2014 Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Thread

[Jonger]

I would just remove the tag if its that big of a problem, its time sensitive in a year long thread.

[LithiaWx]

Biased

[nflwxman]

Biased

tacoman25

Jonger1150

 

 

Ditto.  Everyone generally has an obvious bias. It's human nature on a divisive issue.  Let's stop the bickering and stick to the facts for goodness sake.

 

It appears to me October snowcover has very little trend over the past 50 years or so.  Can someone explain to me why it's a surprise that we have the 5 or 6 or 7th highest october snowcover?  Doesn't seem unusual or an outlier based on the trends.

[tacoman25]

tacoman25

Jonger1150

 

 

Ditto.  Everyone generally has an obvious bias. It's human nature on a divisive issue.  Let's stop the bickering and stick to the facts for goodness sake.

 

It appears to me October snowcover has very little trend over the past 50 years or so.  Can someone explain to me why it's a surprise that we have the 5 or 6 or 7th highest october snowcover?  Doesn't seem unusual or an outlier based on the trends.

 

The difference is that Friv loves to make a huge deal of things that "support" his viewpoint, and it often seems that's all he's looking for. When Greenland ice is melting big-time, he's all over it. When it's not, not a peep. When Arctic ice is melting, he makes a million posts about it and what it means. When it shows signs of doing better, he focuses on other things. When global temps spike, it's front page news. When they dip, or when it's pointed out that warming trends are considerably slower so far than most projections, it's not worth discussing. And when snow cover is melting rapidly in late Spring he's all over it, but when it rebounds much faster than normal in the fall he ignores it. I guarantee if Antarctic ice extent suddenly dipped to near record lows, Friv would suddenly find the Antarctic very important to talk about. And of course, he's not the only one.

 

It wasn't a huge deal to me that the tagline was still about May, but I did find it typical that he has essentially ignored the fact that this fall (Sep/Oct) got off to one of the fastest starts on record for snow cover.

 

Did I make any huge proclamations about what this means for the climate? No. 

[nflwxman]

The difference is that Friv loves to make a huge deal of things that support his viewpoint, and it often seems that's all he's looking for.

 

It wasn't a huge deal to me that the tagline was still about May, but I did find it typical that he has essentially ignored the fact that this fall (Sep/Oct) got off to one of the fastest starts on record for snow cover.

 

Did I make any huge proclamations about what this means for the climate? No. 

 

 

Fair enough.  It appears that some months carry a strong trend with northern hemisphere snowcover, but others do not.  Aside from the obvious summer months, does anyone have an explanation why the spring snowcover has trended downward, while the fall seems steadier?

[skierinvermont]

The difference is that Friv loves to make a huge deal of things that "support" his viewpoint, and it often seems that's all he's looking for. When Greenland ice is melting big-time, he's all over it. When it's not, not a peep. When Arctic ice is melting, he makes a million posts about it and what it means. When it shows signs of doing better, he focuses on other things. When global temps spike, it's front page news. When they dip, or when it's pointed out that warming trends are considerably slower so far than most projections, it's not worth discussing. And when snow cover is melting rapidly in late Spring he's all over it, but when it rebounds much faster than normal in the fall he ignores it. I guarantee if Antarctic ice extent suddenly dipped to near record lows, Friv would suddenly find the Antarctic very important to talk about. And of course, he's not the only one.

 

It wasn't a huge deal to me that the tagline was still about May, but I did find it typical that he has essentially ignored the fact that this fall (Sep/Oct) got off to one of the fastest starts on record for snow cover.

 

Did I make any huge proclamations about what this means for the climate? No. 

 

 

I fail to see how this makes him biased. A sudden acceleration of ice melting in greenland is a problem or dangerous phenomenon. Ice not melting in greenland is not a problem. 

 

I am interested in problems. I am not interested in non-problems.

 

Nobody sits around and says "Thank the lord my house was not hit by a tornado today!!!" But plenty of people say "**** my house was hit by a tornado today!!!"

