2014 Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Thread

[ORH_wxman]

Alternative possibilities to the predictions of warming that assume only minor past and, therefore, only minor future influence from the sun.

 

 

We would definitely need to see some very measurable response in the next 5 years or less. The only reason it remains a viable possbility is the theory (that cannot be disproved or proved yet) that the lower solar maxes begin to affect variables such as cloud cover on a global scale. We are running a bit lower than "expected" temps recently even taking into account ENSO and TSI if I recall from a couple sources including skier who posted a decent graph taking both into account, but its very short term and noise like that is insignificant. If it keeps up for another 5 years with the discrepency growing, then there might be something there.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I still wonder if this is a natural way that the earth will fight back against runaway warming. Increased fall/winter snowcover should, itself, help lead to some albedo related cooling to at least hold warming back to some extent. Why is this idea not talked about more? Is there a bias? What say you?

Aside: I still say there's a lot of uncertainty about how much a factor is the sun in reality. I think we'll know a lot more over the next five years or so as what I expect to be the deepest min. in perhaps 200+ years develops and this coming after the highest 50 year max. 1950-2000 of at least the last 400 years. I recommend an open mind about alternative possibilities.

1. I am not sure if it's happenstance or designed into the system before the Universe was started. I suppose that doesn't matter. But what matters is that increased snow cover and snow depth during periods of any meaningful solar radiation, especially in Winter could be a reinforcing negative feedback until the forcing by the incoming solar max is to overwhelming.

This may pertain more snow and ice loss than temperature but it's a really good point. I suppose since the Spring snow cover loss and overall arctic sea ice loss. Negative feedback's that are also amplifying but not as strong as the positive feedback's who are winning the battle because the incoming energy is increasing.

It is also notable that the incoming energy is still increasing even if the Earth's Ocean's and surface temperatures appear stagnant. If natural variance like sun cycles, -PDO, -PDO + NINA, increasing Antarctica Sea Ice has cooled the Southern Ocean and the air there along the fringe's where otherwise ice would be unsustainable. when the arctic ice melt's it's effects are amplified as well. Then those two feedback's are aided by more local feedback's. Like the Northern Hemisphere having so much land where much more heat can be transported into the Summer melting system.

Antarctica is designed with a security system like the USA military, security, and intelligence and their technology's are guarding it.

The Arctic Ice, Permafrost, Glaciers, and GIS are protected like it's the Alamo.

Outside of that it's also less effected by direct human attacks with our albedo lowering impurities from our technology. It's like they are both Earth's ecosystem "cold" balancers to keep the warmth in check. During time of warming imbalance. Like how warm ocean collect and transport heat to prevent them form making the Earth to cold. They do their best to work together to balance the Sun's energy feed. If the Sun became to powerful Ice and Snow would eventually lose no matter what. Same with the Sun getting to weak. This at least gives the Earth a say in the matter.

The Earth has a pretty wide latitude so small solar changes do not ruin it.

So yes for sure in that context it's a negative feedback that has gotten stronger but it's overlooked because the Spring changes are so much more radical. But we should ask would the Spring changes be even more intense if snow cover hadn't increased. Obviously yes because the Spring changes could of been even worse. April and May snow cover could in theory plummeting way further than we have already seen. The science says increased snow cover would enhance albedo effect and snow depth waste more energy on melting the snow and helping inadvertently prolong it's albedo effect. It may also cause a weather pattern to enhance itself like the -AO depositing snow and cold further South in Fall and Spring to counter the solar energy that before it would have had much higher albedo to work with.

It's just so much harder to understand it's impact since it's not as visible as the Spring one.

As far as today's melt the climo is for May 15th.

[bluewave]

I still wonder if this is a natural way that the earth will fight back against runaway warming. Increased fall/winter snowcover should, itself, help lead to some albedo related cooling to at least hold warming back to some extent. Why is this idea not talked about more? Is there a bias? What say you?

Aside: I still say there's a lot of uncertainty about how much a factor is the sun in reality. I think we'll know a lot more over the next five years or so as what I expect to be the deepest min. in perhaps 200+ years develops and this coming after the highest 50 year max. 1950-2000 of at least the last 400 years. I recommend an open mind about alternative possibilities.

 

My guess is that we would see the winter warming rate lagging the rest of the year for the Northern

Hemisphere.  Since around 2008, the winters have been the coolest seasons relative to the means

for the Northern Hemisphere on average.

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

I expect the snow cover anomaly to grow even more with snow over the Eastern Siberian region melting out rapidly.  Visible Satellite show's the snow;s left at higher elevations are getting smoked.  And todays iamge shows the Tibetan region losing a lot of snow cover.  Will bump the anomaly further down by a lot. 

 

 

 

 

[SVT450R]

[ORH_wxman]

Its been well above average in Siberia so far this month and latter April....after fairly cold conditions in March and early April.

