2014 Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Thread

[SVT450R]

[The_Global_Warmer]

If there is one positive it is the Canadian Archipelago is ok so far.

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

It didn't take long for Northern Canada to plummet

 

 

[ben4vols]

It didn't take long for Northern Canada to plummet

 

 

A few things of interest from your maps.  The large anomalies over eastern Russia are now gone.  This area was largely responsible for the large negative anomaly but as is obvious that area is one of the 1st to melt. 

 

Also it is good to see the May snowfall metrics continue some form of recovery.  

[Jonger]

It didn't take long for Northern Canada to plummet

A few things of interest from your maps. The large anomalies over eastern Russia are now gone. This area was largely responsible for the large negative anomaly but as is obvious that area is one of the 1st to melt.

Also it is good to see the May snowfall metrics continue some form of recovery.

Keep in mind the date that the negative anomalies began too, odd how it all went to pot once satellites were launched.

[The_Global_Warmer]

A few things of interest from your maps.  The large anomalies over eastern Russia are now gone.  This area was largely responsible for the large negative anomaly but as is obvious that area is one of the 1st to melt. 

 

Also it is good to see the May snowfall metrics continue some form of recovery.  

 

 

Climo doesn't change so it would be the same year to year. So I am not really sure what that means.

 

Recovery eh?  At the end of April 2013 was 3 million km2 above 2012 and 4 mil about 2011.

 

It's a hell of a recovery when you go form April and how April ended and mange to finish with the 3rd lowest total and start June with the 4th lowest total, which was the 4th lowest because NA snow cover was up vs the lowest years.  Which has come to and end. 

 

June is going to finish 1st lowest or 2nd.  Looking like 2nd since it lost the first 1/4th to 2012. But will catch up and can't do much worse since in roughly a week there will be essentially nothing left.

 

Bear with me here.  Fact's are you're forte. 

 

May: (week 1 includes April 30th, Week 5 includes June 1-3rd)

Week 1: 8th lowest on record

Week 2: 4th lowest on record

Week 3: 1st  lowest on record

Week 4: 4th lowest on record

Week 5: 4th lowest on record

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Keep in mind the date that the negative anomalies began too, odd how it all went to pot once satellites were launched.

What need's to be said right now would get me banned.  Considering you have kids and a job, can ride a snow mobile.  I would assume you are not autistic.  I say that because people who has autism have issues accepting new fact's that conflict with their previously held belief system. 

 

I wouldn't even mention you possibly being autistic except you have a job, kids, wife, you can drive motor vehicles, snow mobiles, you understand the energy sector.

 

Yet you have been told dozens and dozens of times THAT THE ENTIRE SNOW COVER RECORD FROM RUTGERS IS FROM SATELLITES. 

 

March snow cover didn't flip primarily negative until AFTER 1987. 

April until AFTER 1987. 

May until AFTER 1986. 

June until AFTER 1987.

 

 

THE SATELLITE TRACKING OF SNOW COVER STARTED IN 1966.  THE MICROWAVE SCANNING STARTED IN 1972.

 

ON TOP OF THAT FALL AND WINTER SNOW COVER HAVE BEEN STEADY OR SLOWLY RISING DURING THE PERIOD?  WHAT'S THAT?  DOESN'T FIT YOU'RE BS?

[ben4vols]

Climo doesn't change so it would be the same year to year. So I am not really sure what that means.

 

Recovery eh?  At the end of April 2013 was 3 million km2 above 2012 and 4 mil about 2011.

 

It's a hell of a recovery when you go form April and how April ended and mange to finish with the 3rd lowest total and start June with the 4th lowest total, which was the 4th lowest because NA snow cover was up vs the lowest years.  Which has come to and end. 

 

June is going to finish 1st lowest or 2nd.  Looking like 2nd since it lost the first 1/4th to 2012. But will catch up and can't do much worse since in roughly a week there will be essentially nothing left.

 

Bear with me here.  Fact's are you're forte. 

