InstantWeatherMaps Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 With the first significant uptick in the FSU Snow Cover graph, I think it's time to start this thread. Discuss NH (especially Eurasia) snow cover here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okie333 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Looks like it's starting... Those pixels in northern Siberia weren't there a few days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Maybe the thread could be renamed to something like "NH Snowcover Watch" instead of the meaningless title it has now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okie333 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Maybe the thread could be renamed to something like "NH Snowcover Watch" instead of the meaningless title it has now? I think the OP was making a not-so-subtle reference to a thread on Eastern last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 already severe departures in Canada. Likely Co-Current when the missing ice there. We really need a sharp turn cold and the ice to build quickly towards the Hudson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roardog Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 already severe departures in Canada. Likely Co-Current when the missing ice there. We really need a sharp turn cold and the ice to build quickly towards the Hudson. Severe departures on Sept. 4? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 already severe departures in Canada. Likely Co-Current when the missing ice there. We really need a sharp turn cold and the ice to build quickly towards the Hudson. :weenie: :weenie: :weenie: :weenie: :weenie: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 If you guys pull your head out of the sand for a few moments. http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/anomalies-in-northern-hemisphere-snow-cover They expect it to get worse. Severe departures on Sept. 4? lol Haven't seen you around the Sea Ice Thread. In-case your wondering the arctic Sea Ice is the 2nd worse on record extent wise, tied for worse on record area wise this is universal on all accepted measuring places. volume and thickness are at record lows. SSTs are boiling for the arctic and have spatial record anomalies making 2007 look like child's play. To bad that graph shows record low ice with record low snow. So Yes September 4th used to be around the time Sea Ice Area was dramatically going back up and Extent was at the end and usually over 7,000,000km2. We will be lucky to be over 4,500,000km2 by October 1st. It will be hard for snow cover when the arctic looks like this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okie333 Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Looks like it's starting... Those pixels in northern Siberia weren't there a few days ago. A little more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 This is the graph we'd probably most be interested in if you are trying to associate snow cover in the autumn with N.A. winters. The Eurasian snow cover in October has had the highest correlation with the NAO/AO (or actually an inverse correlation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okie333 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 A little more... Still grasping for straws, but this is something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Still grasping for straws, but this is something... How many more pixels with this update? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okie333 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 How many more pixels with this update? Y'know, I haven't actually started counting... But here (note that there is always a random error of about 20 pixels in the snow counts due to the white numbers at the bottom right): SNOW PIXEL COUNTS (total white minus 8000 [approximate number of white pixels that are map lines and not snow]) Yesterday: 266 Today: 282 One year ago today: 350 ICE PIXEL COUNTS (total yellow) Yesterday: 1546 Today: 1559 One year ago today: 1695 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 If you guys pull your head out of the sand for a few moments. http://maps.grida.no...here-snow-cover They expect it to get worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I wouldn't expect much of a deficit comparing 2002-2011 with 1995-2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I wouldn't expect much of a deficit comparing 2002-2011 with 1995-2009. You don't have any trend in the first place, the past 2 years have been near record levels for wintertime snowcover. The 2011-12 snowcover thread isn't a place to worry or alarm oneself about natural variations in snowcover and what they may/may not be attributed to. Rutgers University: http://climate.rutge...set=0&ui_sort=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 You don't have any trend in the first place, the past 2 years have been near record levels for wintertime snowcover. The 2011-12 snowcover thread isn't a place to worry or alarm oneself about natural variations in snowcover and what they may/may not be attributed to. Rutgers University: http://climate.rutge...set=0&ui_sort=1 Winter snowcover has been above normal recently because of the extreme blocking. At the same time, summer snow is down because of declining sea ice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 You don't have any trend in the first place, the past 2 years have been near record levels for wintertime snowcover. The 2011-12 snowcover thread isn't a place to worry or alarm oneself about natural variations in snowcover and what they may/may not be attributed to. Rutgers University: http://climate.rutge...set=0&ui_sort=1 Record extent in snow cover for single week or day is not surprising in warming climate. 