Organizing Low Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 who cares about this thread now lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riptide Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 who cares about this thread now lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikolai Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 snowcover today went boom! yday today & for posterity's sake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WidreMann Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Canada is looking pretty pathetic, I have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Snow: 7218 Ice: 2430 This is a HUGE loss in snow of 678 pixels. Very close to 10% of northern hemisphere snow was lost in late October last year. Snow: 7761 Ice: 2477 So we have more ice and more snow than we did last year. We're going to see a lot of snow melting over the next week and while Canada is looking quite pathetic, western Russia seems to be getting blanketed in the white stuff. Also, does anyone have any info on when we'll know if we're officially back in La Nina phase for ASO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vortmax Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Is or can anyone keep track of the Siberian High anomolies? It would be interesting to see how it is responding to all of the snow cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Chill Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 GFS long range points towards the pv moving into Canada. Of course, LR is never something you want to bet on. It won't take much to cover the northern 2/3rds of Canada and have it stick around this time of year. Either way, there is nothing much to worry about based on current snow cover. Plenty of cold on the other side of the globe to bottle up and send our way sometime during the 2nd half of Nov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WidreMann Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 FSU data is out to the 28th and we are now above normal for snowcover. Quite an amazing surge in the last week or so. Last year at this time, we were about to enter a period of snowcover *loss*. Of course, that did little to hamper the cold and snow that we ended up getting, even down here, so maybe it's not that big of a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Looks like it will be staying pretty cold in arctic latitudes while we warm up, so snowcover should at least maintain if not increase in the week or two ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikolai Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 u know what I say to the warministas... BLOOP BLOOP!!! huge area of gains the past few days, we've added more than a Kazakhstan's worth of cover... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 From what i've read, I think Eurasian snow cover is much more important than north american snow cover in terms of correlation to snowy winters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathafella Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Eurasia looks great, Canada can use some more. I just looked at anomalies in the NHEM going back to 1998 and I don't think we can infer much this year one way or the other based on the past 14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN Transplant Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Mid October A few days before the end of October Then the Kazakhstan explosion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 It should be stated that 2/3rds of Canada is way above mormal with the Canadian Arpechelo running 15-20C above normal. That is 27-36F for those who don't know. There isn't much cold in Canada for them. Yet at all. Places are 0c to -10c and should be -10c to -28c If we were this far below normal it would be - 25c to -45c. does this have an affect later on I have no idea. But I know it affects cold shots coming down from Northern Canada. That kind of warm air coming over lack of snow cover has no chance. Models with th current Colorado system were showing a much much colder mid range solution day 5-8 for my area when climo was a larger factor with the model solutions. As we got closer they warmed up big time even with the connection to the colder air up there. This summer I followed arctic sea ice daily to close. This happened all summer in the arctic. The cold in mid range never materialized or was much weaker. I have no way to prove this. Bit I bet if Canada was under temps the same as now but on the cold anomaly side I bet the cold air connection would be much larger and easier to obtain. Since 1995 my area has seen a tremendous cold and snow drought overall. When I go look at historic monthly temp anomalies for October and November that was around the time really after 97 or 98 that the cold months on the fall started to flip They keep getting Warmer year after year. All I am saying is we should look for a correlation that maybe snow cove and sea ice have on temps. I'm guessing it's olr leaving the Earth causing a lot of it that might not be there otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 It should be stated that 2/3rds of Canada is way above mormal with the Canadian Arpechelo running 15-20C above normal. That is 27-36F for those who don't know. There isn't much cold in Canada for them. Yet at all. Places are 0c to -10c and should be -10c to -28c If we were this far below normal it would be - 25c to -45c. does this have an affect later on I have no idea. But I know it affects cold shots coming down from Northern Canada. That kind of warm air coming over lack of snow cover has no chance. Models with th current Colorado system were showing a much much colder mid range solution day 5-8 for my area when climo was a larger factor with the model solutions. As we got closer they warmed up big time even with the connection to the colder air up there. This summer I followed arctic sea ice daily to close. This happened all summer in the arctic. The cold in mid range never materialized or was much weaker. Looks like greater