 

I didn't find the average melt in Greenland this year nearly as interesting as the record melt in 2012. I don't think that makes me biased. I did find the jump in sea ice this year interesting.

 

The only reason that a normal person would find an average melt year in Greenland (2013) as interesting as a record melt year (2012) is probably that they have a stick up their butt and are a contrarian trying to one-up other posters.

 

This being said, looking at 'problems' around the globe also needs to be balanced by a long-term and/or global scientific perspective. 

 

 

I  could agree that Friv is particularly focused on 'problem' events around the globe. But I don't think this makes him biased unless he draws or implies false conclusions from this. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

I fail to see how this makes him biased. A sudden acceleration of ice melting in greenland is a problem or dangerous phenomenon. Ice not melting in greenland is not a problem. 

 

I am interested in problems. I am not interested in non-problems.

 

Nobody sits around and says "Thank the lord my house was not hit by a tornado today!!!" But plenty of people say "**** my house was hit by a tornado today!!!"

 

I didn't find the average melt in Greenland this year nearly as interesting as the record melt in 2012. I don't think that makes me biased. I did find the jump in sea ice this year interesting.

 

The only reason that a normal person would find an average melt year in Greenland (2013) as interesting as a record melt year (2012) is probably that they have a stick up their butt and are a contrarian trying to one-up other posters.

 

This being said, looking at 'problems' around the globe also needs to be balanced by a long-term and/or global scientific perspective. 

 

 

I  could agree that Friv is particularly focused on 'problem' events around the globe. But I don't think this makes him biased unless he draws or implies false conclusions from this. 

 

Thank You so much. Both are completely true.  

[The_Global_Warmer]

So on the 5th of the month you're speculating about it being the least snowiest November? Yeah, doesn't sound like any bias there.

 

 

 

 

 

are you in love with me?

 

 

I can go to other threads and over the last couple weeks you talk about me when I am not even there.

 

Marriata stalks and trolls me so much I might have to get a restraining order.

 

 

You come here as much as me.  If you spent half the energy on doing waht I do here instead of crying about how I do it.  You would have all the answers yourself.

 

 

But I get the feeling you like trashing me and have no interest in doing analysis here.  

[tacoman25]

are you in love with me?

 

 

I can go to other threads and over the last couple weeks you talk about me when I am not even there.

 

Marriata stalks and trolls me so much I might have to get a restraining order.

 

 

You come here as much as me.  If you spent half the energy on doing waht I do here instead of crying about how I do it.  You would have all the answers yourself.

 

 

But I get the feeling you like trashing me and have no interest in doing analysis here.  

 

 

So am I in love with you or do I like trashing you?

 

No, the truth is that I like balance, and the view point you usually offer severely lacks it. As I said, you're hardly alone. The whole catastrophic AGW movement has been based on a lack of balance. 

[tacoman25]

I fail to see how this makes him biased. A sudden acceleration of ice melting in greenland is a problem or dangerous phenomenon. Ice not melting in greenland is not a problem. 

 

I am interested in problems. I am not interested in non-problems.

 

Nobody sits around and says "Thank the lord my house was not hit by a tornado today!!!" But plenty of people say "**** my house was hit by a tornado today!!!"

 

I didn't find the average melt in Greenland this year nearly as interesting as the record melt in 2012. I don't think that makes me biased. I did find the jump in sea ice this year interesting.

 

The only reason that a normal person would find an average melt year in Greenland (2013) as interesting as a record melt year (2012) is probably that they have a stick up their butt and are a contrarian trying to one-up other posters.

 

This being said, looking at 'problems' around the globe also needs to be balanced by a long-term and/or global scientific perspective. 

 

 

I  could agree that Friv is particularly focused on 'problem' events around the globe. But I don't think this makes him biased unless he draws or implies false conclusions from this. 

 

I think another "problem" is not being able to have a balanced viewpoint, if one gets so caught up in looking for problems that might fall into the climate change category. It's not a very good way to learn, that's for sure. Which is what this forum is supposed to be about, right? The ability to weigh the evidence and look at the big picture and figure out the issues as best we can?