2008 on your bar graph was right below 2010, 2011 but had a major yearly anomaly from the same source in 2008. From the same source every year but two since 1978 had a negative anomaly from the long term trend. Every single one. If your going to say it's natural then say it's naturally low. A warming climate will have large extent anomalies but less snow cover overall. It has been a relief with you bailing out of the sea ice thread. I know you will come back if or when the ice is doing better. I can't help the data. I don't really understand why people are on me for posting factual data. I can't help that the sea ice or snow cover has declined so much. If the ice or snow was the opposite I would be posting the same graphs showing that. But I won't try to manipulate data. sorrry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Record extent in snow cover for single week or day is not surprising in warming climate. 2008 on your bar graph was right below 2010, 2011 but had a major yearly anomaly from the same source in 2008. From the same source every year but two since 1978 had a negative anomaly from the long term trend. Every single one. If your going to say it's natural then say it's naturally low. A warming climate will have large extent anomalies but less snow cover overall. It has been a relief with you bailing out of the sea ice thread. I know you will come back if or when the ice is doing better. I can't help the data. I don't really understand why people are on me for posting factual data. I can't help that the sea ice or snow cover has declined so much. If the ice or snow was the opposite I would be posting the same graphs showing that. But I won't try to manipulate data. sorrry. Can you JUST ONCE not turn something into a GW thread? Take it to the climate change forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Record extent in snow cover for single week or day is not surprising in warming climate. 2008 on your bar graph was right below 2010, 2011 but had a major yearly anomaly from the same source in 2008. From the same source every year but two since 1978 had a negative anomaly from the long term trend. Every single one. If your going to say it's natural then say it's naturally low. A warming climate will have large extent anomalies but less snow cover overall. It has been a relief with you bailing out of the sea ice thread. I know you will come back if or when the ice is doing better. I can't help the data. I don't really understand why people are on me for posting factual data. I can't help that the sea ice or snow cover has declined so much. If the ice or snow was the opposite I would be posting the same graphs showing that. But I won't try to manipulate data. sorrry. If you want to turn in this a climate change topic, you know where to find it. Give some actual useful info to this thread which is Asian side snow cover in October...so we should tracking that. I posted the graph already. This is not the forum to post your climate thoughts...do it again and you will be banned. And do not cry foul, because the rules are pretty straight forward here. We've said multiple times that there is no room for this stuff on the wx side. There is a reason we have that specific forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 If you want to turn in this a climate change topic, you know where to find it. Give some actual useful info to this thread which is Asian side snow cover in October...so we should tracking that. I posted the graph already. This is not the forum to post your climate thoughts...do it again and you will be banned. And do not cry foul, because the rules are pretty straight forward here. We've said multiple times that there is no room for this stuff on the wx side. There is a reason we have that specific forum. Bethesda was actually the first one that brought up what the trends are attributable to claiming it's all natural variation. Prior to that all that Friv posted was some data without commentary as to the cause. Just wondering why Friv was singled out when Bethesda was the one that started the discussion of attribution? Moreover, given that AGW is a widely accepted consensus in the scientific community, and this is a science forum after all, some reference to how that will affect our weather seems unavoidable on occasion, though most of the actual debate should be diverted to the CC forum. I've certainly seen mets and others bring up AGW on occasion on the weather side without controversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 If you guys pull your head out of the sand for a few moments. http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/anomalies-in-northern-hemisphere-snow-cover They expect it to get worse. Haven't seen you around the Sea Ice Thread. In-case your wondering the arctic Sea Ice is the 2nd worse on record extent wise, tied for worse on record area wise this is universal on all accepted measuring places. volume and thickness are at record lows. SSTs are boiling for the arctic and have spatial record anomalies making 2007 look like child's play. To bad that graph shows record low ice with record low snow. So Yes September 4th used to be around the time Sea Ice Area was dramatically going back up and Extent was at the end and usually over 7,000,000km2. We will be lucky to be over 4,500,000km2 by October 1st. It will be hard for snow cover when the arctic looks like this: Bethesda was actually the first one that brought up what the trends are attributable to claiming it's all natural variation. Prior to that all that Friv posted was some data without commentary as to the cause. Just wondering why Friv was singled out when Bethesda was the one that started the discussion of attribution? Moreover, given that AGW is a widely accepted consensus in the scientific community, and this is a science forum after all, some reference to how that will affect our weather seems unavoidable on occasion, though most of the actual debate should be diverted to the CC forum. I've certainly seen mets and others bring up AGW on occasion on the weather side without controversy. Not to hard to see above where he was going with it the moment he brought