cold anomalies today around here than the warm anomalies up in the Canadian Archipelago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowstorms Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 It should be stated that 2/3rds of Canada is way above mormal with the Canadian Arpechelo running 15-20C above normal. That is 27-36F for those who don't know. There isn't much cold in Canada for them. Yet at all. Places are 0c to -10c and should be -10c to -28c If we were this far below normal it would be - 25c to -45c. does this have an affect later on I have no idea. But I know it affects cold shots coming down from Northern Canada. That kind of warm air coming over lack of snow cover has no chance. I'm guessing it's olr leaving the Earth causing a lot of it that might not be there otherwise. Hmm analyzing the climate across Canada, i've noticed it follows closely to what the PDO/AMO do and the NAO/AO as secondary players. And for your temperature assumption. Yes some parts of Northern Canada are above normal currently which seems reasonable given the consistent LP anomalies across the NWT and Nunavut with a HP anomaly situated across Greenland but the anomalies are expected to get quite cool later this week into next week as the cold expands and cools across Northern Canada. In fact looking at Arctic Bay, Nunavut here are thepredicted temp. anomalies for the week; http://www.weatherof...0_metric_e.html Overnight lows seem a bit warm IMO but the High temps are average. Pond Inlet; http://www.weatherof...5_metric_e.html Massive and decent cool down. Cambridge Bay; http://www.weatherof...5_metric_e.html Again same as the other two; And lastly Iqaluit; http://www.weatherof...1_metric_e.html Nice cool down as well. Regions further south like Northern Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta should see a nice cool down later this week and next week with a massive HP anomaly developing across Western Canada and that should help build the snowcover across the West nicely. With that being said Arctic Sea Ice should grow nicely across the Canadian side of the Arctic but should grow much slower across the Kara Sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WidreMann Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 This isnt the climate change forum sparky, tone it done a notch Noticing a 10-year trend with actual data is completely legit in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I am so glad that nobody takes you seriously. Now that the sea ice is building faster than you expected, and there are some nice negative 850 temp anomolies up there, you have shifted your attention to land. Too funny. I have never seen an actual post about the weather from you, the next will be your first. the sea ice is currently the worst it has ever been on this date hands down by every measure we have combined. This has had a direct impact on global weather and our local weather. I think it is important. I have shifted my focus on to land now huh? I did more just on that page informing folks here than you have ever done on this board if you added up every post you have ever made and then only used the best of it. It might bring out a paragraph. I have never said a word to you. NOT ONE for any reason to slam you to really even engage in a discussion with you. I have no idea how you are allowed to continually troll me, insult me, and bold face lie about my posts. I would love to see one professional Met here read that page and confirm what you said that I have shifted my attention to land. Back to back nights now I laid out the info that has been presented to me as best as I can at my current level of education in this area hoping someone would engage in a riveting discussion. that is my level, this is yours. Instead of constantly trolling me, maybe you could do a bit or reading and then writing and debate me if you think I am full of it? I would love it....since I don't post lies and admit to my mistakes it should be fun and educational. Yeah I see some nice 850 MB temp anomalies. Lets see....The Kara had -3 to -6C 850mb anomalies but 8-13C temp anomalies today. The Laptev had -6 to -10C 850s but 7-12C temp anomalies. The ESB had -2 to -8C 850s but 5-10C surface temp anomalies. The Chukchi had -2 to -6 850s with 10-15C temp anomalies. The Beaufort and Southern Canadian Basin had -2 to -10C 850s but 5-10C temp anomalies. The coldest 850s sat over the west central arctic basin. where temps were around normal. You either don't know what is going on up thee and causing these anomalies or you just pick the 850s because the surface air has been so far above normal. Here is a possible reason why....so please pay attention to this so you can understand what is going on. Below is the drift track of a buoy that deployed in August of 2004 and was operation until September 28th or day 274. Below is the cross section temperature profile. You can see during the final days of peak heating the profile slightly warmed. The main band of warmer surface waters was from about 25-115 meters. That buoy was in ice during its short run before the floe cracked and it sank. Fast forward to a current buoy which has been operational during the same time for the most part but longer. You can see they like to deploy these in the same areas to get yearly profiles as we go along to build a data set. The one currently out there moved around more but that doesn't really matter for the purpose of this. They are in the same general area. The 2011 goes to 1.8C instead of 0C like the 2004 one because the water is warmer in 2011. Now I am not well versed in what happens to this heat under the shallow cold layer. in 2004 the cold layer was deep as well as the ice being thicker. Now the colder layer is not near as deep and the warmer area is thicker. Doesn't this heat escape slowly even through the ice until its gone or the ice is to thick for it to get out? won't this also increase water vapor and increase precip when a system taps this compared to before? Maybe this is part of the reason the 850s up there in fall are largely