Drastic reduction in snowfall predicted

[Ottawa Blizzard]

A new climate model prediction is apparently calling for a drastic reduction in snowfall for many regions of North America over the next 70 years. Hard to know what to believe. We get a major snowfall and they say that climate change will cause heavier precipitation. We get winters with barely any snow - that's climate change too. Northern Japan gets pounded with snow - clearly, according to some, "something is going on with the weather".

 

 

 

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=Drastic_decline_in_snowfall_projected_03_03_2013?ref=ccbox_weather_topstories

[LocoAko]

A new climate model prediction is apparently calling for a drastic reduction in snowfall for many regions of North America over the next 70 years. Hard to know what to believe. We get a major snowfall and they say that climate change will cause heavier precipitation. We get winters with barely any snow - that's climate change too. Northern Japan gets pounded with snow - clearly, according to some, "something is going on with the weather".

 

 

 

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=Drastic_decline_in_snowfall_projected_03_03_2013?ref=ccbox_weather_topstories

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/18/climate-change-blizzards-snow_n_2711387.html

[Kelathos]

I think it is clear that those models would be addressing what occurs after 2-4 degrees of warming - not before.

[skierinvermont]

A new climate model prediction is apparently calling for a drastic reduction in snowfall for many regions of North America over the next 70 years. Hard to know what to believe. We get a major snowfall and they say that climate change will cause heavier precipitation. We get winters with barely any snow - that's climate change too. Northern Japan gets pounded with snow - clearly, according to some, "something is going on with the weather".

 

 

 

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=Drastic_decline_in_snowfall_projected_03_03_2013?ref=ccbox_weather_topstories

 

 

Loko's link provides a good explanation why the apparent contradiction is not a contradiction. Personally I find the link between heavy snow and AGW exaggerated at the very least and possibly non-existent. If there is a connection it is weak and doesn't warrant the wholesale attribution of every heavy snow event entirely to AGW. But it is not contradictory with an overall reduction in snowfall and snowcover.

[WeatherRusty]

Loko's link provides a good explanation why the apparent contradiction is not a contradiction. Personally I find the link between heavy snow and AGW exaggerated at the very least and possibly non-existent. If there is a connection it is weak and doesn't warrant the wholesale attribution of every heavy snow event entirely to AGW. But it is not contradictory with an overall reduction in snowfall and snowcover.

 

You can't see how historically warm coastal waters can juice up a snow storm?

[donsutherland1]

A new climate model prediction is apparently calling for a drastic reduction in snowfall for many regions of North America over the next 70 years. Hard to know what to believe. We get a major snowfall and they say that climate change will cause heavier precipitation. We get winters with barely any snow - that's climate change too. Northern Japan gets pounded with snow - clearly, according to some, "something is going on with the weather".

 

 

 

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=Drastic_decline_in_snowfall_projected_03_03_2013?ref=ccbox_weather_topstories

Contrary to the information provided by Weather Network.com, the study has not yet been published in the Journal of Climate. There was an early online release, so the study will likely be published in a forthcoming edition. Until then, it's premature for me to try to discuss details related to the piece.

 

It is plausible that one is dealing with a situation where averages and the frequency of all snow events are declining, even as the frequency of excessive snowfall events might be increasing.

[skierinvermont]

You can't see how historically warm coastal waters can juice up a snow storm?

 

The 50F SST isotherm (or 45F, or 40F) will migrate north at approximately the same rate as the jet stream and the southern boundary for snowstorms. The two effects approximately cancel. Your argument assumes that SSTs warm but land temps and the jet stream stay right where they are. 

 

Charleston, SC has pretty warm SSTs, but they don't see a lot of heavy snowstorms. 

 

I could see the probability of heavy snow increasing in far northern areas like Caribou ME or Quebec City. Areas like NYC and BOS would see no change for a while, and then a decrease by mid century. Areas like DC and Richmond have probably already begun to see a decrease. 

 

Only if blocking increases or if SSTs warm faster than land temps will heavy snowstorms increase. The former is still being debated and the latter seems unlikely.

 

 

 

EDIT: 

 

Another demonstration.