 

May: (week 1 includes April 30th, Week 5 includes June 1-3rd)

Week 1: 8th lowest on record

Week 2: 4th lowest on record

Week 3: 1st  lowest on record

Week 4: 4th lowest on record

Week 5: 4th lowest on record

 

 

Well, its good to hear that April did well and is recovering like the month of May.  I think I told you last year that I expect spring snowfall to continue to recover over the next decade or two.  Good to see we are still on track. 

[SVT450R]

Well, its good to hear that April did well and is recovering like the month of May.  I think I told you last year that I expect spring snowfall to continue to recover over the next decade or two.  Good to see we are still on track. 

There is no recovery ongoing at this time inless you consider 2-3 years for the month of may a recovery.  June July and August are still on a decline as of 2012 untill you see some type of flip in those months i would argue against saying that there is some type of recovery going on.

[tacoman25]

I really don't think that snow cover is very important by June. Climo shows there is typically hardly any left by the middle of the month, anyway. Just far northern Canada and parts of far northern Asia. You are talking about a MUCH smaller percentage of land compared to April.

[ben4vols]

There is no recovery ongoing at this time inless you consider 2-3 years for the month of may a recovery.  June July and August are still on a decline as of 2012 untill you see some type of flip in those months i would argue against saying that there is some type of recovery going on.

 

I said spring, so I don't know why you are referencing summer months.  Look at the months of March, April, and May.  March has done well since around '07.  April has been sluggishly getting better since bottoming out in '08.  May is just now starting to show signs of possibly beginning to recover.

[Jonger]

What need's to be said right now would get me banned.  Considering you have kids and a job, can ride a snow mobile.  I would assume you are not autistic.  I say that because people who has autism have issues accepting new fact's that conflict with their previously held belief system. 

 

I wouldn't even mention you possibly being autistic except you have a job, kids, wife, you can drive motor vehicles, snow mobiles, you understand the energy sector.

 

Yet you have been told dozens and dozens of times THAT THE ENTIRE SNOW COVER RECORD FROM RUTGERS IS FROM SATELLITES.

 

March snow cover didn't flip primarily negative until AFTER 1987. 

April until AFTER 1987. 

May until AFTER 1986. 

June until AFTER 1987.

 

 

THE SATELLITE TRACKING OF SNOW COVER STARTED IN 1966.  THE MICROWAVE SCANNING STARTED IN 1972.

 

ON TOP OF THAT FALL AND WINTER SNOW COVER HAVE BEEN STEADY OR SLOWLY RISING DURING THE PERIOD?  WHAT'S THAT?  DOESN'T FIT YOU'RE BS?

 

Ok, my bad then. The satellite era for ice is usually accepted to have begun in 1979 and snow was 1966. I just looked it up to confirm that. Surprised they wouldn't have more interested in scanning for ice as opposed to snow, maybe the curvature of the earth is responsible for that difficulty. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Ok, my bad then. The satellite era for ice is usually accepted to have begun in 1979 and snow was 1966. I just looked it up to confirm that. Surprised they wouldn't have more interested in scanning for ice as opposed to snow, maybe the curvature of the earth is responsible for that difficulty. 

 

 

I am not sure what you are talking about?

 

They use the same tool's to monitor both.

 

You have been told over and over and over that in 1972 precision Microwave Scanning Radiometers were used for the first time.  Not 1979.  And the advanced version started in 1978 not 1979.

 

This was posted by NSIDC last month:

 

 

While the modern satellite data record for sea ice begins in late 1978, some data are available from earlier satellite programs. NSIDC has been involved in a project to map sea ice extent using visible and infrared band data from NASA’s Nimbus 1, 2, and 3 spacecraft, which were launched in 1964, 1966, and 1969. Analysis of the Nimbus data has revealed Antarctic sea ice extents that are significantly larger and smaller than seen in the modern 1979 to 2012 satellite passive microwave record. The September 1964 average ice extent for the Antarctic is 19.7 ± 0.3 million square kilometers (7.6 million ± 0.1 square miles. This is more than 250,000 square kilometers (97,000 square miles) greater than the 19.44 million square kilometers (7.51 million square miles) seen in 2012, the record maximum in the modern data record. However, in August 1966 the maximum sea ice extent fell to 15.9 ± 0.3 million square kilometers (6.1 ± 0.1 million square miles). This is more than 1.5 million square kilometers (579,000 square miles) below the passive microwave record low September of 17.5 million square kilometers (6.76 million square miles) set in 1986.