 

Or is this forum just supposed to be about looking for climate change PROBLEMS, a witch hunt of sorts? Always looking for evidence to support the assumed position.

 

That's not science.

[bluewave]

This was the 4th snowiest October on record For Eurasia while North America really lagged behind at 

20th place due to the lower snow cover over Canada and Alaska. But the lower 48 managed to come

in at 5th place.

 

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_rankings.php?ui_set=1

[tacoman25]

This was the 4th snowiest October on record For Eurasia while North America really lagged behind at 

20th place due to the lower snow cover over Canada and Alaska. But the lower 48 managed to come

in at 5th place.

 

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_rankings.php?ui_set=1

 

Thanks for that info. It looks like North America will do much better this month, while Eurasia might fall off some.

[bluewave]

Thanks for that info. It looks like North America will do much better this month, while Eurasia might fall off some.

 

Sure, it goes along with the snowier falls and winters recently. The spring seems to be the season that is really

headed down. 

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

11-13-13

 

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

11-13-13

 

 

And your point is???

[The_Global_Warmer]

We just have seen a big flip in the anomalies.  That is a huge region now in red.  Which is also pretty far South.  The Tibetan region has above normal snow cover.  The rest equal each other out.

 

Obviously the big AO is the blame.  But it keeps getting close to some major negative departures.

 

Remember this is a global warming thread.  Not an observational thread for meteorology. 

 

I want to find signals of AGW to prove the "theory".  They will show up all over the place.  They do show up in the records of the major ecological pieces.  Ice, water, air.  land ice, sea ice, snow cover, ssta, global temps, sea level rise, and so on. 

 

 

With the right October pattern AGW can actually help the snow cover growth.  Obviously.  As we head into November and December.  The same factor is no longer relevant because up North it's all snow.  It's just that damn cold.  We may have heavier snow than ever or higher pwats and such but we cant see the difference in snow cover.

 

In fact most supporting evidence shows a stark reduction in mid latitude snow cover days.  Expecially North America.  So it's possibly a lot of that is just trends but I think the AGW signal is clear.

 

Just like it's clear in the supreme record lows that are no longer possible.  It's like the NHL scoring records.  No longer attainable. 

 

We will have to see how this month plays out. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tacoman25]

We just have seen a big flip in the anomalies.  That is a huge region now in red.  Which is also pretty far South.  The Tibetan region has above normal snow cover.  The rest equal each other out.

 

Obviously the big AO is the blame.  But it keeps getting close to some major negative departures.

 

Remember this is a global warming thread.  Not an observational thread for meteorology. 

 

I want to find signals of AGW to prove the "theory".  They will show up all over the place.  They do show up in the records of the major ecological pieces.  Ice, water, air.  land ice, sea ice, snow cover, ssta, global temps, sea level rise, and so on. 

 

 

With the right October pattern AGW can actually help the snow cover growth.  Obviously.  As we head into November and December.  The same factor is no longer relevant because up North it's all snow.  It's just that damn cold.  We may have heavier snow than ever or higher pwats and such but we cant see the difference in snow cover.

 

In fact most supporting evidence shows a stark reduction in mid latitude snow cover days.  Expecially North America.  So it's possibly a lot of that is just trends but I think the AGW signal is clear.

 

Just like it's clear in the supreme record lows that are no longer possible.  It's like the NHL scoring records.  No longer attainable. 

 

We will have to see how this month plays out. 

 

Have you seen some of the records set in Asia in recent years?

[Jonger]

We just have seen a big flip in the anomalies. That is a huge region now in red. Which is also pretty far South. The Tibetan region has above normal snow cover. The rest equal each other out.

Obviously the big AO is the blame. But it keeps getting close to some major negative departures.

Remember this is a global warming thread. Not an observational thread for meteorology.

