WILL not graduate if you think like this.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Nigel in California
December 2, 2021 2:47 am

Please allow mw to correct your mistake:

You WILL not graduate if you DON’T think like this.

Bob boder
Reply to  Joao Martins
December 2, 2021 5:00 am

Nigel, all universities have become communist propaganda and indoctrination centers.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Bob boder
December 2, 2021 6:09 am

Bob,
Somehow we missed the really important quote from Stalin, to whit:
“We will crush you by turning your children into angry morons!”

Last edited 1 month ago by Abolition Man
DocSiders
Reply to  Abolition Man
December 2, 2021 5:32 pm

Got the moron part right.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 2, 2021 10:09 am

Even Gavin Schmidt said they run too hot.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 3, 2021 5:33 am

A guy that says CO2 causes water vapor and runs from good healthy scientific debate like a scared little baby should never be quoted for any reason, except to ridicule him and to try to end his job and his NASA department entirely. Robert Goddard, if your spirit is up in Heaven and you’re listening, I’m so sorry your name and memory are besmirched by the likes of Gavin Schmidt and James Hanson.

Eric Stevens
December 1, 2021 6:07 pm

After yet another prediction of climate doom the only word I can bring to mind is ‘Charlatan’.

Last edited 1 month ago by Eric Stevens
Tom Halla
December 1, 2021 6:12 pm

Models yet again! The polite way to describe this is a daisy chain.

Disputin
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 2, 2021 2:41 am

The impolite is “crap”.

Neo
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 2, 2021 7:24 am

…but my models …

David Elstrom
December 1, 2021 6:23 pm

More “cleaning supplies” to line bird cages for those pet owners.

Todd Fry
December 1, 2021 6:24 pm

Great quote at the end of the article:

“As John Mitchell, Chief Research Scientist British MET once explained, “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful”.”

Pretty much sums up the foundation of Gorebull Warming research.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Todd Fry
December 1, 2021 9:34 pm

Observational evidence is not very useful”.

Very true … and ironically honest. Observed evidence (data) is what it is. Models project whatever you want it to be. This suits political goals.

Last edited 1 month ago by Rory Forbes
Bob boder
Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 2, 2021 5:02 am

Yep, “useful” being the important part of the statement

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Todd Fry
December 2, 2021 1:54 am

Well, if “Observational evidence is not very useful” then we might as well just toss it all in the bin! Now that we have access to powerful computers to do our “observations” for us, there is no need to conduct experiments or venture out into dirty, dangerous nature. We can get all of our data directly from the models.

How these people have strayed so far from reality is astonishing. Models and magical thinking all the way.

Bob boder
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
December 2, 2021 5:03 am

You don’t understand what is meant by”useful”. You are thinking that this is about science, it’s not.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
December 2, 2021 6:16 am

Pamela,
The great rush to come up with Artificial Intelligence has apparently backfired!
They seem to have discovered Artificial Stupidity instead, and it has completely infected their minds from their continued close proximity to their computers

Neo
Reply to  Abolition Man
December 2, 2021 7:25 am

You don’t need AI if you have NI (Natural Intelligence)

Todd
Reply to  Abolition Man
December 2, 2021 11:32 am

“Artificial Stupidity; AS”. I’m going to have to steal that phrase!

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  Todd Fry
December 2, 2021 1:57 am

Nor is looking through telescopes if you are studying the cosmos …it seems observation is for people with too much time on their hands. Like philosophers.

DCE
Reply to  Todd Fry
December 2, 2021 6:57 am

Gee, if I used electronic circuit models (SPICE) as defective as those used to model climate I’d be fired because the model results would in no way come close to predicting how the circuit would function. Then again, a SPICE model has a very limited number of well known and well understood elements used to calculate results.

Yet we are supposed to trust models that have so many elements that have unknown effects or unknown upper/lower limits that are either ignored or a ‘Finagle factor’ is used to ‘correct’ the model despite the unknown effects or limits of those elements? We’re supposed to base policies and actions on those same defective models?

Yeah. Right.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  DCE
December 2, 2021 8:58 am

If you look closely at the models they all turn into y = mx + b linear equations after four or five years. So trying to use multiple elements and fudge factors to generate a model over a century is a waste of energy. Just pick a slope “m” and go for it! Explain why you picked a specific “m” and let someone try to refute it.

Simple *is* usually best. Using the computer models as they are violates Feynman’s rule about don’t fool yourself. Complexity is usually just a crutch useful only for fooling yourself.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 2, 2021 10:12 am

ECS is CliSciFi modelers’ x.

Duane
Reply to  Todd Fry
December 2, 2021 9:52 am

He’s actually correct … the only “power” the warmunists have and wield is with their faked up models … if we only had empirical data to work with, the warmunists would be non-existent.

These guys remind me a great deal of religious frauds who tell you to believe something only because they tell you to believe it … never mind your lying eyes and ears!