 

 

[bluewave]

Yeah, that Siberian warmth has been a regular feature in May during recent years.

But the cold over North America and Greenland so far this month really stands out.

 

The WPO has also been in a persistently negative phase during recent Mays.

 

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/wp.data

 

ftp://ftp.cdc.noaa.gov/Public/gbates/teleconn/wpo.reanalysis.t10trunc.1948-present.txt

 

2013 05 01 -181.24
2013 05 02 -103.71
2013 05 03 -49.10
2013 05 04 -50.99
2013 05 05 -76.34
2013 05 06 -89.88
2013 05 07 -87.37
2013 05 08 -117.45
2013 05 09 -153.61
2013 05 10 -169.42
2013 05 11 -132.61
2013 05 12 -51.75
2013 05 13 -6.16

 

+WP

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yeah, that Siberian warmth has been a regular feature in May during recent years.

But the cold over North America and Greenland so far this month really stands out.

 

The WPO has also been in a persistently negative phase during recent Mays.

 

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/wp.data

 

ftp://ftp.cdc.noaa.gov/Public/gbates/teleconn/wpo.reanalysis.t10trunc.1948-present.txt

 

2013 05 01 -181.24

2013 05 02 -103.71

2013 05 03 -49.10

2013 05 04 -50.99

2013 05 05 -76.34

2013 05 06 -89.88

2013 05 07 -87.37

2013 05 08 -117.45

2013 05 09 -153.61

2013 05 10 -169.42

2013 05 11 -132.61

2013 05 12 -51.75

2013 05 13 -6.16

 

+WP

 

 

The NA cold regions have cooled off the expected temps you would get for the month.

 

As well as Africa.

 

I think getting to .60 will happen, but nothing like last years record warmth.

[The_Global_Warmer]

This is amazing:  Siberian snow cover is a complete mess.  Way below normal.  Now North American snow cover is also going well below normal. 

 

The models torch north Central Canada.  So more big red blocks to come.  This is climate change 101 in action.  We can learn big from this new snow cover pattern and study the feedback process.

 

Huge May and June snowcover losses no matter what and then endless -NAOs for the most part, no matter what.  It's almost surely tied together some how. 

 

So consistent.

 

[LithiaWx]

Frivolous, you make this map sound so horrible when in reality it's not that bad.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Frivolous, you make this map sound so horrible when in reality it's not that bad.

image.jpg

 

Again, you are cherry picking the 1995-2009 time frame as climo.

 

Would you use 1995-2009 for the arctic sea ice or global ssts or global temperatures?

 

This creates a huge bias in the anomaly data when you select like this.

 

This is the climo you keep pushing:  That's why it doesn't look that bad.  You are comparing it to the worst period omitting 2010-12.  It's still completely weighted.  If the climo was 1967-1982 it would look horribly bad in terms of snow cover.  If you saw that you guys would be saying we are pushing manipulated data. 

 

 

 

Last years record low in June is hardly out of reach, we are even with last years record pace attm.

 

[tacoman25]

Unprecedented late snowfall in parts of Alaska, including Anchorage, today.

[skierinvermont]

Looks like the negative snow departure is actually a hair bigger than this time last year. Friv is right it is a very large anomaly. Also amazing how consistent the negative anomalies are this time of year. April's +anomalies don't seem to have helped much in creating sustained cold.

[tacoman25]

Looks like the negative snow departure is actually a hair bigger than this time last year. Friv is right it is a very large anomaly. Also amazing how consistent the negative anomalies are this time of year. April's +anomalies don't seem to have helped much in creating sustained cold.

 

Well, it's pretty clear what happened: Siberia/much of northern Russia "torched" over the past few weeks, and Siberia is the largest area for climo snow cover this time of year. Worst region for a torch this time of year, in terms of losing snowcover.

[ben4vols]

Unprecedented late snowfall in parts of Alaska, including Anchorage, today.

 

Late snowfall and cold in the UK and lower 48 as well.  I would have to think the deep troughs that developed had a hand in some of the melt. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Looks like the negative snow departure is actually a hair bigger than this time last year. Friv is right it is a very large anomaly. Also amazing how consistent the negative anomalies are this time of year. April's +anomalies don't seem to have helped much in creating sustained cold.

 

Yes, yes it is.

 

The winter cooling was smashed by something stronger and overwhelming.

[Jonger]

Frivolous, you make this map sound so horrible when in reality it's not that bad.image.jpg

Again, you are cherry picking the 1995-2009 time frame as climo.

Would you use 1995-2009 for the arctic sea ice or global ssts or global temperatures?

This creates a huge bias in the anomaly data when you select like this.