 

ALL of DC's top 10 snowstorms have occurred in the heart of winter between the dates of Dec 18 and Feb 18. Not a single one has occurred outside those dates when SSTs offshore would be warmer. The limiting factor in producing heavy DC snowfalls is cold air and the position of the jet stream, not SSTs offshore. AGW has and will continue to warm the air and shift the jet north. DC heavy snow will clearly decrease. 

 

On the other hand if we look at a northern city like Burlington VT, 4 of the top ten were in March and one was in November. 1 in Dec, 3 in Jan, and 1 in Feb. The amounts were also much higher ranging from 33.1 #1 and 29.8 #2 to 19.1 #10. DC only has had one storm of 20". 

 

Boston also has more heavy snowstorms and a longer heavy snow season from late Dec to late march (25.4" March 31-April 1st 1997 ranks as #4 all-time). 

[ORH_wxman]

The 50F SST isotherm (or 45F, or 40F) will migrate north at approximately the same rate as the jet stream and the southern boundary for snowstorms. The two effects approximately cancel. Your argument assumes that SSTs warm but land temps and the jet stream stay right where they are. 

 

Charleston, SC has pretty warm SSTs, but they don't see a lot of heavy snowstorms. 

 

I could see the probability of heavy snow increasing in far northern areas like Caribou ME or Quebec City. Areas like NYC and BOS would see no change for a while, and then a decrease by mid century. Areas like DC and Richmond have probably already begun to see a decrease. 

 

Only if blocking increases or if SSTs warm faster than land temps will heavy snowstorms increase. The former is still being debated and the latter seems unlikely.

 

 

 

EDIT: 

 

Another demonstration.

 

ALL of DC's top 10 snowstorms have occurred in the heart of winter between the dates of Dec 18 and Feb 18. Not a single one has occurred outside those dates when SSTs offshore would be warmer. The limiting factor in producing heavy DC snowfalls is cold air and the position of the jet stream, not SSTs offshore. AGW has and will continue to warm the air and shift the jet north. DC heavy snow will clearly decrease. 

 

On the other hand if we look at a northern city like Burlington VT, 4 of the top ten were in March and one was in November. 1 in Dec, 3 in Jan, and 1 in Feb. The amounts were also much higher ranging from 33.1 #1 and 29.8 #2 to 19.1 #10. DC only has had one storm of 20". 

 

Boston also has more heavy snowstorms and a longer heavy snow season from late Dec to late march (25.4" March 31-April 1st 1997 ranks as #4 all-time). 

 

Increased blocking is the best reason to explain larger snowstorms vs warmer SSTs when trying to attribute this to global warming...specifically as it pertains to northeast snowstorms. However the one conundrum with the increased blocking is that winter temps won't rise as fast as once thought in mid-latitudes...specifically the northeast. With increased blocking, cold air will be more readily available. 2009-2010 seems to be the poster child for the KU argument...and that winter was cold across the CONUS...in fact it was the 16th coldest on record. So in that case...cold = snow....not warmth. 2010-2011 can be included too...it was the 37th coldest winter in 108 years and both had incredible blocking. I am still wanting to see some more explanation about snow measurement homogenuity too. This has a big effect in large storms...not small ones. So it can artificially inflate the big storms if this is not accounted for. (i.e. the March 1958 storm would record much higher snowfall in the current day snow measuring world than in the 1958 setting).

 

Obviously winter temps in the northeast have warmed rapdily in the past several years...mostly in the winters that didn't see blocking. So perhaps it could be explained that the non-block winters are rapidly warming in the US...however this is based on a pretty low sample size. There is no doubt winter temps have warmed...relating that to heavy snow is tough though.

[WeatherRusty]

The 50F SST isotherm (or 45F, or 40F) will migrate north at approximately the same rate as the jet stream and the southern boundary for snowstorms. The two effects approximately cancel. Your argument assumes that SSTs warm but land temps and the jet stream stay right where they are. 

 

Charleston, SC has pretty warm SSTs, but they don't see a lot of heavy snowstorms. 