Doug Danhoff
December 1, 2021 6:34 pm

And remember none of them are likely to be around by 2060. A gutless prediction based on fantasy and the ridiculous idea that CO2 causes warming …I’m at a point where I am rude to these shallow thinkers, and consider them the lightest of light weight minds . My problem is I say it to their faces …you can imagine they don’t like me much

Clay Sanborn
Reply to  Doug Danhoff
December 1, 2021 8:37 pm

Wagers should be required on long term predictions about anything non-Biblical, else they have no gravitas.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Doug Danhoff
December 2, 2021 2:31 am

Well retired on big fat pensions that will most likely have a public purse attached, the good old taxpayer pays again, & not one of them will be held accountable because their claims were based “on the best available science at the time”!!! They have done their research well, knowing that past science has been corrected/revised on future research or discoveries!!! Very clever indeed!!!

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Doug Danhoff
December 2, 2021 5:13 am

If they can’t forecast the next five years, IN DETAIL, then why should I believe they can forecast 40 years in the future accurately?

Barbara Hamrick
Reply to  Doug Danhoff
December 2, 2021 12:18 pm

And, haven’t we been here before?

March 20, 2000:

“According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia ,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.” (https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/12/global-warming-hysteria-2000-english-children-will-not-know-snow-2010-oops-nevermind).

John Karajas
Reply to  Barbara Hamrick
December 2, 2021 4:48 pm

Spot on, Barbara

December 1, 2021 6:38 pm

 For the dedicated Eco-Loon climateer models are the staff of life as they can be controlled and adjusted, unlike the data from the real world which is so intractable and capricious.

Martin
December 1, 2021 6:40 pm

Hahahahaha, I love these predictions, we have seen some real doozies over the years and some are highlighted right here on this site to remind us. I have been reading that we are soon going to experience a mini ice age due to the Maunder Minimum that is supposed to be occurring at this time. I’m sure Mr. Homewood is having a good laugh as well. I am a little disappointed that this “report” originated in a Canadian University.

Peter Wells
Reply to  Martin
December 2, 2021 4:38 am

Don’t forget the predictions of Milutin M!

DPP
December 1, 2021 6:44 pm

Here we go again, Al Goose Gore weeps for the children that would never see snow, that was in the late 1980s, now those kids are getting into their 40s and they can go skiing anytime they want.

Abolition Man
Reply to  DPP
December 2, 2021 6:18 am

DPP,
Don’t exaggerate; ski areas are rarely open past the 4th of July now!

Dave K
Reply to  Abolition Man
December 2, 2021 7:26 am

What is the best month to ski in Australia?
July and August are the coldest months of the year in Australia and offer the best snow conditions in the area’s ski resorts. 

buggs
Reply to  Abolition Man
December 2, 2021 10:20 am

I’m reminded of a prediction, circa 2000 or so when low snowfall events were happening in the Canadian Rockies. Not surprisingly a number of predictions of imminent doom for the Canadian ski industry followed with much gnashing of teeth.

Circle back if you will (thanks Jen) to this past year when Sunshine Village and Mount Norquay ski areas, very close to Banff, had their longest ski seasons on record. I believe Lake Louise (Ski Louise) may have also set a record but I’m not confident on that.

On topic, this institution is my alma mater. When I was there only one professor talked about climate at all and that was in relation to agrometeorology. Now, if you check, Dr. McCrystall is the lead of the Climate Change research center on campus. Her job doesn’t exist without exactly this type of output.

Loydo
December 1, 2021 7:15 pm

“given the long term decline in Holocene temperatures”

Indeed, indeed, “settled science” and all that, except didn’t it just stop and abruptly reverse?

commieBob
Reply to  Loydo
December 1, 2021 7:56 pm

Absolutely. We’ve been warming out of the Little Ice age and that’s a very good thing.

My greatest worry is that it might be only a dead cat bounce.

If you analyze stocks the way you seem to analyze the climate, I would say you should avoid investing.

buggs
Reply to  commieBob
December 2, 2021 10:21 am

Temperatures initially warm in an interglacial period? Whoulda thunk it.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 1, 2021 8:18 pm

It’s been going up and down forever. However over the last 7000 years it’s been going generally downward with brief interruptions ever 1000 years or so, the max warmth for each warm period being lower than the last.
The modern warm period is less warm than the medieval warm period.
The medieval warm period is less warm than the roman warm period.
The roman warm period is less warm than the Minoan warm period.
The minoan warm period is less warm than the egyptian warm period.
The egyptial warm period is less warm than just about any time during the holocene optimum which lasted for some 7 to 10 thousand years.

So yes, you are trivially correct that for the last century or so, it has been warming, but so what?
BTW, the modern warm period started about 70 years before there was much increase in CO2 levels, so CO2 could not have been the cause of the modern warm period.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  MarkW
December 2, 2021 2:34 am

Big Shiny ball in sky!!!

DCE
Reply to  Alan the Brit
December 2, 2021 7:00 am

Why do you think they call it Glowball Warming?

commieBob
Reply to  Loydo
December 1, 2021 8:23 pm

Actually, if we’re going to play around with time scales, compare this year’s arctic temperatures with those of the previous few winters. link The arctic has cooled a lot since 2016.

TonyL
Reply to  Loydo
December 1, 2021 8:25 pm

didn’t it just stop and abruptly reverse?