I want to find signals of AGW to prove the "theory". They will show up all over the place. They do show up in the records of the major ecological pieces. Ice, water, air. land ice, sea ice, snow cover, ssta, global temps, sea level rise, and so on.

With the right October pattern AGW can actually help the snow cover growth. Obviously. As we head into November and December. The same factor is no longer relevant because up North it's all snow. It's just that damn cold. We may have heavier snow than ever or higher pwats and such but we cant see the difference in snow cover.

In fact most supporting evidence shows a stark reduction in mid latitude snow cover days. Expecially North America. So it's possibly a lot of that is just trends but I think the AGW signal is clear.

Just like it's clear in the supreme record lows that are no longer possible. It's like the NHL scoring records. No longer attainable.

We will have to see how this month plays out.

You do realize that it takes preciptation as well as cold to get snowcover, sometimes no storms come through and the ground is bare.... This anomaly could be wiped out in a single day. You sure like to wait and pounce on the first negative anomaly you see.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It looks like the negative departures peaked around the 17th:

 

 

Here is todays for the 19th:

 

We can see a dent has been made into the region of negative snow cover departures.  It is stil proably double the area of positive or more but not as bad as it was a few days ago when the AO peaked.

 

 

 

 

Going forward it does appear the Western flank will continue to struggle to keep constant snow cover.

 

[tacoman25]

Actually, doing a rough pixel count there, it does not appear that the area of negative departures is double or more the area of positive departures. Only about 30%-40% more. And North America is about to have some significant gains.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Good catch.  Thanks.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Snow Cover doing much better with that large area in the United States showing up.  It should grow quite a bit more in the coming days

 

 

 

[Midlo Snow Maker]

Not much red on the map, the US is impressive

[ORH_wxman]

November ranked 16th out of 48 for N Hemisphere snow cover on Rutgers. Not really an exciting anomaly in either direction.

 

 

December is doing well so far. But tough task to match last year which broke the record.

[skierinvermont]

November ranked 16th out of 48 for N Hemisphere snow cover on Rutgers. Not really an exciting anomaly in either direction.

 

 

December is doing well so far. But tough task to match last year which broke the record.

 

Should be difficult to maintain +anomalies on any baseline given the probable +AO as we progress through winter. I would guess a -AO is essential to spreading out the cold and increasing the aerial coverage of snowfall. Later in winter these peripheral areas are more important to the anomaly because north of 50N should always be solidly filled in every year by that point. 

[ORH_wxman]

N Hemipshere December snow cover came in 8th most out of 48 years despite the heavily positive AO.

 

 

[skierinvermont]

As one might expect, this was due to large +anomalies over NA due to the -EPO. The rest of the world looks to have averaged near or below average. For the date, we have also dropped below average as the +AO on average will take its toll. 

[ORH_wxman]

As one might expect, this was due to large +anomalies over NA due to the -EPO. The rest of the world looks to have averaged near or below average. For the date, we have also dropped below average as the +AO on average will take its toll. 

 

 

Well Eurasia was actually above average as they finished 20th highest out of 48, though definitely not as much as the North American anomalies. The +AO didn't negatively affect Eurasia's snow cover like the +AOs of December 2006, 2007, 2008 for whatever reason.

 

 

 

If we can get a negative anomaly for January, it would be the first one since January 2007.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Snow depth all over Siberia was at or below record levels at least into late December. 

 

Last year snow depth was closer to 100 percent above normal per the arctic report card when it still vanished weeks early in Spring.

 

 

Probably going to be ugly come Spring if Siberia doesn;t get the snow pack going

[Jonger]

Snow depth all over Siberia was at or below record levels at least into late December. 

 

Last year snow depth was closer to 100 percent above normal per the arctic report card when it still vanished weeks early in Spring.

 

 

Probably going to be ugly come Spring if Siberia doesn;t get the snow pack going

Probably has more to do with just getting a storm in there, than temps. The odds are that snow will make it in there before spring, but I don't see why that matters, the snow albedo affects only local surface temps regardless. You will probably see temporary big positive temp departures in the spring, the locals will love it.