irrelevant. One more set of graphs with this: Out going long wave radiation anomalies from the 21st to the 28th of October. Surface Temp anomalies. Yeah that is pretty obvious correlation. Pretty awesome.. I am not intending for this to be some climate change debate. I am clearly the only one debating so far. I am just trying to throw out more angles on the ice and snow. So far this may have helped the arctic region have more snow in October from increased warmth = moisture. If the mods get reports of this post please do not delete it, please just move it to the climate change forum. I spent an hour and half getting it together and reading new material to make sure I wasn't posting bunk. If I wanted a climate change fight I would go there and post it there. I think there is direct relations happening right now with our falls maybe even winters and the warmer arctic. So lets find out exactly what it is causing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I love the year-year comparison of the buoy data.. very cool to see. Also FYI .. the high OLR may be a function of the weather bringing warm surface air not the lack of sea ice. You can see large +OLR anomalies anywhere.. over land.. over ocean.. on a warm day just because of the weather. Warm air has greater OLR. So does the warm surface water though too of course. To show that the warm water was causing the large OLR anomalies, I would want to see that the OLR anomalies occurred over all the anomalously warm SST areas where there is usually ice. The large OLR anomalies are probably a combination of both weather and the warm SSTs/lack of ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 It's nice to see Friv destroy the weather side of the forum as well with his nonsense. I clicked on this thread to read about snow cover, and all I saw was several posts about 850 temps, buoy data, and sea ice. I stopped reading the CC forum due to your awful posts about those subjects. Do you have to post them here as well in a snow cover thread? His post was purely providing data about sea ice and OHC.. which many others have discussed in this thread as well. Some great and fascinating data if you take the time to read it. It would take a lot longer for me to go and find this data for the year to year comparisons on my own so I appreciate the effort he must have put in. It had absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Thank you mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 October as a whole finishes slightly below normal for snow cover using the Rutgers data. We'll have to see if the CONUS has a cold winter with -AO anyway like it did the last time we had below avg snow cover in October (2008) or if it follows the traditional correlation of being warmer and +AO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I'm gussing they take an average across the whole month, do you know? I would have thought it would be a little lower based on this below. Probably a baseline thing.. '95-09 was very snowy in October as your graph shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I'm gussing they take an average across the whole month, do you know? I would have thought it would be a little lower based on this. Probably a baseline thing.. '95-09 was very snowy in October. Rutgers measures only snow cover...not ice cover like FSU does. Also the climo of Rutgers goes back to 1967 instead of 1995. I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes, but since 1995, we've mostly been above average for snow cover in October, so the mean might be tougher to reach than the 1967-2010 mean. edit: see you mentioned the baseline thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InstantWeatherMaps Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 Snow cover anomalies have done a complete 180 in the last couple of weeks. We are now solidly above average -- may it stay that way all winter long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Snow cover goes up and so do the temps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Well, if comparisons to last year bode well, we're in pretty good shape! 11/6/10: Nov. 6, 2011: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Well, if comparisons to last year bode well, we're in pretty good shape! 11/6/10: Nov. 6, 2011: Agreed, snow really looking thick across parts of Eurasia. A little low in central canada, but we make up for it with huge anomalies over the Rockies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 2010: Snow: 6556 Ice: 2684 2011: Snow: 8664 Ice: 2754 We are far, far ahead of where we were this time last year. Over 30% more snow this year than last year at this time and about 6% more ice this year than last year. I keep hearing that we've been keeping record on how much ice we've had through the years since 1979. Can someone post a chart on ice extent from 1979 onward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Just for sake of argument... How many pixels of ice have we had in the past 10 years. In 2001 we had 3121 In 2002 we had 2953 In 2003 we had 2945 In 2004 we had 2691 In 2005 we had 2708 In 2006 we had 2709 In 2007 we had 2649 In 2008 we had 2758 In 2009 we had 2731 In 2010 we had 2684 The 10 year average is 2794. Being at 2754, we are slightly below average right now. It is worth noting that when we transitioned to the new blue and green maps instead of blue and tan, our ice coverage dropped significantly. For instance, this is the last year we used blue and tan maps: And this was the highest amount of ice we've had in the blue and green maps: Looking at both in photoshop, the distribution between blue, tan, green and black, the non-meteorological colors, is equal. So, I would guess that something happened in 2004 where we just haven't been able to get back to those levels since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Here's the sea ice chart you asked for.. tied for record lowest extent. Pixel counting off of the NSIDC maps shouldn't be used in lieu of the actual sea ice algorithms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.