Yes it did, absolutely correct.
About ~500 BC, leading to the Roman Warm Period which peaked out centuries later.
Then things got really cold and miserable, a time known as the European Dark Ages.
Again, things started warming ~600 AD which became the Medieval Warm period which peaked about ~1200 AD.
Things got cold again, this time known as the Little Ice Age.
That brings up to modern history, the rest you can look up.

Abolition Man
Reply to  TonyL
December 2, 2021 6:23 am

TonyL,
Loy-d’oh can’t look up anything to do with history or geology; he already burned those books for their heresies!

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Loydo
December 1, 2021 8:31 pm

1.1c in 200 years, much before human CO2 rose?
Doesn’t seem particularly abrupt?

PCman999
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
December 1, 2021 9:47 pm

Science and common sense aren’t Loydo’s or any climate scientist’s strong suit. They just need good prose writing skills and imaginative minds for dreaming up doomsday scenarios to secure research grants.

Ted
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
December 2, 2021 9:22 am

But most of that in a 50-year span! Which brings up the real issue with terms like abrupt. The more recent the time period, the better the higher the granularity of the data, so people end up comparing short term trends to a long term average. How much did temperature change from 8000 BC to 7950 BC? We really have no idea – the range of calculated temperatures for 8000 BC is by itself 3 degrees C.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
December 1, 2021 9:41 pm

except didn’t it just stop and abruptly reverse?

Actually no, it didn’t. On Geological time scales, the only rational and scientific way to look at climates, contemporary conditions haven’t yet reached Medieval Warm Period temperatures. It looks unlikely they will.

Last edited 1 month ago by Rory Forbes
No one
Reply to  Loydo
December 1, 2021 9:45 pm

And the coming ‘switch’, who knows when, might be to glaciation. Don’t throw out your long johns.

Disputin
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2021 2:46 am

I don’t know why you got 30 down votes there. It seems a very reasonable post.

Richard Page
Reply to  Disputin
December 2, 2021 7:48 am

It’s the singer, not the song.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2021 2:51 am

… except didn’t it just stop and abruptly reverse …

Astonishing! Go figure, the climate is not stable, it changes naturally!…

Dave Kamakaris
Reply to  Loydo
December 2, 2021 6:18 am

Forgotten about this already, Loydo?

tree-stump-climate.jpg
Patrick B
December 1, 2021 7:23 pm

Well there’s a scientifically testable prediction: “rain dominated in the Autumn by 2060 or 2070 if carbon emissions are not cut”. That’s real science there. Don’t know how anyone can expect a more precise testable hypothesis.

MarkW
Reply to  Patrick B
December 1, 2021 8:20 pm

Now all we need to do is build a time machine …

François Riverin
December 1, 2021 7:25 pm

Those scientists are dishonest. They used RCP 8,5 scenario to get their results in this research. IPCC itself now rejected this scenario as ‘business as usual’ and describe it as low probability.

François Riverin
Reply to  François Riverin
December 1, 2021 7:34 pm

‘End-of-century model projected changesThe multi-model ensemble mean of Arctic precipitation increases in all seasons throughout the twenty-first century, especially in autumn, for the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5)/Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 5–8.5 (SSP5–8.5) scenarios in CMIP5 and CMIP6, respectively (Fig. 2)’.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  François Riverin
December 1, 2021 8:40 pm

The diagrams supposedly represent a chain of causation:
The changes in precipitation are supposedly driven by changes in temperature which are in turn supposedly caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Odd that the precipitation trends flat-line until ~2010 – 20 and only then take off, after all the CO2 and temperature trends have been rising since ~1850.

Last edited 1 month ago by Chris Hanley
Anthony Banton
Reply to  Chris Hanley
December 2, 2021 9:25 am

Odd that the precipitation trends flat-line until ~2010 – 20 and only then take off, after all the CO2 and temperature trends have been rising since ~1850.”

Not odd at all.
The limiting factor in the cooling of summer/autumn air over the Arctic is the presence of sea-ice – air cools by virtue of its melting – when that starts to “tip” to less and less such that open (warming) water predominates then that is when rain will predominate over snow.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 2, 2021 5:09 pm

Except that by 2040 we should be back to peak ice again

Mike Edwards
Reply to  François Riverin
December 1, 2021 9:59 pm

Indeed, they used the RCP 8.5 scenario – so this paper addresses a future fantasy world.

For us in the real world, things are going to turn out rather differently…

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Mike Edwards
December 2, 2021 2:27 am

They better may play Sim City and save our minds.

Julio
Reply to  Mike Edwards
December 5, 2021 8:42 am

Actually if you read the paper you will see they looked at all the scenarios. It’s the news reporting that focuses on RCP 8.5 for dramatic effect

Shoki Kaneda
December 1, 2021 7:52 pm

I encourage them to migrate to Point Barrow and wait for rain.

Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
December 1, 2021 9:33 pm

Contribute to the local UHI

SAMURAI
December 1, 2021 7:58 pm

The ONLY place where CAGW exists is in failed Climate model outputs, all of which have already been disconfirmed by actual empirical evidence…

Leftists are so hilarious.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  SAMURAI
December 2, 2021 4:34 am

SAMURAI,

Actually the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says the general circulation models (GCMs) of climate indicate that predicted anthropogenic (i.e. human caused) global warming (AGW) from atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations is NOT happening.