up the climate change forum and the sea ice thread. Oh and thanks Will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okie333 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Record extent in snow cover for single week or day is not surprising That graph shows the average of the entire winter, not a single week or day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 That graph shows the average of the entire winter, not a single week or day. The entire winter averages 47,000,000km2 that is crazy. I had no idea it was that much. Does that include snow on the ice as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okie333 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 The entire winter averages 47,000,000km2 that is crazy. I had no idea it was that much. Does that include snow on the ice as well? I think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 There seems to be a pretty good correlation between September arctic SSTs and October Eurasian snowcover. 07 warmest SSTs very low snowcover 08 very warm SSTs low snowcover 09 cooler SSTs very high snowcover 10 warm SSTs high snowcover (this year bucks the trend a little but not completely) This year will have SSTs almost as warm as 2007 so I would expect low snowcover and ice through October. Given the extremely low volume of sea ice remaining and thus the low sea ice minimums for the foreseeable future (regardless of your opinions on AGW), it doesn't bode well for October snowcover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 There seems to be a pretty good correlation between September arctic SSTs and October Eurasian snowcover. 07 warmest SSTs very low snowcover 08 very warm SSTs low snowcover 09 cooler SSTs very high snowcover 10 warm SSTs high snowcover (this year bucks the trend a little but not completely) This year will have SSTs almost as warm as 2007 so I would expect low snowcover and ice through October. Given the extremely low volume of sea ice remaining and thus the low sea ice minimums for the foreseeable future (regardless of your opinions on AGW), it doesn't bode well for October snowcover. What about before '07? The Eurasian Snow cover anomalies seem to match the NAO decadal cycle pretty well, which obviously isn't that surprising since we know it has a decent inverse correlation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 What about before '07? The Eurasian Snow cover anomalies seem to match the NAO decadal cycle pretty well, which obviously isn't that surprising since we know it has a decent inverse correlation. Prior to 07 there wasn't a lot of year to year variation in the SSTs since the ice had just melted and there wasn't much time for warming. My idea is that only the really warmest years (07 08 11) which are dramatically warmer than any other years in the historical record will have an effect on snowcover. Not much data to support it yet but it makes some physical sense. And SSTs this year are the 2nd warmest ever so will be interesting to see if the correlation the last 4 years continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Bethesda was actually the first one that brought up what the trends are attributable to claiming it's all natural variation. Prior to that all that Friv posted was some data without commentary as to the cause. Just wondering why Friv was singled out when Bethesda was the one that started the discussion of attribution? My post had absolutely nothing to do with Global Warming Theory, Snowcover varies naturally over extended time periods, the end. What is your deal? Moreover, given that AGW is a widely accepted consensus in the scientific community, and this is a science forum after all, some reference to how that will affect our weather seems unavoidable on occasion, though most of the actual debate should be diverted to the CC forum. I've certainly seen mets and others bring up AGW on occasion on the weather side without controversy. Issue arises when the entire discussion topic is diverted off topic, not that AGW theory is forbidden outside the CC-forum, but this thread isn't the place for debates on the matter unless it has to do with snowcover on it's own. AGW theory and it's significance, measurable or not, is CC-forum talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 There seems to be a pretty good correlation between September arctic SSTs and October Eurasian snowcover. 07 warmest SSTs very low snowcover 08 very warm SSTs low snowcover 09 cooler SSTs very high snowcover 10 warm SSTs high snowcover (this year bucks the trend a little but not completely) This year will have SSTs almost as warm as 2007 so I would expect low snowcover and ice through October. Given the extremely low volume of sea ice remaining and thus the low sea ice minimums for the foreseeable future (regardless of your opinions on AGW), it doesn't bode well for October snowcover. Well that will depend on what we see with the NAO, what you reference is a correlation to September/October NAO, SST's are altered by many factors including the NAO. Keep in mind the NAO not only has an effect on the SSTs, but also storm tracks that will determine snowfall in those areas......areas with more sunshine tend to see higher SST's, visa-verse with diminished sunlight, sunlight is a very big factor in where we see specific SST anomalies. Much of the NAO we've seen in 2009 & 2010 could very well be solar induced, in 2009 the upper atmsphere cooled and collapsed and while building back slowly we see with the weaker megnetic sun the wave-breaking up at the Stratospheric level seems altered. The more frequent -NAO in supressing storm track also tends to coincide with La Nina in the Pacific, though as is obvious the -NAO & alterations in wx-patterns during low solar activity results in Jet stream positioning oriented further southward, cloud cover over tropical regions increases in response as general weather patterns change, it all ties together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.