The early satellite data also reveal that September sea ice extent in the Arctic was broadly similar to the 1979 to 2000 average, at 6.9 million square kilometers (2.7 million square miles) versus the average of 7.04 million square kilometers (2.72 million square miles).

 

 

 

Historical data on sea ice

Scientists have pieced together historical ice conditions to determine that Arctic sea ice could have been much lower in summer as recently as 5,500 years ago. Before then, scientists think it possible that Arctic sea ice cover melted completely during summers about 125,000 years ago, during a warm period between ice ages.

To look back into the past, researchers combine data and records from indirect sources known as proxy records. Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s.  Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean.  However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years. Before the 1950s, the data is patchier.

 

 

 

Of course they just made up anything pre-1979.  Which you have insinuated to many times.  It's sad how you desecrate the work of these scientist's out of you're own ignorance and confirmation bias.  If you had 1/10th the respect for science and the hard work these people do as you do for how much you love snow this wouldn't happen over and over.

 

 

 

You have been here for like two years and have been directly told this 20 or 30 times.  Then you come back and post the same lies and play ignorant.  This can be corrected.  It's called learning. 

 

I found out in April and May my assumptions about global temperature's were wrong and it made my predictions look awful.  So I stepped back to observing more and posting less and googling to look for better knowledge of the system so I can do better next time. 

 

But the difference is predicting something is an opinion so if I am wrong it's not a lie, it just means I was wrong.

 

You keep posting stuff that is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact that is well documented.  The first or second time it's let go.  After that you are now telling lies. 

 

Then a few week's later you come back and write another post that is a lie.  Does it not matter to you to be honest when discussing something that is based on fact?

 

I read this forum religiously since early 2008. Yet I didn't start posting as a regular until Spring of 2011.  I know ORH corrected a couple of things I didn't know and so did skier.

 

I have nothing against you personally at all.  I get the sense you are good person and a nice guy. 

 

Over here they let guys like you run around distorting truth you have been doing it for to long for my taste.  I can't not correct you when I see it.

 

I am 30 year old Man. This isn't the kiddie pool.  I don't have time for this stuff.  I want to advance my knowledge here not correct you're endless trolling when it's obvious you put zero effort in and don't read other people's work here.

 

So not that you are going to miss our interactions.  I have to put you on ignore. 

[SVT450R]

I said spring, so I don't know why you are referencing summer months.  Look at the months of March, April, and May.  March has done well since around '07.  April has been sluggishly getting better since bottoming out in '08.  May is just now starting to show signs of possibly beginning to recover.

I still think in my opinion it's to short of a period but i do see what you are talking about.  Reason i brought up summer months was you would expect to see it push into those months also.

[ben4vols]

I still think in my opinion it's to short of a period but i do see what you are talking about.  Reason i brought up summer months was you would expect to see it push into those months also.

 

It could push into summer months but I don't put a lot of stock into summer months snow cover.  With 24 hours of sunlight there isn't going to be a lot of snow left regardless and there isn't going to be a way to adequately take anything of value from that.  Obviously the spring time recovery period is too shot to draw any definitive conclusions but it is something to watch over the next few years to see if the trend continues or if it is just a few years anomaly. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

2013 is likely to end up 2nd or 3rd lowest on record behind 2012. 

 

 

 

 

[tacoman25]

So instead of 7% snow cover in the NH, we are at 6%. Not sure this is a big deal, at all.

[Jonger]

So instead of 7% snow cover in the NH, we are at 6%. Not sure this is a big deal, at all.