The GCMs are constructed to present the changes to warming of the atmosphere which would result from changes to radiative forcing. And all the climate models show more warming in the upper troposphere than near the surface (especially distant from polar regions) as a result of increased radiative forcing from increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. 

Nobody doubts that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase radiative forcing, but AGW-proponents say this will cause the atmosphere to respond in a particular way. The pattern of the proposed response is a ‘fingerprint’ for AGW. Therefore, if a ‘fingerprint’ of AGW is absent then any observed warming is not a result of the AGW the climate models project.

This pattern of warming is known as the tropospheric ‘Hot Spot’.

The Hot Spot is fully described in Chapter 9 of the so-called “scientific” WG1 report of IPCC AR4 that can read at and downloaded from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter9-1.pdf

The Hot Spot is shown Figure 9.1.

It is on page 675 and is titled,
“Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
(a) solar forcing,
(b) volcanoes,
(c) wellmixed greenhouse gases,
(d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
(e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
(f) the sum of all forcings.
Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa
(shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a)

The Hot Spot is the big red blob that is only in plots (c) for wellmixed greenhouse gases, and (f) for the sum of all forcings.

As can be seen in the Figure the blob is warming of between 2 and 3 times the warming near the surface beneath it.

Furthermore, the plot is of predicted temperature rises “from 1890 to 1999” and the measured temperature rises are for the latter part of the period (since 1958 for the balloon data and since 1969 for the satellite data). Thus, warming measured by balloons and satellites was for when “wellmixed greenhouse gases” were at their highest.

Therefore, if the effect of wellmixed greenhouse gases is as predicted in Figure 9.1 of IPCC WG1 AR4 then the measured warming in the Hot Spot should be MORE THAN 2 to 3 times greater than warming measured near the surface beneath the Hot Spot.

The Hot Spot occurs because of the assumed water vapour feedback (WVF).
Any increase to temperature increases evapouration of water (H2O) from the Earth’s surface. H2O is the major greenhouse gas (GHG) and CO2 is the greatest of the minor GHGs. The models assume CO2 warms the surface and, thus, increases evapouration and, therefore, the warming effects of water vapour in the air: this is known as the water vapour feedback (WVF). The cold at altitude in the troposphere means there is little H2O up there so any increase to the H2O concentration at altitude has large warming effect.

The Hot Spot is missing so the GCMs provide projections that indicate there is no global warming from wellmixed greenhouse gases.

Richard

François Riverin
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
December 2, 2021 8:52 am

In AR6, page 3-23, they talk about this ‘hot spot’, without using the same wording. As far as I can understand, and I am not a climatologist, they admitted almost entirely what John Christy told them since many years for this lack of Tropical Hot Spot: their models failed to represent reality. But that did’n change their dogma that it is co2 which drived temperature since 1950. I look forward Mr Christy’s reply to AR6.

markl
December 1, 2021 8:06 pm

“Climate models show….” Sigh.

Gabriel Oxenstierna
Reply to  markl
December 2, 2021 1:30 am

This paper is a misrepresentation of the results of model simulations. They actually don’t differ in any substantial way from previous work and its a consequence of treating the mean of a skewed ensemble as representative.

Gavin Schmidt on this at RealClimate:
“the main conclusion that the authors highlight in the press release and which was picked up in the newspaper coverage was the claim that rain would dominate Arctic precipitation ‘decades earlier’ than previously thought. This is based on the last row of figure 8:
This shows the results from the raw ensemble means, and uses the absolute times in the output. Given the excessive warming in some models, which will have an earlier transition than the other CMIP6 or CMIP5 models, this result is mostly due to the inclusion of the high ECS models, not anything fundamental about the processes involved.”

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/12/making-predictions-with-the-cmip6-ensemble/

Richard Page
Reply to  Gabriel Oxenstierna
December 2, 2021 7:52 am

Blimey, when Gavin Schmidt thinks a climate model study is rubbish it must be really, really crap – I thought he had a very low bar for this stuff.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Gabriel Oxenstierna
December 2, 2021 10:37 am

Please note that Gavin did not mention that the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6 rejected the high-ECS models for use in estimating a modeled ECS range. Its all word games with the practiced CliSciFi liars. That’s why their reports use dense, convoluted and obscure language; they are meant to persuade rather than inform. They represent government lies designed to shape public opinion.

Dave Fair
Reply to  markl
December 2, 2021 10:26 am

UN IPCC CliSciFi models show what the modelers model into the models in order to get the models’ modeled output. No observation of the (lack of) a Hot Spot is needed.

H B
December 1, 2021 8:08 pm

Are these “scientists ” trying to make dorks of themselves I wonder some times they must be desperate for that govt grant

Joao Martins
Reply to  H B
December 2, 2021 2:54 am

Are these “scientists ” trying to make dorks of themselves …

They don’t need to try: they are already.

François Riverin
Reply to  H B
December 2, 2021 9:13 am

they have been financed mainly from a 118 M$ CA budget, in the order of 1M$ per year during awcwb years. Our Canadian government needs this king of result to implement and support it’s absurb climate policy.