 

I could see the probability of heavy snow increasing in far northern areas like Caribou ME or Quebec City. Areas like NYC and BOS would see no change for a while, and then a decrease by mid century. Areas like DC and Richmond have probably already begun to see a decrease. 

 

Only if blocking increases or if SSTs warm faster than land temps will heavy snowstorms increase. The former is still being debated and the latter seems unlikely.

 

 

 

EDIT: 

 

Another demonstration.

 

ALL of DC's top 10 snowstorms have occurred in the heart of winter between the dates of Dec 18 and Feb 18. Not a single one has occurred outside those dates when SSTs offshore would be warmer. The limiting factor in producing heavy DC snowfalls is cold air and the position of the jet stream, not SSTs offshore. AGW has and will continue to warm the air and shift the jet north. DC heavy snow will clearly decrease. 

 

On the other hand if we look at a northern city like Burlington VT, 4 of the top ten were in March and one was in November. 1 in Dec, 3 in Jan, and 1 in Feb. The amounts were also much higher ranging from 33.1 #1 and 29.8 #2 to 19.1 #10. DC only has had one storm of 20". 

 

Boston also has more heavy snowstorms and a longer heavy snow season from late Dec to late march (25.4" March 31-April 1st 1997 ranks as #4 all-time). 

 

I agree with what you are saying. The likelihood of big snows will in general march northward with an overall warming climate. In keeping with the topic of this thread, there is not much doubt about that. However, I was referring to any give storm system, wherever it occures, to produce higher than typical quantifiable precipitation being caused by anomalyous warm ocean waters, and where that pricip falls as snow we get massive snow totals.

 

You see, this goes back to my argument, based on a fundamental physical expection, that as warming occurs the atmosphere should become more turbulent. This is due to stepped up entropy production which will manifest as increased dynamics or mixing of airmasses and the exchange of energy between the oceans and atmosphere. Once the sytem settles down to a new stablized equilibrium, warmer less differentiated state, things calm down. Entropy production is decreased and the whole system is less dynamic, and less dynamic than it was in it's earlier, cooler state.

 

Your real world experience (milage) may vary!

[radarman]

The 50F SST isotherm (or 45F, or 40F) will migrate north at approximately the same rate as the jet stream and the southern boundary for snowstorms. The two effects approximately cancel. Your argument assumes that SSTs warm but land temps and the jet stream stay right where they are. 

 

Charleston, SC has pretty warm SSTs, but they don't see a lot of heavy snowstorms. 

 

I could see the probability of heavy snow increasing in far northern areas like Caribou ME or Quebec City. Areas like NYC and BOS would see no change for a while, and then a decrease by mid century. Areas like DC and Richmond have probably already begun to see a decrease. 

 

Only if blocking increases or if SSTs warm faster than land temps will heavy snowstorms increase. The former is still being debated and the latter seems unlikely.

 

 

 

EDIT: 

 

Another demonstration.

 

ALL of DC's top 10 snowstorms have occurred in the heart of winter between the dates of Dec 18 and Feb 18. Not a single one has occurred outside those dates when SSTs offshore would be warmer. The limiting factor in producing heavy DC snowfalls is cold air and the position of the jet stream, not SSTs offshore. AGW has and will continue to warm the air and shift the jet north. DC heavy snow will clearly decrease. 

 

On the other hand if we look at a northern city like Burlington VT, 4 of the top ten were in March and one was in November. 1 in Dec, 3 in Jan, and 1 in Feb. The amounts were also much higher ranging from 33.1 #1 and 29.8 #2 to 19.1 #10. DC only has had one storm of 20". 

 

Boston also has more heavy snowstorms and a longer heavy snow season from late Dec to late march (25.4" March 31-April 1st 1997 ranks as #4 all-time). 

 

Good post, but I will say using Burlington VT may not be the best choice in a debate about the effect of SSTs on snow however.   The #1 storm Jan 2-3 2010 was a highly localized mesoscale event for example.  http://www.erh.noaa.gov/btv/events/02Jan2010/  Using PWM might be better. 