This is the climo you keep pushing: That's why it doesn't look that bad. You are comparing it to the worst period omitting 2010-12. It's still completely weighted. If the climo was 1967-1982 it would look horribly bad in terms of snow cover. If you saw that you guys would be saying we are pushing manipulated data.

Last years record low in June is hardly out of reach, we are even with last years record pace attm.

Anything requiring satellites to measure could be wrong or manipulated for pre-79 data .. so yes, I would be calling it... Like I do for the above snowcover anomaly chart.

If you want to compare 1980-2010 to today, that's fair and its obviously down from 1980-1990 timeframe.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Anything requiring satellites to measure could be wrong or manipulated for pre-79 data .. so yes, I would be calling it... Like I do for the above snowcover anomaly chart. If you want to compare 1980-2010 to today, that's fair and its obviously down from 1980-1990 timeframe.

 

That is dead wrong.  First off 1972 was the first year of microwave satellite readings of ice and snow from space.  However visible satellite is just as effective if not better when both are working together.  The data set is fine and you're saying it's possible manipulated is garbage and sad.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Today's Snow Cover:  North America will be going red more and more.  The Siberian anomaly's should shrink a bit.

 

 

[SVT450R]

Again, you are cherry picking the 1995-2009 time frame as climo.

 

Would you use 1995-2009 for the arctic sea ice or global ssts or global temperatures?

 

This creates a huge bias in the anomaly data when you select like this.

 

This is the climo you keep pushing:  That's why it doesn't look that bad.  You are comparing it to the worst period omitting 2010-12.  It's still completely weighted.  If the climo was 1967-1982 it would look horribly bad in terms of snow cover.  If you saw that you guys would be saying we are pushing manipulated data. 

 

 

 

Last years record low in June is hardly out of reach, we are even with last years record pace attm.

 

 

Tho the chart's climo is 95-09 it's still good to use as a tool in gauging snow cover atleast when you are trying to compare to recent years.  I agree with you if it had rutgers snow lab as climo 70-00 it would look much worst.

[LithiaWx]

Tho the chart's climo is 95-09 it's still good to use as a tool in gauging snow cover atleast when you are trying to compare to recent years.  I agree with you if it had rutgers snow lab as climo 70-00 it would look much worst.

If there was a neat chart like the one I posted with a longer history I would have posted that. It is a useful chart if there is one that is east to read like that I would like to have a link.

[The_Global_Warmer]

If there was a neat chart like the one I posted with a longer history I would have posted that. It is a useful chart if there is one that is east to read like that I would like to have a link.

 

Then why did you use the chart to say it's not that bad when the snow cover is near record lows?

[The_Global_Warmer]

You're chart shows May of 2013 running right along the anomaly last year.  Last May was record setting or nearly tied with the record low. 

 

 

Or count pixels:
North America: 22 red, 10 blue.

Eurasia :79 red, 14 blue.

Total: 101 red, 24 blue.

[LithiaWx]

You're chart shows May of 2013 running right along the anomaly last year. Last May was record setting or nearly tied with the record low.

Or count pixels:

North America: 22 red, 10 blue.

Eurasia :79 red, 14 blue.

Total: 101 red, 24 blue.

I don't see things through the same prism you do. Is the snowcover in good shape right now? No. Is it some epic horrible event unfolding? No. Is there value in comparing snowcover using the chart I posted? Some.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I don't see things through the same prism you do. Is the snowcover in good shape right now? No. Is it some epic horrible event unfolding? No. Is there value in comparing snowcover using the chart I posted? Some.

 

You mean not the same reality. 

 

Comparing 2013 left with 2012 right on today's snow anomaly vs 1 year ago:

 

2013:NA: 20 red, 9 blue

Eurasia: 82 red, 13 blue

 

2012:: NA: 13 red, 15 blue

Eurasia: red: 67, blue: 21 blue

 

2013: Total: 102 red, 22 blue

2012: Total:  80 red, 36 blue

 

These pixels represent a large area of land.  This is just a snapshot but it shows how low 2013 is right now.

 

 

How else is there to see it?

 

There are 5-1 positive to negative anomaly's. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Today's snow cover:

NA: Red: 23, Blue: 8

Eurasia: Red: 87    blue: 9

Total: Red: 107, Blue: 17

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

[The_Global_Warmer]

Today s snow cover:

NA: Red: 23, Blue: 8

Eurasia:Red: 81,  Blue: 8

Total: Red: 104, Blue: 16

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Todays snow cover:

NA: Red: 22, Blue: 6

Eurasia: Red: 84,  Blue: 9

Total: RED: 106, BLUE: 15

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

May 26th snow cover departure:  The anomaly has increased over Eurasia.  Will this enhance Russian Ice loss this year. We will see.  I will post about that possibility shortly.

 

NA: RED: 20  BLUE: 6

EA: RED: 94   BLUE: 9

Total: RED: 114 BLUE: 15