François Riverin
Reply to  François Riverin
December 2, 2021 9:20 am

seven

Al Miller
December 1, 2021 8:25 pm

Oh! I was going to dismiss this one – until I saw that it was based on a model!!!. It has to be true then, in some deluded programmers mind at least.

Pat from kerbob
December 1, 2021 8:27 pm

As a canadian who has spent a lot of time in manitoba and all across the far north I say bring it on
Extending the tree line to the Arctic Ocean means unbelievable expansion of forests and arable land.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
December 1, 2021 9:18 pm

The long hours of sunlight in Summer have advantages if coupled with warmer temperatures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matanuska-Susitna_Valley

Julio
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
December 5, 2021 8:43 am

That’s quite a selfish way to think. But in North America it’s not surprising

Pat from kerbob
December 1, 2021 8:30 pm

Meanwhile, sunshine mountain village in banff closed today due to too much snow

Tomorrow too

To dangerous with all that global warming.

Last edited 1 month ago by Pat from kerbob
Scissor
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
December 1, 2021 8:35 pm

Send some down to Colorado. It was 70F in Boulder today.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Scissor
December 2, 2021 4:18 pm

Careful what you wish for, you’ll get yours soon enough.

Pat from kerbob
December 1, 2021 8:33 pm
Dave Fair
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
December 2, 2021 11:05 am

Pat, please don’t confuse the CliSciFi practitioners, politicians, bureaucrats, activist ideologues, “journalists” and profiteers of all stripes with reality.

PCman999
December 1, 2021 9:38 pm

I hope the UofM research is correct – the best thing to happen for the Earth would be that it really does definitively warm up and the hydrological cycle gets wetter. The Earth will become greener and wetter, and our grandchildren won’t know what deserts are like (maybe not, but hopefully the deserts will be smaller and pock-marked by thousands of oasis.

gringojay
Reply to  PCman999
December 1, 2021 10:08 pm

Still, some things might stay the same.

0A065E61-01D8-4209-9A9C-CE6536D1726A.jpeg
Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
December 1, 2021 10:22 pm

“The Arctic having very strong snowfall is really important for everything in that region and also for the global climate, because it reflects a lot of sunlight.”

The lie here is that by late autumn there is hardly any sunlight due to low angles and long nights regardless of the snow cover. Unless the models are predicting changing obliquity by 2100, this late autumn albedo alteration is a non issue.

The Guardian writer is of course a complete moron on this issue, not just employing climate idiot terms like “climate crisis.” He wrote, “…where you would imagine there should be snowfall in the whole of the autumn period, we’re actually seeing an earlier transition to rainfall.”

So is time running backwards at the Guardian??? What was before rainfall?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 2, 2021 2:42 am

I’ve often wondered how albedo works in the Polar winters. When the sun is at its greatest altitude mid-May to end ofJuly the Arctic Sea ice is close to maximum. Does it matter if the reflective layer is 2 metres or 2 millimetres thick?

Bob
December 1, 2021 10:24 pm

I can’t understand why someone who follows this site doesn’t take the models used to make these predictions and adjust the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide in the model. I’m sure I am not being clear but I will try to explain. I think the average global temperature is accepted to be approximately 16 centigrade. For any model to be taken seriously it would have to show that before the earth’s CO2 concentration doubled the accepted average temperature was 16C and their models do show that. For them to convince us that CO2 is the control knob they would have to show that all other considerations plugged into the model stay relatively the same except CO2, which has doubled in the model. What I am suggesting is for you to take any model, preferably one that shows the greatest increase in temperature from a doubling of CO2. Let’s say that the chosen model predicts a 5 degree centigrade increase of earth’s temperature with a doubling of CO2. I doubt anyone thinks earth’s actual average temperature would track along this model. You take the model leave all other parameters the same and adjust the value of the CO2 effect, in other words keep lowering the effect of CO2 until you match the current temperature. The idea is that you show what the effect HAS BEEN rather than what it might be.

Let’s say you have four parameters, you could have 10. or 20 but let’s say four. A is always the effect of a doubling of CO2.

A+B+C+D=16 C before man made CO2 additions.

A+B+C+D= 21C after a doubling of CO2.

So you keep lowering the value of A until it approaches the measured temperature, most likely much closer to 16 C.

TonyL
Reply to  Bob
December 1, 2021 10:51 pm

??????
A+B+C+D=16 C before man made CO2 additions.
OK, now…..
So you keep lowering the value of A until it approaches the measured temperature, most likely much closer to 16 C.

So you want to double CO2 and have a 0.0 temp increase?
And calculate a new value for A, {call it A1} for a doubling, still at 16 C??

The only way I see this working out given the algebra is:
A = A1 = 0.0.

Not sure what you are trying to do here.

Bob
Reply to  TonyL
December 2, 2021 7:45 pm

Yes you are right it should have been A minus some value. The point is that the first equation represents how the climate reacts with no anthropogenic CO2. The second equation shows us what happens when man contributes to a doubling of CO2. My point is that someone who knows how should take their model and leave everything in place except the effect a doubling of CO2 has on the climate. So everything in their formula or algorithm would remain the same except we would be reducing the value of A until the equation equals the observed temperature. I understand my example is far too simple for some to appreciate but the idea is so simple I just can’t imagine why someone hasn’t already done it. You use their work, you show their work doesn’t match observations, you lower the value of A (the effect a doubling of CO2 has on earth’s average temperature) until it matches observations. That is the real value of A. A being how much CO2 acts as the control knob for global temperature.