[skierinvermont]

I agree with what you are saying. The likelihood of big snows will in general march northward with an overall warming climate. In keeping with the topic of this thread, there is not much doubt about that. However, I was referring to any give storm system, wherever it occures, to produce higher than typical quantifiable precipitation being caused by anomalyous warm ocean waters, and where that pricip falls as snow we get massive snow totals.

 

You see, this goes back to my argument, based on a fundamental physical expection, that as warming occurs the atmosphere should become more turbulent. This is due to stepped up entropy production which will manifest as increased dynamics or mixing of airmasses and the exchange of energy between the oceans and atmosphere. Once the sytem settles down to a new stablized equilibrium, warmer less differentiated state, things calm down. Entropy production is decreased and the whole system is less dynamic, and less dynamic than it was in it's earlier, cooler state.

 

Your real world experience (milage) may vary!

 

OK but it is one thing to say "Higher SSTs caused the snow to be heavier" in reference to a specific storm... it's an entirely different (and false) statement to say "AGW caused heavy snow."

 

Such a statement would imply that AGW made heavy snow more probable when for locations from DC to NYC, as far as I can tell, it will either have no effect or will reduce the probability. 

 

 

Yes, the higher SSTs make heavy snow more probable, when and where precipitation falls as snow. But AGW also makes it less probable for precipitation to fall in the form of snow. Thus just because AGW is responsible for higher SSTs and higher SSTs enhance heavy snow, does not mean that AGW causes heavy snow. AGW makes heavy snow less likely for most of the U.S.

[skierinvermont]

Good post, but I will say using Burlington VT may not be the best choice in a debate about the effect of SSTs on snow however.   The #1 storm Jan 2-3 2010 was a highly localized mesoscale event for example. 

 Using PWM might be better. 

 

I remember that storm I was at college near BTV at that time. The moisture for that storm was still derived from the Atlantic.

Also part of the argument isn't just about SSTs it's also the higher capacity of warmer air to hold moisture, which would be true in North Dakota as well. 

[tamarack]

 

Good post, but I will say using Burlington VT may not be the best choice in a debate about the effect of SSTs on snow however.   The #1 storm Jan 2-3 2010 was a highly localized mesoscale event for example.  http://www.erh.noaa.gov/btv/events/02Jan2010/  Using PWM might be better. 

Its seaside location would seem to make PWM a better example, but the data tells a mixed story. Their 30-yr avg has dropped considerably, now about 20% lower than for 1951-1980. However, the 1940s had a lower avg than the 2000s, and their top decades, 1960s with 84"/70s with 78", were followed by their worst, 80s with 57". They crushed their single storm record by nearly 5" with 31.9" last month, but (looking back to the "less snow but bigger snowstorms" thread), that's their first top-ten event since 1993, and 2nd since 1979.

PWM probably has more relevance than BTV on SST effect, but no single station's records can overcome the noise.

[Jonger]

A new climate model prediction is apparently calling for a drastic reduction in snowfall for many regions of North America over the next 70 years. Hard to know what to believe. We get a major snowfall and they say that climate change will cause heavier precipitation. We get winters with barely any snow - that's climate change too. Northern Japan gets pounded with snow - clearly, according to some, "something is going on with the weather".

 

 

 

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=Drastic_decline_in_snowfall_projected_03_03_2013?ref=ccbox_weather_topstories

 

[TerryM]

Dr Rood at Weather Underground posted an article las week on the subject

 

.\http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=255

 

Less snow for the US, more for the Great Lakes area.

 

Terry

[Jonger]

Dr Rood at Weather Underground posted an article las week on the subject

 

.http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=255

 

Less snow for the US, more for the Great Lakes area.

 

Terry

How's that working out in Boston.

Yea, I know... weather doesn't define climate change.

[skierinvermont]

How's that working out in Boston. Yea, I know... weather doesn't define climate change.

 

So why bother making the joke?

[skierinvermont]

 

 

Only if you don't know how to read and think overall snowfall is the same thing as heavy snowfall.

[csnavywx]

Only if you don't know how to read and think overall snowfall is the same thing as heavy snowfall.

I ignored him a long time ago. Now if I could just block out quotes, it would make this subforum much more readable.