It all melts anyhow, its existence would slow the melt season, but only a small amount. The warm ocean waters are doing more damage than anything.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I think 5 million square kilometers of non-snow covered land has an effect on regional climates.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Rutgers June total's are in:  Overall 2013 finished virtually tied with 2010.  But was slightly behind and takes 3rd lowest on record.  2011 get's bumped to 4th being slightly behind 2013. 2013 was 50K above 2010.  2011 was 100K above 2013.  All three were slightly over 1 million above the record 2012.  But 2010-2013 so far holds the 1-4 spots on record.  Going back to 2008-2013 hold the 1-6 spots for the Northern Hemisphere on record.

 

As far as Eurasia.  2013 tied 2011 for 2nd lowest on record.  Only 30K above 2010.  About 470K above 2012, the record holder.  Like the NH.  2010-2013 hold the top 1-4 spots and 2008-2013 hold the top 1-6 lowest on record.

 

Getting to North America.  2013 finished third lowest on record behind 2010 and 2012. This record was lost because of the stubborn CA snow in mid to late June that melted partially but took a while to melt.  It's still not as melted as the record 2012.  But compared to historical measures it's quite low. 

2010-2013 hold the top 1-4 lowest spots.  2009 is not in the top 6 but 2008 was 5th. 

 

 

 

North Hemisphere(in million's):  2013: 6.01km2, 2012: 4.80km2, 2011: 6.11km2, 2010: 5.96km2

Eurasia(in million's):  2013: 1.46km2, 2012: 0.93km2, 2011: 1.46km2, 2010: 1.49km2

North America(in million's) 2013: 2.41km2, 2012: 1.77km2, 2011: 2.50km2, 2010: 2.32km2

 

 

 

 

As far as the weekly rankings for 2013 for the NH:  Week 22 is a partial week.

Week22: 4th lowest on record

Week 23: 4th lowest on record

Week 24: 2nd lowest on record

Week 25: 3rd lowest on record

Week 26: 5th lowest on record

[LithiaWx]

Anomaly is back to near 0. The positives far outweighed the negative anomalies so far this year.

[skierinvermont]

Anomaly is back to near 0. The positives far outweighed the negative anomalies so far this year.

 

 

Remember that this is on the exceptionally warm and low-snow 1995-2009 baseline. The monthly anomalies on a somewhat longer term though still warm baseline of 1967-2012 are as follows:

 

June: -4.5 million

May: -4 million

April: +1.5 million

March: +.5 million

February: +1 million

January: +2 million

 

The average comes to about -.8 million. Far above most recent years which I assume was the point of your post.

[The_Global_Warmer]

GIS makes up most of the area left with snow.  The region that had a bit more snow than last year was the NE CA.

 

 

I am not sure how pointing that out.  Well not actually pointing that out but really:

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Someone created this.    It's rutgers data in an extent form up to the end of June.

 

 

 

[tacoman25]

The snow season is kicking off. How are we looking on this? I know Alaska has gotten some snowfall the past couple days, and it looks like Siberia and northern Russia should get a fair amount over the next week.

[ORH_wxman]

 

The snow season is kicking off. How are we looking on this? I know Alaska has gotten some snowfall the past couple days, and it looks like Siberia and northern Russia should get a fair amount over the next week.

 

 

Siberia should pick up a bit. Ideally we'd like to start off October near average and then finish way above...Cohen's research found that the rate of snow increase in October seemed to play a shade better than the actual anomaly.

[SVT450R]

[tacoman25]

Thanks. I thought we were running ahead of last year and that's definitely the case. It's getting to the point where most of the year is running above normal.

[Jonger]

Thanks. I thought we were running ahead of last year and that's definitely the case. It's getting to the point where most of the year is running above normal.

 

Yea, below average snow cover when there typically isn't much left anyhow.

[Geos]

Definitely have snow cover starting on the north slopes of the Brooks Range and Canadian Archipelago.