Thanks for responding I was afraid my comment would be such a mish mash that no one would even notice.

GregK
December 1, 2021 10:24 pm

The University of Manitoba appears to have forgotten David Viner’s effort…

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-longest-running-climate-prediction-blunders-has-disappeared-from-the-internet/

Come winter 2021…https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-weather-snow-news-forecast-b1967624.html

Perhaps it should have taken note of the conclusions of an anonymous Dane…” It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future”.

Schadenfreude, epicaricracy or just malicious joy ?

DMacKenzie
December 1, 2021 11:16 pm

Pledges made by nations at the recent Cop26 summit could keep the temperature rise to a still disastrous 2.4C, but only if these promises are met.

But they don’t know if ECS is 1.5 or 6 degrees per CO2 doubling….so speaking of keeping it to “X degrees” without knowing by a factor of 4, how much CO2 that would entail, is entirely spin doctoring.

Phillip Bratby
December 1, 2021 11:19 pm

Didn’t Damian Carrington used to work for the Grauniad? That says all you need to know about this propaganda.

Rod Evans
December 1, 2021 11:35 pm

I read this article and thought it is so shocking a suggestion there must be some massive new evidence based study to support the claim of no more snow post 2060.
This gem from the piece indicated a complete piece of fabrication rather than a scientific breakthrough. vis.
Even if the global temperature rise is kept to 1.5C or 2C, the Greenland and Norwegian Sea areas will still become rain dominated. Scientists were shocked in August when rain fell on the summit of Greenland’s huge ice capfor the first time on record.”

Well all I can say is, the scientists in shock should get out more often and check their records.
From what I have read, rain has happened at the station on the ice cap in the past. August was not the first time.
Maybe the clue was there all the time? It was all based on computer modelling output, which has so far been shown to be hopelessly wrong.
Then I noticed the source of this piece of futurology was the Guardian. At that point I realised it’s just another for that pile in the corner marked, “fiction”

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Rod Evans
December 2, 2021 2:50 am

A couple of days ago that particular weather station (I think it was the PROMICE station) was showing lower than – 50’C. There’s been no data the last couple of days. I always feel better on cold miserable days knowing we’re warmer than Central Greenland.

Alan the Brit
December 2, 2021 12:59 am

Climate models show switch will happen decades faster than previously thought, with ‘profound’ implications

Sorry, stopped reading after the words “Climate models show”!!!

Puter models are just like any other models. I recall many years back as a Chartered Structural Engineer working on a domestic/residential project having to try to “justify” a boundary wall adjacent to a public footpath & highway, the computer programme kept telling me it was failing due to exceeding a Factor of Safety of 3, (standard procedure) I spoke to the programme providers about it, & they agreed that trying to achieve that FoS was going to be disproportionately expensive, he told me how to access the programme to reduce the FoS to 2.5, & bingo it calculation worked a treat! He told me that perhaps I should make an “engineering judgement” as a professional. He was absolutely right, sometimes a professional judgement has to be taken. As I have said before, I have often said to young graduates to not simply rely on what the puter print-out says, telling them to develop a feel for the calculation, as in the print out says this or that, but does it “feel” right!!! In discussions with several fellow engineers we all felt that whilst it is proper to be cautious, developing feel was equally important!!! So, whenever I read/hear the words “models show”, I take it with a pinch!!!

George Lawson
December 2, 2021 1:43 am

It is one of the worlds greatest mysteries as to why these idiotic scientists don’t understand that every stupid forecast they have made over the past 25 years has not come to fruition. Perhaps there is truth in the old saying ‘The absent minded professor!’

Anthony Banton
Reply to  George Lawson
December 2, 2021 9:16 am

every stupid forecast they have made over the past 25 years has not come to fruition.”

Amazing.

Considering no “forecasts” – projections (by the IPCC) have reached their time as yet.
Projections are for decades into the future.
Bar the idiot Wadhams’ re arctic ice……
comment image

Ted
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 3, 2021 10:23 am

“no “forecasts” – projections (by the IPCC) have reached their time as yet.
Projections are for decades into the future.”

Incorrect. The forecasts run for decades, but they include projections for each year of those timeframes. And given CO2 levels of the past 20 years, temperature changes are far lower than projections.

comment image

Peta of Newark
December 2, 2021 1:48 am

They need to learn the difference between Temperature and Energy

(I scored Big Time t’other day on MSN comments – I was told ‘of course temp and energy are the same‘ and only A Moron would know differently)
High praise indeed – be wary of stupid people, esp in large numbers (also Universities, White Houses and Number 10)

Graemethecat
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 2, 2021 4:22 am

I’ve had similar arguments on YouTube. The arrogance of these imbeciles is astonishing.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 2, 2021 9:08 am

Probably never heard of enthalpy!

ozspeaksup
December 2, 2021 1:58 am

well Id say send the dude there for some “observation” either nth or to a psych ward

Captain climate
December 2, 2021 2:22 am

Odd that obviously wrong, overly sensitive climate models like CMIP6 would forecast absurd warming.

RobR
December 2, 2021 2:22 am

You can track the trend in mean daily summer temperature inside the 80th parallel via the Danish Meteorological Institute website. From 1958 to 2021 there has been basically zero upwards trend, despite a slight warming in the mid latitudes. Mean daily summer temperatures have been at or below 2 deg C all the way inside the arctic circle. So basically cold enough for snow rather than rain at sea level all the way 100% of the year, given that snow/sleet can fall at a ground/sea-surface temperature as high as 3 deg C. Projecting the historic summer trend forward suggests no significant summer trend in the future. Winter is always going to be cold up there. So it is unlikely there will be a shortage of snow in the Arctic at any time in the next 80 years.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  RobR
December 2, 2021 2:54 am

I defy anyone to distinguish between 1958 and 2021 on the DMI charts.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 2, 2021 9:11 am

see above

Anthony Banton
Reply to  RobR
December 2, 2021 9:08 am

“You can track the trend in mean daily summer temperature inside the 80th parallel via the Danish Meteorological Institute website. From 1958 to 2021 there has been basically zero upwards trend, despite a slight warming in the mid latitudes”

No …. and there wont be while the majority of the area within the 80th parallel consists of ice !!!
(when it’s gone – is one form of tipping point as excess heat will be added to the climate system and not used to melt the ice)

You cannot get the air temperature to rise much above 0C over an ice surface.
The heat is being drained from the air as latent heat in order to melt the ice!

You will only see the trend in the winter trend, when heat is not being used to melt ice – rather the lack of it in forming it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Anthony Banton
RobR
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 2, 2021 4:16 pm

Think again. The pattern of warming seen in winter inside the 80th parallel is clearly driven by massive bursts of advection of heat sourced from regions outside of the arctic. This is due to atmospheric circulation and has minimal relation to greenhouse gases and so-called global warming. In the winter the temperature over vast areas of sea-ice changes by 10’s of degrees up and down in a matter of a few days to a couple of weeks. In this region temperature does change over ice and this has little to do with melting or freezing of sea-ice.

In the arctic summer temperature stability is enabled by a massive reduction in advection from outside the region. Basically, a general reduction in severe weather events. This is due to a reduction in the relative difference in temperature between the high and mid latitudes (a lower temperature gradient).

Anyone who has walked over an ice-field or glacier on a nice sunny summer day will appreciate that the air is easily capable of warming way higher than 0C. The higher the angle of the sun the greater the warming. The arctic is kept cool in summer by the angle of incidence of the suns rays, not by the melting of the ice. Such melting as does occur is controlled more by the temperature of the water on the underside than of the air above.

Crowcatcher
December 2, 2021 2:23 am

Do these loons not realise that for most of Earth’s history there have been no polar ice caps – and life always carried on its “merry” way!!!!

Julio
Reply to  Crowcatcher
December 5, 2021 7:18 am

Were humans on the planet back then? Or are you one of those who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and that humans coexisted with dinosaurs?

Laws of Nature
December 2, 2021 2:36 am

John Mitchell: “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful”

Well, thanks to R. McKitrick, such a statement is no longer a question of opinion.
Science says that the attribution from models into the real world seems flawed since 1999 and John Mitchel should not ignore such knowledge.
Also, he seems to be unburdened by the fact that the recent set of global climate models CMIP6 struggle to implement clouds correctly (older models do not have that problem, they basically ignore cloud details).

As good long term data is missing for many climate relevant parameters and models show questionable results, climate science is left facing huge problems after making lots of bold statements.

Joao Martins
December 2, 2021 2:44 am

This is fake news!

Everyone knows that the Arctic if free of ice since 2013!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Joao Martins
December 2, 2021 11:28 am

The dashed red exponential curve shows it was ice free last summer.

Bloke down the pub
December 2, 2021 3:42 am

So snow reflects a lot of sunshine in the Arctic in autumn? That’s odd, as I seem to recall that the Arctic is famous for not having a lot of sunshine in the autumn.

Krishna Gans
December 2, 2021 3:56 am

Massive snowstorm in Danmarks Northjutland led to circulation problems and blackouts. 25 employees and several clients had to stay in an IKEA shop overnight.

Last edited 1 month ago by Krishna Gans
Graemethecat
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 2, 2021 4:23 am

Did they sleep on the beds?!

Dave K
Reply to  Graemethecat
December 2, 2021 8:15 am

No Allen keys available.

Paul
Reply to  Graemethecat
December 2, 2021 4:14 pm

according to the article they did sleep on the bads

shrnfr
December 2, 2021 4:24 am

I think this prediction is all wet.

December 2, 2021 4:46 am

Serreze, Serreze.

Yooper
December 2, 2021 5:17 am

As John Mitchell, Chief Research Scientist British MET once explained, “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful”.

Is today April 1?

Graemethecat
Reply to  Yooper
December 2, 2021 9:02 am

In Climate Clownworld, it’s always the 1st of April.

gmak
December 2, 2021 5:22 am

Knowing Manitoba, I think that his is maybe wishful thinking. lol.

December 2, 2021 6:11 am

If the “Science is settled”, why do they have to keep studying it?

Coach Springer
December 2, 2021 6:28 am

Boiler plate climate “study” language: “faster than previously thought, with ‘profound’ implications”

Dave Fair
Reply to  Coach Springer
December 2, 2021 11:30 am

As Gavin pointed out: Change your models, change your result.

Dan M
December 2, 2021 7:40 am

Well, today in Winnipeg,it’s sunny and a balmy -7F. Who needs snow when you have ice.

Arctic sea ice is having it’s best year in 6 or 7 years. Is this the start of our solar minimum little ice age?

Dan M
Reply to  Dan M
December 2, 2021 7:41 am

Sorry, -7 C

Tomsa
December 2, 2021 8:49 am

When I first saw the story on CBC about this study I didn’t read it thinking that typical, every story on CBC re climate is alarmist.

I note the young lady has her photo in the CBC article I assume visiting the Arctic. No hat or gloves must by July. Hope she has hat and gloves on next Monday on the way to work when it’s only going to -22C that day.

I note they had to quote her saying: “McCrystall said that increase in carbon creates a negative impact, because carbon emissions contribute to the further warming of the atmosphere.”

2EB21C8C-2E92-48EA-BE49-2E4D3B85069C_1_201_a.jpeg
taxed
December 2, 2021 10:04 am

There are no signs of less snow appearing during the autumn here in England, let alone the Arctic.

Dave Fair
December 2, 2021 10:07 am

“Observational evidence is not very useful.” … For CliSciFi propaganda and fearmongering.

Charles Higley(@higley7)
December 2, 2021 11:18 am

As John Mitchell, Chief Research Scientist British MET once explained, “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful”.”

Yeah, that’s how we do science new. No evidence for the Big Bang, but they pour money into it. No evidence for climate change by man, but they are wedded to it. Now, we have a non-existent virus and destroying the world to fight it. All boogey men and fear-mongering.

The key to this bastardization of science is that the math and models are assumed to know more than the real world. All of the factors of climate are integrated every day by THE WORLD. The result is what we see every day.

The idea that real world observations are not useful tells me that this clown scientists should never be called a scientist in any way and his degrees, down to high school, should be revoked.

Eric Harpham
December 2, 2021 11:26 am

I get the feeling that nobody has programmed into their models that we are over one year in to a Solar Grand Minimum. Has nobody told them?

Mike
December 2, 2021 11:45 am

Climate modeling is in no way a Science. Falsifiability is impossible.

dmanfred
December 2, 2021 12:12 pm

“decades faster than previously thought”

I remember when “they” thought is would have happened by now.

Gerald Machnee
December 2, 2021 12:53 pm

Today, you still get grant money for the exaggerations on warming. Your target has to be decades down the road so it cannot be verified before you retire.

ResourceGuy
December 2, 2021 1:28 pm

Charlatan…caused by global warming of course

John in Oz
December 2, 2021 2:18 pm

switch will happen decades faster than previously thought

“Settled science” strikes again

DocSiders
December 2, 2021 5:29 pm

Exactly HOW does CO2 (equally distributed everywhere) focus almost all the warming above the Arctic Ocean?

I don’t see any trans-equatorial ocean currents sucking all that heat from the Southern Continents and Antarctica and dumping it into the Arctic.

I might suspect some other cause before assuming such magic. Check back in after both the PDO and the NAO run negative for a couple decades.

AntonyIndia
Reply to  DocSiders
December 2, 2021 9:23 pm

Don’t expect any research funding for studying this big Arctic – Antarctic difference in the light of (antropogenic) CO2, as a true result might not be convenient for the CEO2 Ideology.

Julio
Reply to  AntonyIndia
December 5, 2021 2:23 pm

You do understand why the temperatures are different at the north and South Pole right?

Edward Katz
December 2, 2021 6:07 pm

As a Manitoba resident, I noticed something that looked a lot like snow on Nov. 11 & 12; in fact, I think it totaled 11 inches and created some tricky driving and walking conditions. So 2060 is still a long way off. Besides weren’t the experts making these predictions about a decade ago, except they were claiming the end of snow by around 2020.

FlaDiver
December 3, 2021 4:14 am

Wash, rinse and repeat.
If I lived in a modeled world I would be scared.
As I use to tell the young Pokemon engineers that came to our avionics lab, you are here to write code to model new upgrades made to the aircraft for the lab, but also to fix bugs in the twenty plus year old models. These models were all developed from same requirements the black boxes were built to, with all the inputs and outputs “shall do this”. And yes we would find errors. You could see the little cogs turning in their brains when I would throw in the and don’t believe the nebulous climate model crap you hear.

Julio
December 4, 2021 6:37 pm

I’m very surprised at the ignorance in the comments posted. Maybe some simple atmospheric physics books would be good for you all to read to better understand how a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture and how the loss of sea ice leads to more evaporation. One, it’s not surprising that there will be more precipitation and two, as the atmosphere continues to warm, there will be a transition to rainfall. Now if you want to say the models warming response to GHGs is all wrong, but that’s a different story

Last edited 1 month ago by Julio
JoeG
December 5, 2021 5:46 pm

So glad we don’t live in the world of climate models. The only climate models relevant to the real world can be found in Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.

%d bloggers like this: