Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Land snow cover effect on sea ice  (Read 30126 times)

binntho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 374
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #50 on: April 18, 2018, 03:23:22 PM »
gerontocrat

thanks for the interesting read

bbr2314

I clocked you a long time ago as someone who acts as a voice of reason, when I think most users of this forum over- exaggerate how "bad" the high Arctic is- take the polls for example, the estimates for Sept Minima are consistently biased toward doom and gloom.

I like reading your posts and generally lean toward agreeing with you.

But I really think that SWE in North East USA and South East Canada is completely irrelevant. Most of that snow will be gone in a few weeks, drained into the Hudson Basin and out towards Newfoundland

Biased toward doom and gloom !!!!! September minima droped from almost 17 000 km3 to 4500 km3 today. Reality is that many people try to let it look like nothing happened. But we will see at how many places they can handle some extra heat. I don't think it's looking very good for the deniers.

I believe the bias just means they lean more heavily towards earlier ice loss and climate catastrophe.  Each year, the minima predictions congregate around a new low, with many predicting an ice-free state within a decade (some going so far as to predict ice-free year round).  The consequences of an ice-free Arctic are highly speculative.  Consequently, predictions are all over the board.  His posts are closer to what most scientists are saying.

I think the bias towards going for low values in the various polls comes from most people not having seen any reliable indicators that can tell how any one year will turn out. Some of the posters here like to talk about the sun and the snow and how changes in either will predict the outcome of the summer melt, but so far it doesn't sound too convincing. Let's wait and see.

So in a system with steady decline and chaotic variation that is mostly dependent on the weather over the next 5 months or so, I'd tend to predict low since that's the only reliable longtime strategy.

In fact, in my opinion, predicting low is the only reasonable prediction it's possible to make. All other predictions are pure speculation, and the outcome will always be chaotic variation around steadily declining values.

But, Daniel B., you say that what bbr2314 is saying is "closer to what most scientists are saying" - closer than who? And can you give us any examples? How many scientists are saying, to take an example, that melting in Hudson Bay will be severely delayed this year due to unusual snow cover? Or can you choose some other of bbr2314's statements that are divergent from the general consensus in these forums and point to any number of scientists that are saying something similar?

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1953
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #51 on: April 19, 2018, 07:52:49 PM »
If what bbr2314 describes comes to fruition, climate change will be much worse than almost any other scenario out there.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #52 on: April 19, 2018, 08:09:55 PM »
If what bbr2314 describes comes to fruition, climate change will be much worse than almost any other scenario out there.
It's almost like he's waiting for what's imminent before the next release. I suspect GRRM is one of the few extant apes that knows what's up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire

binntho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 374
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #53 on: April 20, 2018, 08:22:30 AM »
I've noticed that when people post their musings on the "serious" forums, no exciting discussions ensue because other people don't want to clutter the threads with their replies.

The fun thing about these chatter threads, like this one, are that here we can have discussions about what we think - which we can't in the other forums.

SimonF92

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #54 on: April 20, 2018, 02:40:17 PM »
I've noticed that when people post their musings on the "serious" forums, no exciting discussions ensue because other people don't want to clutter the threads with their replies.

The fun thing about these chatter threads, like this one, are that here we can have discussions about what we think - which we can't in the other forums.

Yes I agree, I tend not to post much on the main threads- best to listen to the real published scientists and well read individuals;

To those talking about "doom and gloom", I do think the forum does over emphasises trends seen in the Sept minima, and is somewhat biased in their reporting. Iv been lurking on here since late- 2014 so I have seen a few years come and go.

I was working on some data with my PI, fitting increasing order polynomials to my datasets to see what happened [irrelevant area of science]. To practise I plotted regressions to the Sept-sea ice minimum area from 1979- 2017 (arguably not the best quantitative data set regarding the Arctic, I know).

What I found was that a linear regression over the whole dataset was a poor analysis method. One could argue a "phase change" occurred in 2007.

Plotting the minima from 2007 onward and fitting a linear regression actually gave a positive gradient. Try it yourselves if you don't believe me. That's 25% of the dataset!

By no means am I suggesting conditions are improving, or a recovery is occurring- that would be completely incorrect. I'm just saying there's no impetus currently to even think about going against the status- quo; and this could end up being detrimental to the discussion.

Tldr; off- topic, please delete if appropriate


binntho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 374
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #55 on: April 20, 2018, 03:33:10 PM »
By no means am I suggesting conditions are improving, or a recovery is occurring- that would be completely incorrect. I'm just saying there's no impetus currently to even think about going against the status- quo; and this could end up being detrimental to the discussion.
The problem with all analysis regarding satellite data is of course the paucity of data points. Having been hanging about here for some years myself, I get the increasing feeling that the sea ice is a lot more resilient than the discussion sometimes seem to indicate.

And there are sure to be lots of unexpected and badly understood feed backs, snow cover being one of them as bbr2345 has been pointing out.

Daniel B.

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #56 on: April 20, 2018, 03:43:38 PM »
By no means am I suggesting conditions are improving, or a recovery is occurring- that would be completely incorrect. I'm just saying there's no impetus currently to even think about going against the status- quo; and this could end up being detrimental to the discussion.
The problem with all analysis regarding satellite data is of course the paucity of data points. Having been hanging about here for some years myself, I get the increasing feeling that the sea ice is a lot more resilient than the discussion sometimes seem to indicate.

And there are sure to be lots of unexpected and badly understood feed backs, snow cover being one of them as bbr2345 has been pointing out.

I have plotted the same data, so I know it is correct.  That is one issue with data in a chaotic environment.  I do not believe that the sea ice minima will continue on this positive trend, and that it is just an artifact of the measurement data.  Based on this data, I tend to predict a minimum closer to the trend line than the low value of 2012, which appears to be an outlier.  Someone posted on another thread sea ice minima predictions by scientists, and the median value was much closer to the trend line than the median value of the guesses here.  I am traveling currently, otherwise I would be able to find it and repost here.

numerobis

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 838
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #57 on: April 20, 2018, 04:03:47 PM »
I'm curious what mechanism bbr2314 proposes for mid-latitude snow on the land to affect arctic sea ice levels.

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #58 on: April 20, 2018, 04:29:29 PM »
I'm curious what mechanism bbr2314 proposes for mid-latitude snow on the land to affect arctic sea ice levels.
The Cryosphere is dependent on albedo not latitude. The situation today exists only because the Arctic sea ice exists.

An equable climate is dependent on a lack of an ongoing Ice Age. Crocodiles cannot exist at 80N if there is 2.9M KM^3 of accumulated ice across Greenland. And more in other remaining glaciers. By definition of enormous extant ice sheets across both Greenland and Antarctica we remain deep within an overall planetary Ice Age.

From this perspective our ongoing predicament is about to become a calamity. Because Ice Ages intensify when the +1.5C vs. 20th Century baseline is reached *within* an ongoing Ice Age (which is why we have never surpassed this mark on a planetary basis since several million years ago).

The cryosphere forms wherever there is snow and ice. There seems to be a disconnect in the mindset of apes that it is based on Latitude. It is not. Why it is cold on top of Everest? Why does it snow on Mauna Loa in June? Because the cryosphere is a fluid concept dependent on ALBEDO and ALTITUDE and not LATITUDE.

Surely latitude helps things along during deep winter, but during summer, the Arctic receives as much insolation as any spot on the planet. The existence of sea ice, which has a declining annual volume totaling less than 1% of the Greenland ice sheet, is a failing constant in a system that had maintained relative balance between heat and heat loss.

Since the early 2000s, the balance of accumulated SWE vs. sea ice outside Greenland as of 4/18 has shifted from about 7.5% to 13.5% (2018). This has resulted in a substantial increase in aerial coverage as well, however the volume uptick for SWE has been way more significant so far.

If this continues we will be at approximately 6,000 KM ^ 3 of accumulated seasonal SWE by this time of year in the 2030s (not every year, but one year, it is likely). Right now we are at about 3,600 KM ^3 vs. 2,200 KM ^3 in the early 2000s.

With substantial aerial snow extent increases evident at our current state, nearly doubling the volume will aggravate existing purples, but also expand coverage substantially. This will mean places like New York City will probably see May snows begin to become regular by the late 2020s. Toronto will be snowing into June. Boston, all year long (JK...................).

Sea ice volume anomalies continue worsening at all times of year, and with GHGs only getting worse and forcing oceanic heating, this shows no signs of stopping. In fact, we likely have another 30-50++++ years of overall oceanic warming baked in TODAY (IMO). But as sea ice volume worsens, the land compensates, which is why despite massive swings in sensible wx now affecting everyone, planetary OVERALL anomalies remain at +1C or so for the duration of the transition.

I do not think we will get above +1.5-2C. Ever. We saw what happened in 2015-2016. The reaction to so much heat in the ocean / water vapor in the atmosphere triggers an ongoing multi-year release in the form of massive snowfalls which affect anything near extant snowpack or sea ice. Of course new snowfalls are possible at distance from the main pack but usually they occur adjacent (which is why it doesn't always snow on Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea -- if they had any substantial assortment of similarly-sized friends, it would. see THE HIMALAYAS).

As heat rises in the oceans, it combines with the extant 2.9 million KM^3 mound of ice in GREENLAND to result in prolific snows beginning first across the Canadian shield, which is downwind of Greenland when oceanic heat forcing is sufficient (normally it is the opposite, but engorged Hadley Cells have a way of their own). When Hadley Cells expand into the mid-latitudes when major SWE is still extant, they act as enormous vacuums for heat, which is thrown north and then equalized and it falls back to the ground in the form of snow over regions to the west, equalizing our predicament due to CO2 and ETC.

This is why the tremendous snow and cold in the US has been accompanied by the tremendous warmth in Europe this spring (IMO). Think of Greenland as the planet's largest air conditioning unit.

As sea ice declines further, we will see the death of the "polar cell" as we used to know it, and the rise of increasing dominant cold-anchored Hadley Cells. These come with STUCK weather patterns as our formerly singular polar vortex multiplies into multiples across the various areas of extant major SWE as the hemisphere heads into spring each year.

As we move forward, this will begin happening more often earlier in the year (October, November, December). But the worst change is going to be in April May and June, as winter makes rapid calendar advances across many regions. 

The insane accumulations of SWE will still melt out for the next few years, but the dislocation of the polar vortices into the mid-latitudes from the high Arctic is also going to force enormous cyclonic activity along their eastern peripheries. This is going to drive further and worsening import of oceanic and atmospheric heat into the High Arctic. If it ever goes annually ice-free, god forbid, its capacity as a heat sink will increase EXPONENTIALLY, and IMO we would see a rapid-onset glaciation event begin within the subsequent twelve months over certain regions of North America.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 04:35:56 PM by bbr2314 »

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3759
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 1050
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #59 on: April 20, 2018, 11:43:33 PM »
Again this "glaciation because it's too warm ". I find it in opposition to basic common sense.
Quote
From this perspective our ongoing predicament is about to become a calamity. Because Ice Ages intensify when the +1.5C vs. 20th Century baseline is reached *within* an ongoing Ice Age (which is why we have never surpassed this mark on a planetary basis since several million years ago). 
Any links to actual research claiming this?

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #60 on: April 20, 2018, 11:48:12 PM »
Again this "glaciation because it's too warm ". I find it in opposition to basic common sense.
Quote
From this perspective our ongoing predicament is about to become a calamity. Because Ice Ages intensify when the +1.5C vs. 20th Century baseline is reached *within* an ongoing Ice Age (which is why we have never surpassed this mark on a planetary basis since several million years ago).
Any links to actual research claiming this?


oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3759
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 1050
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #61 on: April 21, 2018, 12:13:09 AM »
Correlation is not causation, of course. Milankovitch cycles explain this well - just at it was getting warmer the axis tilted/wobbled again, summer became shorter/colder, snow didn't melt, glaciation came back.
But you claim that because it was getting warmer, snow increased so much that it created its own climate, prevented its own melting despite the increasing general heat, glaciation returned. I find that to be highly improbable in a warming world. Is there any scientific paper/analysis supporting this causation?

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #62 on: April 21, 2018, 12:17:01 AM »
Correlation is not causation, of course. Milankovitch cycles explain this well - just at it was getting warmer the axis tilted/wobbled again, summer became shorter/colder, snow didn't melt, glaciation came back.
But you claim that because it was getting warmer, snow increased so much that it created its own climate, prevented its own melting despite the increasing general heat, glaciation returned. I find that to be highly improbable in a warming world. Is there any scientific paper/analysis supporting this causation?

I think Milankovitch cycles are coincident to the warming. The warming is what pulls the trigger for cooling. There are no papers on this because climate science has advanced nowhere under liberalism which is predicated on eternal growth / pumping out research that only supports eternal growth.

Climate science today is like alchemy in the Middle Ages. Except for James Hansen and a select few others (Judith Curry) they are snake oil salesmen whose only role is to bolster the dollar.

Also: if snow does not create its own climate after a threshold is reached, why is Greenland still extant at 2.9 million km ^3 in a world that is +1.5C?
« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 12:23:13 AM by bbr2314 »

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1953
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #63 on: April 21, 2018, 12:39:33 AM »
Quote
From this perspective our ongoing predicament is about to become a calamity. Because Ice Ages intensify when the +1.5C vs. 20th Century baseline is reached *within* an ongoing Ice Age (which is why we have never surpassed this mark on a planetary basis since several million years ago).

I think this is where I disagree with you.

I believe you are referring to the following baseline:



The peak and troughs of the temperature at a scale of 100k years are mostly due to alignments of milankovitch cycles and CO2 cycles.



Although the cool down after 1.5C looks steep it happened over thousands of years as Milankavotich cycles and carbon cycles interacted with Earth. 

What is happening now is similar but different. Milankovitch cycles simply don't change in a scale of decades. CO2 is at levels that should take us completely out of the ice ages in a few thousand years.

An ice free Arctic may cause snow levels of incomprehensible scale. It might even give us a few years of pseudo snowball earth, but over decades CO2 will win. Eventually there will be too little cold to create significant snow. It will just rain.

Unless we remove the blanket of CO2 surrounding Earth we might get an ice free arctic followed by a few years of snowball earth during winter. But over decades CO2 reduces winter temperatures to a small percent of what it used to be eliminating snow and then onward to PETM temps, but in centuries instead of millennia.

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Iceismylife

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #64 on: April 21, 2018, 12:48:27 AM »
Correlation is not causation, of course. Milankovitch cycles explain this well - just at it was getting warmer the axis tilted/wobbled again, summer became shorter/colder, snow didn't melt, glaciation came back.
But you claim that because it was getting warmer, snow increased so much that it created its own climate, prevented its own melting despite the increasing general heat, glaciation returned. I find that to be highly improbable in a warming world. Is there any scientific paper/analysis supporting this causation?
It looks like there should be... A strong negative feedback loop that kicks in between where we are now and 1C warmer.

A micro climate made by snow maybe not.  How about this? Enough freshwater run off to shut down the overturning in the North Atlantic? 

The lower reaches of Greenland melt about 1.5m of water a year.  So would we get that much SWE far enough north to stick around all summer?  That much lake effect snow on the CAA.  If it does then you could get a pile of snow deep enough to have the top high enough to not melt out very far south.

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #65 on: April 21, 2018, 12:50:02 AM »
Quote
From this perspective our ongoing predicament is about to become a calamity. Because Ice Ages intensify when the +1.5C vs. 20th Century baseline is reached *within* an ongoing Ice Age (which is why we have never surpassed this mark on a planetary basis since several million years ago).

I think this is where I disagree with you.

I believe you are referring to the following baseline:



The peak and troughs of the temperature at a scale of 100k years are mostly due to alignments of milankovitch cycles and CO2 cycles.



Although the cool down after 1.5C looks steep it happened over thousands of years as Milankavotich cycles and carbon cycles interacted with Earth. 

What is happening now is similar but different. Milankovitch cycles simply don't change in a scale of decades. CO2 is at levels that should take us completely out of the ice ages in a few thousand years.

An ice free Arctic may cause snow levels of incomprehensible scale. It might even give us a few years of pseudo snowball earth, but over decades CO2 will win. Eventually there will be too little cold to create significant snow. It will just rain.

Unless we remove the blanket of CO2 surrounding Earth we might get an ice free arctic followed by a few years of snowball earth during winter. But over decades CO2 reduces winter temperatures to a small percent of what it used to be eliminating snow and then onward to PETM temps, but in centuries instead of millennia.

I think this is incorrect!

We have an additional 30-50 years of warming baked in based on current CO2 levels. That means that whenever the snowball happens, the momentum is going to continue for at LEAST another few decades.

The problem thereafter is that there will indeed be a rapid drawdown of CO2 that occurs as the snowball revs into high gear. Humanity's industrial complexes will fail extremely rapidly as the grain-growing regions of the "First World" are subsumed in snow and ice through May and June, BEFORE we even see July and August coverage. This is now happening in the Great Plains and it is 4/20. The CMC/GFS/EURO all show more snow possibilities and an incoming polar vortex again by 5/1.

The impact of this will be similar to what caused the French Revolution but extremely worse. I suspect countries like China and Russia will survive the chaos due to emerging absolutism, but order will quickly collapse in developing countries dependent on food imports. At that point the US will either make the same transition as China and Russia have recently completed, or it will fall apart like what will probably happen to most of Europe.

That will take another year or two as hopes for a reprieve are dashed by a worse recurrence the subsequent winter, as sea ice returns to new records and the snows advance higher and farther than ever before. But by then, the third world will be spilling hundreds of millions of starving refugees into Europe. The situation in Central America could be similar.

At that point, industry will cease to function in large parts of the planet. Think "Genghis Khan" but with White Walkers instead of Mongols.

As order decays, there will probably be mass death in most of the third world that spills into areas that are reachable by land and undefended by massive force. I think command-style economies may be able to retrench into southern areas and build enough new infrastructure in time to circumvent the inevitable but in countries where this is impossible due to excessive bureaucracy the entirety will fail.

In any case, CO2 emissions are likely to see a very extremely rapid decrease. Worse, sulfate emissions are also likely to drop. The loss of our protective shroud generated by the desperation of so many farmers in developing countries is likely to result in another spike to warming even with the CO2 decrease, exacerbating the sea ice situation further, and maybe leading to a temporary drop in the snows, but the extra input will eventually force more of that as well. At the same time, I think regions like the Sahara will green extremely rapidly. This will not stave off a short-term hunger crisis, but in several decades, it could become a planetary bread belt. It will also result in dramatic CO2 drops.

Perhaps we may see a planetary push to vastly increase CO2 emissions once people realize what's around the corner? It is the only sensible way to partially stave off the inevitable, even though it will ultimately worsen whatever eventual outcome exists.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 12:59:38 AM by bbr2314 »

numerobis

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 838
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #66 on: April 21, 2018, 12:51:35 AM »
:o

Iceismylife

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #67 on: April 21, 2018, 12:58:07 AM »
...
 
I believe you are referring to the following baseline:

...
temperature leads ice volume.  Nice.  Ice volume goes up then cooling.

Up to about 1.25 million years ago nice correlation.  From 1.25 million years ago to 2.5 million years ago.  Not so tight.

So as the temperature goes up we should see an upswing in ice volume.  That reflects water in the air. (Humidity)

« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 01:13:34 AM by Iceismylife »

FredBear

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #68 on: April 21, 2018, 01:04:05 AM »
I'm curious what mechanism bbr2314 proposes for mid-latitude snow on the land to affect arctic sea ice levels.
The Cryosphere is dependent on albedo not latitude. The situation today exists only because the Arctic sea ice exists.
As heat rises in the oceans, it combines with the extant 2.9 million KM^3 mound of ice in GREENLAND to result in prolific snows beginning first across the Canadian shield, which is downwind of Greenland when oceanic heat forcing is sufficient (normally it is the opposite, but engorged Hadley Cells have a way of their own).
Could understand prolific snows across Greenland if the ocean warms but the Canadian shield would get its water (snow) from the south. Any wind off Greenland would be dry and subject to adiabatic warming as it flows from the high interior. (Recently the Greenland mass balance has been showing early losses from the south/west as precipitation was occurring on the southeast?)

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #69 on: April 21, 2018, 01:09:23 AM »
I'm curious what mechanism bbr2314 proposes for mid-latitude snow on the land to affect arctic sea ice levels.
The Cryosphere is dependent on albedo not latitude. The situation today exists only because the Arctic sea ice exists.
As heat rises in the oceans, it combines with the extant 2.9 million KM^3 mound of ice in GREENLAND to result in prolific snows beginning first across the Canadian shield, which is downwind of Greenland when oceanic heat forcing is sufficient (normally it is the opposite, but engorged Hadley Cells have a way of their own).
Could understand prolific snows across Greenland if the ocean warms but the Canadian shield would get its water (snow) from the south. Any wind off Greenland would be dry and subject to adiabatic warming as it flows from the high interior. (Recently the Greenland mass balance has been showing early losses from the south/west as precipitation was occurring on the southeast?)

That is wrong. Air produced from Greenland is extremely cold. Greenland is an extremely porous mass of SWE. As heat is dumped into Greenland by the atmosphere it resolves as both snow & the creation of the "polar vortex" downstream in the atmosphere (i.e. Quebec, when sea ice is lacking). Greenland produces adiabetic COOLING, it is like the world's second largest built-in air conditioning unit.

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #70 on: April 21, 2018, 01:14:06 AM »
Correlation is not causation, of course. Milankovitch cycles explain this well - just at it was getting warmer the axis tilted/wobbled again, summer became shorter/colder, snow didn't melt, glaciation came back.
But you claim that because it was getting warmer, snow increased so much that it created its own climate, prevented its own melting despite the increasing general heat, glaciation returned. I find that to be highly improbable in a warming world. Is there any scientific paper/analysis supporting this causation?
It looks like there should be... A strong negative feedback loop that kicks in between where we are now and 1C warmer.

A micro climate made by snow maybe not.  How about this? Enough freshwater run off to shut down the overturning in the North Atlantic? 

The lower reaches of Greenland melt about 1.5m of water a year.  So would we get that much SWE far enough north to stick around all summer?  That much lake effect snow on the CAA.  If it does then you could get a pile of snow deep enough to have the top high enough to not melt out very far south.
This is absurd


Iceismylife

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #71 on: April 21, 2018, 01:18:26 AM »
I'm curious what mechanism bbr2314 proposes for mid-latitude snow on the land to affect arctic sea ice levels.
The Cryosphere is dependent on albedo not latitude. The situation today exists only because the Arctic sea ice exists.
As heat rises in the oceans, it combines with the extant 2.9 million KM^3 mound of ice in GREENLAND to result in prolific snows beginning first across the Canadian shield, which is downwind of Greenland when oceanic heat forcing is sufficient (normally it is the opposite, but engorged Hadley Cells have a way of their own).
Could understand prolific snows across Greenland if the ocean warms but the Canadian shield would get its water (snow) from the south. Any wind off Greenland would be dry and subject to adiabatic warming as it flows from the high interior. (Recently the Greenland mass balance has been showing early losses from the south/west as precipitation was occurring on the southeast?)
The ability of air to hold water goes up with temps. One or 2C warmer (water temp) and you get a lot more precipitation.

Grubbegrabben

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #72 on: April 21, 2018, 01:40:59 AM »
The impact of this will be similar to what caused the French Revolution but extremely worse. I suspect countries like China and Russia will survive the chaos due to emerging absolutism, but order will quickly collapse in developing countries dependent on food imports. At that point the US will either make the same transition as China and Russia have recently completed, or it will fall apart like what will probably happen to most of Europe.

That will take another year or two as hopes for a reprieve are dashed by a worse recurrence the subsequent winter, as sea ice returns to new records and the snows advance higher and farther than ever before. But by then, the third world will be spilling hundreds of millions of starving refugees into Europe. The situation in Central America could be similar.

At that point, industry will cease to function in large parts of the planet. Think "Genghis Khan" but with White Walkers instead of Mongols.

As order decays, there will probably be mass death in most of the third world that spills into areas that are reachable by land and undefended by massive force. I think command-style economies may be able to retrench into southern areas and build enough new infrastructure in time to circumvent the inevitable but in countries where this is impossible due to excessive bureaucracy the entirety will fail.


... ok you are just another troll, after this I'm 100% sure. Please leave and go find another forum to post this kind of total nonsense. Thank you.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1953
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #73 on: April 21, 2018, 02:59:18 AM »
Quote
I think this is incorrect!

Why? I think you are confusing the time scale of events. During the Eemian the climate changed at about the same speed as it always does. Crocodiles in England happened without ecosystem disruption outside of natural variation. The rates of Arctic melt would've been indistinguishable from noise in today's satellite record.

The years following the first ice free were probably chaotic but nothing so out of the ordinary that made a significant blip in the record.

What we see today is a whole different thing.

Quote
We have an additional 30-50 years of warming baked in based on current CO2 levels. That means that whenever the snowball happens, the momentum is going to continue for at LEAST another few decades.

I don't believe CO2 works like that. It's more like a blanket. If there is a sudden cooling event, it takes a while for CO2 to build up again.

This is what at the moment I think the order of events will be (subject to change):

1. With ups and downs the Arctic keeps warming and the ice melting.
2. A point is reached where a significant amount of sea ice "poofs out" to virtually ice free state. 3. Summer N80 temps shoot up.
4. A WACCy pattern sets in like never before and continues until sufficient ice grows to form a lid over Arctic humidity.
5. That first winter it will probably cover the NH in snow.
6. Sea ice do not reach a significant extent and it is all thin first year ice.
7. Snow doesn't last the summer.
8. Sea ice is gone again, but much earlier.
9. Summer N80 temps shoot up.
10. Go to 4 until sea ice is gone by solstice.
11. No more snowball NH.
12 Warm until CO2 feedback loops consume themselves or milankovitch cycle forcings dictate so.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

FishOutofWater

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 655
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #74 on: April 21, 2018, 03:45:32 AM »
The thermal inertia of the deep oceans is huge. CO2 uptake into the deep ocean is a slow process. That's why global climate change is generally very slow. There are notable exceptions in the geologic record that have been studied extensively. However, the wild assertions made by BBR are not supported actual scientific research reports or scientific data. Three feet more snow than normal in April in eastern Canada is not a sign of impending continental glaciation.

epiphyte

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 381
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #75 on: April 21, 2018, 05:24:41 AM »
Snow further south appears and vanishes more or less instantly at this time of year. Viz: here in Minneapolis we had 14" of fresh snowfall five days ago... that made it 2' deep on my north-facing hillside lawn. Most of it is gone now.

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #76 on: April 21, 2018, 05:27:47 AM »
Quote
I think this is incorrect!

Why? I think you are confusing the time scale of events. During the Eemian the climate changed at about the same speed as it always does. Crocodiles in England happened without ecosystem disruption outside of natural variation. The rates of Arctic melt would've been indistinguishable from noise in today's satellite record.

The years following the first ice free were probably chaotic but nothing so out of the ordinary that made a significant blip in the record.

What we see today is a whole different thing.

Quote
We have an additional 30-50 years of warming baked in based on current CO2 levels. That means that whenever the snowball happens, the momentum is going to continue for at LEAST another few decades.

I don't believe CO2 works like that. It's more like a blanket. If there is a sudden cooling event, it takes a while for CO2 to build up again.

This is what at the moment I think the order of events will be (subject to change):

1. With ups and downs the Arctic keeps warming and the ice melting.
2. A point is reached where a significant amount of sea ice "poofs out" to virtually ice free state. 3. Summer N80 temps shoot up.
4. A WACCy pattern sets in like never before and continues until sufficient ice grows to form a lid over Arctic humidity.
5. That first winter it will probably cover the NH in snow.
6. Sea ice do not reach a significant extent and it is all thin first year ice.
7. Snow doesn't last the summer.
8. Sea ice is gone again, but much earlier.
9. Summer N80 temps shoot up.
10. Go to 4 until sea ice is gone by solstice.
11. No more snowball NH.
12 Warm until CO2 feedback loops consume themselves or milankovitch cycle forcings dictate so.
I think we are roughly in agreement however I believe Greenland is the major modifier acting in action with relatively ice-free conditions that brings prodigious snowfall amounts... so after we repeat 1-4 enough times we reach a point where it DOES last the summer.

Greenland is 2.7 million KM^3... 100X the cooling power of the Arctic when it is actually activated... and it is only fully activated when the sea ice is near 0. Hopefully this makes sense.

Also not to be rude to GuggenGwaggen -- people thought the solar system rotated around the earth until a few hundred years ago. The majority of Americans still do not believe in evolution. Not to be rude, but ape understanding of climate science is TERRIBLE and predicated on hoping the status quo continues (it won't).

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #77 on: April 21, 2018, 05:29:02 AM »
Snow further south appears and vanishes more or less instantly at this time of year. Viz: here in Minneapolis we had 14" of fresh snowfall five days ago... that made it 2' deep on my north-facing hillside lawn. Most of it is gone now.
Wait til you have 30-50" of base to start April  :)

I think it might happen this upcoming winter... we shall see... in any case I think despite snow melt you will still see more snow this year, and June will feature record cold.

I think the fact that we have to melt 1,500+ KM^3 by 7/1 to not be absurdly above normal by that date is proof that we are in for extremely anomalous weather over the eastern half of the continent. The snow melt will be accompanied by more snow *fall* than ever before in May/June as the extant mass still supports marginal events. But they won't save it from fully melting out by sometime in mid-late July (IMO). Most will be gone by mid-June.

But I do not see how we melt more than 800-900KM^3 by 6/1. That is going to result in roughly double what is normally melted in terms of May SWE loss (IMO) and then 500-600KM^3 in June will more than double that month's normals.

I think the result will be near-perpetual late March-ish conditions from NYC and NE on the seaboard and from approximately 40N and above on west to the Pacific, with interruptions in the very high Plains. At least, through June, and probably even early July.

I think September may still scorch this year but summer will be relegated to that month (if any). I wonder how quickly SWE rebounds in the fall, especially if sea ice hits a new minimum which seems quite possible. Perhaps it will be surprisingly quick (or not!)

Also: I illustrated the below. You can see how heat is resolved in Greenland and how the sea ice certainly keeps it cold over what could otherwise be open ocean, but is actually a secondary factor to maintaining the crysophere (Greenland's volume is 100X and it provides adiabetic cooling on an enormous scale when atmospheric heat pumps are fully activated due to the expansion of the Hadley Cells)



« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 06:58:41 AM by bbr2314 »

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3759
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 1050
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #78 on: April 21, 2018, 07:33:40 AM »
Correlation is not causation, of course. Milankovitch cycles explain this well - just at it was getting warmer the axis tilted/wobbled again, summer became shorter/colder, snow didn't melt, glaciation came back.
But you claim that because it was getting warmer, snow increased so much that it created its own climate, prevented its own melting despite the increasing general heat, glaciation returned. I find that to be highly improbable in a warming world. Is there any scientific paper/analysis supporting this causation?

I think Milankovitch cycles are coincident to the warming. The warming is what pulls the trigger for cooling. There are no papers on this because climate science has advanced nowhere under liberalism which is predicated on eternal growth / pumping out research that only supports eternal growth.

Climate science today is like alchemy in the Middle Ages. Except for James Hansen and a select few others (Judith Curry) they are snake oil salesmen whose only role is to bolster the dollar. [/b

Also: if snow does not create its own climate after a threshold is reached, why is Greenland still extant at 2.9 million km ^3 in a world that is +1.5C?
I believe this is where we part ways. And now for a rare ad hominem statement: Climate scientists are snake oil salesmen that deal in alchemy, while you the great bbr have everything figured out. You have been spouting pseudo-science for quite a while, all over the forum, relating to the effects of thick snows, I have been trying to debate with you, but now I realize this will never get anywhere.
I should have stopped when I proved to you that the data showed thicker snows barely last longer than thinner snows, and you immediately continued with your theories totally ignoring the data.
The sad thing is that thick snow is indeed a disturbing consequence of the changing arctic. Not because it will create its own climate and glaciate or any such bs, but because it will cause misery to those that have to endure it, possibly destroy infrastructure, probably cause springtime flooding, etc.
You could have been a hero by uncovering the increased snowfalls consequence, but instead, sadly, I pronounce you a troll who can't be reasoned with on the basis of science, and keeps derailing discussions. And now I feel bad for having fed you. That's it from me.

binntho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 374
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #79 on: April 21, 2018, 07:36:07 AM »
If I understand bbr2345 correctly, his theory is that diminishing sea ice extent causes increases in NH snow cover, which will act as a negative feedback that eventually takes over and pushes us into a new Ice Age.

Greenland as a "producer" of cold air seems to play a large part, and the Milankovich cycles are dismissed as irrelevant. Dismissing climate scientists as dishonest/stupid/mistaken/alchemists is not a good tactic!

If we look at Milankovich, the earth should now be heading towards an Ice Age. Apparently, interglacial periods all behave similarly, with a climatic optimum early on, a steady decline towards colder weather and a climatic minimum quite late in the ensuing glacial period.

According to bbr, there is a temperature that the interglacials reach, and that this temperature, once reached, causes glaciation. So how has our current interglacial been behaving? I've dug out a graph I made some time ago, basically a cleaned out version of the Holocene temperature graph found on Wikipedia.

A red trendline is added by eyeballing the downward slope, and 2016 temperature is helpfully marked as well. The longtime trend for the last 8 thousand years or so is clearly downward, in accordance with Milankovich, until our current warming puts us close to 1.5C above the trendline.

If bbr's theory of temperature causing glaciation were correct, the trendline of interglacials should  point upward until they reach somewhere above the 2016 mark, and then plummet. Previous interglacials have not behaved in this way, and our current one certainly hasn't.

And the current warming is obviously unprecedented - so the old rules do not seem to apply any more, whether they are those of mainstream science or bbr's own.

binntho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 374
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #80 on: April 21, 2018, 08:13:45 AM »
A large part of bbr's musings are about snow cover, and it's certainly true that snow depth this spring is unusually high when comparing it to previous years. And there are certainly indications that snow cover has been increasing over the last decades, in fall and winter, but decreasing in spring.

Of the following graphs, the first image is from Rutgers . The three graphs show spring, fall and winter respectively, with only the winter graph showing our current year.

As for the trendlines, snow cover has clearly increased in fall and winter, but decreased in spring. This ongoing season has snow above trendline in fall (though somewhat lower than the three preceding falls), below trendline in winter and who knows where spring will end up.

Any feedback from snow is two-fold, where extent effects insulation and snow water equivalent (SWE) indicates how quickly the snow melts and also the amount of energy needed to melt it.

The other two graphs are from the Canadian Cryosphere Watch and show current SWE, first for the northern hemisphere, and lastly, for North America. As for the northern hemisphere, SWE is very high but going down fast. At maximum, the total volume was more than 1.5 thousand km3 above average which is quite a lot!

The last graph is familiar and shows how unusual the situation in North America has been this year, with SWE going high and then just staying there - although given that North America maximum is appr. 1/3 of global SWE maximum, and the global is going down fast, this indicates that melt is proceding faster in other parts of the NH.

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #81 on: April 21, 2018, 08:15:55 AM »
A large part of bbr's musings are about snow cover, and it's certainly true that snow depth this spring is unusually high when comparing it to previous years. And there are certainly indications that snow cover has been increasing over the last decades, in fall and winter, but decreasing in spring.

Of the following graphs, the first image is from Rutgers . The three graphs show spring, fall and winter respectively, with only the winter graph showing our current year.

As for the trendlines, snow cover has clearly increased in fall and winter, but decreased in spring. This ongoing season has snow above trendline in fall (though somewhat lower than the three preceding falls), below trendline in winter and who knows where spring will end up.

Any feedback from snow is two-fold, where extent effects insulation and snow water equivalent (SWE) indicates how quickly the snow melts and also the amount of energy needed to melt it.

The other two graphs are from the Canadian Cryosphere Watch and show current SWE, first for the northern hemisphere, and lastly, for North America. As for the northern hemisphere, SWE is very high but going down fast. At maximum, the total volume was more than 1.5 thousand km3 above average which is quite a lot!

The last graph is familiar and shows how unusual the situation in North America has been this year, with SWE going high and then just staying there - although given that North America maximum is appr. 1/3 of global SWE maximum, and the global is going down fast, this indicates that melt is proceding faster in other parts of the NH.

I think Rutgers will show #1 extent at least for North America for April. This year has so many blues on both their maps and the Canucks. I think you are correct that we have seen decreasing spring snows for some number of decades but this trend began to reverse this decade (IMO).

binntho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 374
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #82 on: April 21, 2018, 08:33:08 AM »
So what about Greenland as a "producer" of cold air? I think most of us would agree that the Greenland Ice Cap will last a lot longer than summer sea ice. And Greenland is big, with some 1.7 million km2 of ice compared with the current run of some 4 million km2 of summer sea ice at minimum.

For comparison, Canada is 10 million km2 and the USA is about the same.

Vicinity to such a large mass of ice should influence weather, but funnily enough, the small island of Iceland (100.000 km2) that lies just to the east of Greenland is actually almost totally unaffected by the Greenland ice mass! Cold air does not descend from Greenland to smother Iceland except very rarely.

And this is of course because the winds that reach Iceland are mostly from the south and originate in the warmer Atlantic waters far to the south. The not so rare bursts of wind from the north originates in the North pole, but with increasing distance to the ice edge, the northern winds have been warming markedly in the last few decades.

The flow of air towards the Arctic along the surface is mostly over the two ocean corridors, with the Atlantic one being the most significant. The general direction of wind is towards the northeast, while if bbr's claims were to hold, the general (or at least a significant) portion of this airflow would have to be towards the south-west, streaming across Greenland and cooling North America, causing glaciation (at least this is how I understand his musings).

But air that comes from Greenland must originate somewhere else - and the Greenland Ice Cap is, when it comes to airflow, to all extents and purposes like a vast mountain range. Downwind of mountain ranges, the air is warm and dry - whether the mountains are covered with ice or not.

A similar effect can be observed in Iceland, where the largest icecap (some 10.000 km2) is on the southeastern coast. The normal flow of air is over this icecap, leading to dry and comparatively warm conditions to the north of it.

binntho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 374
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #83 on: April 21, 2018, 08:40:29 AM »
So to round this off, and returning to my other bĂȘte noire (writing a series of articles on the origins of Christianity and the non-existence of Jesus), does increased snowfall herald glaciation? In my view, only if temperatures are falling as well.

Increased snowfall in a warming world is a result of increased humidity and therefore increased precipitation. And this is a year-round phenomenon. The weather that dropped all that snow is going to continue into summer and melt it all just as fast.

Returning to Iceland, a couple of years ago we had some rather unusual weather, with a constant series of storms from the south. Winter snowfall was much more than we have gotten used to over the last decades, but on the other hand, it disappeared just as fast when the storms continued and snowfall was replaced by rain in spring.

This is presumably what we are seeing in the Rutgers graphs - increased precipitation in a warming world. More snow, faster melt, to put it simply.

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #84 on: April 21, 2018, 08:58:37 AM »
So to round this off, and returning to my other bĂȘte noire (writing a series of articles on the origins of Christianity and the non-existence of Jesus), does increased snowfall herald glaciation? In my view, only if temperatures are falling as well.

Increased snowfall in a warming world is a result of increased humidity and therefore increased precipitation. And this is a year-round phenomenon. The weather that dropped all that snow is going to continue into summer and melt it all just as fast.

Returning to Iceland, a couple of years ago we had some rather unusual weather, with a constant series of storms from the south. Winter snowfall was much more than we have gotten used to over the last decades, but on the other hand, it disappeared just as fast when the storms continued and snowfall was replaced by rain in spring.

This is presumably what we are seeing in the Rutgers graphs - increased precipitation in a warming world. More snow, faster melt, to put it simply.



My feelings about you:



JK ;)

binntho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 374
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #85 on: April 21, 2018, 09:05:31 AM »
So it didn't take longer than that to resort to namecalling! I'm a bit disappointed in you bbr, here I am trying to engage you in discussion and answering your points one by one as far as I understand them, using quite a lot less verbiage than you yourself have done.

The image you posted, on 500mb geopotential height - I don't see the relevance. Can you expand a bit on that? Perhaps shorter texts, and images might help you make your points.

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #86 on: April 21, 2018, 09:08:43 AM »
So it didn't take longer than that to resort to namecalling! I'm a bit disappointed in you bbr, here I am trying to engage you in discussion and answering your points one by one as far as I understand them, using quite a lot less verbiage than you yourself have done.

The image you posted, on 500mb geopotential height - I don't see the relevance. Can you expand a bit on that? Perhaps shorter texts, and images might help you make your points.
You called me a troll etc. I don't think calling you a blah blah bitch is that unfair. I am happy to engage you.

The 500MB pattern is showing a worsening recurrence of our extant "stuckness". The worsening high-latitude blocking is going to trap the PV in Hudson Bay/Quebec and prolong winter substantially. It looks as though SWE melt will occur over the next 10 days across North America, but I think we will approach 5/1 at or above 1,300KM^3 (maybe even 1,400KM^3) as it seems there will be an opportunity emerging for another prolific snowfall event in the D6-8 period (IMO) across Quebec/Upper Midwest/Upper NE.

I think this map will correct the 0c 850 boundary about 500-600 miles south of where it is currently depicted.


bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #87 on: April 21, 2018, 09:23:51 AM »
Also! I would like to make predictions and observations.

The 500MB pattern this April has actually been very similar to 2007. However, the Hadley Cells are now displaced even further North. This has driven more warm air further into Greenland, also encouraged by the lack of sea ice in the Greenland Sea. Combined with the lack of atmospheric angular momentum (due to the breakdown of high-latitude sea ice), this has allowed more of the ensuing adiabetic cooling to impact the eastern half of North America vs. splitting off into NW Eurasia as much more of it did during 2007 (though it was still cold in the Eastern US/Canada that yr).

2007 also featured lower anomalies in the high Pacific. I think we have surpassed 2007 in this regard (and the blues this year in the high Pac are much less) due to the lack of Bering Ice, which has allowed much more heat to accumulate wayyyy further N.

Moving forward, if 2007's continuation of where we went from here is repeated, there are going to be many similarities but a few key differences.

For some reason I can't make the GIF slower so watch it for a while I guess.



In any case see attached for my 500MB height anomaly predictions for May and June (accidentally posted them in reverse order). I suspect areas within the blues will hold onto cover through 6/15-7/1 or later.

Not pictured: May and June will also likely feature substantial heat building in the SW US. By August this will almost certainly overwhelm the cold and deliver summer in time for ~8/15.

binntho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 374
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #88 on: April 21, 2018, 09:47:16 AM »
You called me a troll etc. I don't think calling you a blah blah bitch is that unfair. I am happy to engage you.
Well, it wasn't me! I honestly can't remember when I last called someone a troll, maybe decades ago. Having engaged in on-line discussions since the early 90's I hope I have learned to moderate my tone a bit!

The 500MB pattern is showing a worsening recurrence of our extant "stuckness". The worsening high-latitude blocking is going to trap the PV in Hudson Bay/Quebec and prolong winter substantially. It looks as though SWE melt will occur over the next 10 days across North America, but I think we will approach 5/1 at or above 1,300KM^3 (maybe even 1,400KM^3) as it seems there will be an opportunity emerging for another prolific snowfall event in the D6-8 period (IMO) across Quebec/Upper Midwest/Upper NE.
I don't see what you see from that one picture, but I'll take your word for it that it shows a "worsening recurrence" of extant "stuckness". But then comes "is going to ... prolong winter substantially" - this to me seems pure speculation. But then again, "substantially" is rather vague - are we talking days or weeks or months here? And what is the variability of winter lengthness?

I think this map will correct the 0c 850 boundary about 500-600 miles south of where it is currently depicted.
You think ... will correct ... why?

GFS is fun to play around with, I found this forecast of 2m temperature anomaly forecast for May. Doesn't look like a substantially longer winter to me!

binntho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 374
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #89 on: April 21, 2018, 10:06:20 AM »
Also! I would like to make predictions and observations.

The 500MB pattern this April has actually been very similar to 2007. However, the Hadley Cells are now displaced even further North. This has driven more warm air further into Greenland, also encouraged by the lack of sea ice in the Greenland Sea. Combined with the lack of atmospheric angular momentum (due to the breakdown of high-latitude sea ice), this has allowed more of the ensuing adiabetic cooling to impact the eastern half of North America vs. splitting off into NW Eurasia as much more of it did during 2007 (though it was still cold in the Eastern US/Canada that yr).

So there is a lack of atmospheric angular momentum? And this is due to a breakdown of sea ice? I know that angular momentum is currently quite low, this is a known La Nina effect and has little to do with sea ice.

And I think you mean "adiabatic warming" which is what happens on the lee side of massive mountain chains and ice caps. As I tried to point out earlier without using the fancy words.

2007 also featured lower anomalies in the high Pacific. I think we have surpassed 2007 in this regard (and the blues this year in the high Pac are much less) due to the lack of Bering Ice, which has allowed much more heat to accumulate wayyyy further N.

Well there is certainly a lot of heat in the northern Pacific, which is probably why the Bering Sea has so little ice at the moment. But the Bering Sea is tiny compared to the northern Pacific, and the difference in ice cover now compared to the last few years is tinier still, perhaps some tens of kilometers.

In any case see attached for my 500MB height anomaly predictions for May and June (accidentally posted them in reverse order). I suspect areas within the blues will hold onto cover through 6/15-7/1 or later.

Well, looking at GFS projections for May and June doesn't show any negative anomalies over North America. Here they are, June is the one with blues only above the pole.

It may very well be that your forecasting skills are superior, but the differences between your forecasts and GFS seem vast to me.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6783
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #90 on: April 21, 2018, 10:56:14 AM »
bbr2314, you make extraordinary claims that are going to take a while to play out.

So, a couple of things:

1) Don't post long, repetitive screeds every day (with predictions about coming catastrophes in the next few decades), especially not when you first quote entire discussions, without picking out the parts you respond to. Wait how things play out, and quote yourself if you have been right. Efficiency is key here.
2) Don't whine about personal attacks. This is the fate of people who make extraordinary claims. Last year it was about the ice pack splitting like the Red Sea, this year it's a longer-term thing. Learn to deal with the criticism and, most of all, don't lash back (although I liked the video  ;) ).
3) Don't smear climate scientists with a broad brush, especially not if you're going to put names like Judith Curry in the same sentence as an example of a non-snake oil salesman.

I don't care whether you're wrong or right, you're undermining a smooth functioning of this forum. I've let you on until now, because I appreciate you looking at snow with a focus on details, but pretty soon I won't have the time or patience for this sideshow.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #91 on: April 21, 2018, 03:59:12 PM »
bbr2314, you make extraordinary claims that are going to take a while to play out.

So, a couple of things:

1) Don't post long, repetitive screeds every day (with predictions about coming catastrophes in the next few decades), especially not when you first quote entire discussions, without picking out the parts you respond to. Wait how things play out, and quote yourself if you have been right. Efficiency is key here.
2) Don't whine about personal attacks. This is the fate of people who make extraordinary claims. Last year it was about the ice pack splitting like the Red Sea, this year it's a longer-term thing. Learn to deal with the criticism and, most of all, don't lash back (although I liked the video  ;) ).
3) Don't smear climate scientists with a broad brush, especially not if you're going to put names like Judith Curry in the same sentence as an example of a non-snake oil salesman.

I don't care whether you're wrong or right, you're undermining a smooth functioning of this forum. I've let you on until now, because I appreciate you looking at snow with a focus on details, but pretty soon I won't have the time or patience for this sideshow.
I meant Jennifer Francis not Judith Curry, sorry for that mix-up!

Sebastian Jones

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 250
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #92 on: April 21, 2018, 05:35:24 PM »
Bbr2314 makes a definite prediction a few posts upthread: " I think despite snow melt you will still see more snow this year, and June will feature record cold." Despite the vagueness about what is meant by record cold in June (where? just in the the N.E. of N. America? Northern hemisphere? Globally?), we shall, by June, be able to test his hypothesis empirically.   

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3522
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #93 on: April 21, 2018, 05:54:11 PM »
Bbr2314 makes a definite prediction a few posts upthread: " I think despite snow melt you will still see more snow this year, and June will feature record cold." Despite the vagueness about what is meant by record cold in June (where? just in the the N.E. of N. America? Northern hemisphere? Globally?), we shall, by June, be able to test his hypothesis empirically.

Safe to say that the chance of record cold for global, Northern hemisphere or North America is not in the cards IMHO. When you start arguing locally, you are stuck defining how local and then you will always be able to find some temps that are record cold. And then you have to wonder about duration. Are we talking the entire month of June or just incidences of record cold?

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1953
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #94 on: April 21, 2018, 06:07:20 PM »
   I feel sorry for Dr. Curry. At this point her scientific mind and her emotions are a complete mess. If you read her writing, she reviews and fails to logically refute scores of papers that confirm that climate change is real, man made, bad for us and getting worse by the minute. At the end of her review the only way she can refute the mountains of evidence in her face is some variation of "it's complicated" or "it's uncertain".  Poor sap.

  It isn't bad that she convinces herself of comfortable lies. If someone chooses to face climate change by hiding their head in the sand, that's a personal choice that must be respected. However, she uses her place of authority to convince others to hide their heads in the sand with her. That's very bad. 

   She seems young and healthy enough to witness the effect of climate change past the beginning stages we are now on.  She will see the death and destruction her cowardliness helped cause. However, the great prowess that she has shown at lying to herself probably shields her from shame. My only hope is that whatever remains of the world as the climate changes  remembers her in shame.

The same goes for Lindzen and Christy. They are all smart people with the knowledge to understand what's going on. Spencer is different because unlike the former, he doesn't have the capacity to understand climate at all. His mind is way too narrow, like Pielke.

Francis and Hansen? They are heroes, together with many other scientists, engineers, business people and concerned citizens who recognized the dangers we face today and have done everything that is humanly possible to warn the rest of us of the dangers of climate change. Without them and many others we would be 100% oblivious to this.  Because of their work we can see the dangers that are coming and take action. If we failed to take action is not their fault.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6783
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #95 on: April 21, 2018, 08:26:52 PM »
I meant Jennifer Francis not Judith Curry, sorry for that mix-up!

Thanks for explaining. You had me scratching my head there.  :)
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #96 on: April 21, 2018, 09:04:48 PM »
Bbr2314 makes a definite prediction a few posts upthread: " I think despite snow melt you will still see more snow this year, and June will feature record cold." Despite the vagueness about what is meant by record cold in June (where? just in the the N.E. of N. America? Northern hemisphere? Globally?), we shall, by June, be able to test his hypothesis empirically.
Please see attached!


numerobis

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 838
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #97 on: April 21, 2018, 09:08:08 PM »
So you predict record cold June in the Kivalliq, Northern Ontario, all of Quebec, the Maritimes and Maine (among other regions).

How do we measure that exactly? Average temp, nightly lows, daily highs?

bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #98 on: April 21, 2018, 09:14:43 PM »
So you predict record cold June in the Kivalliq, Northern Ontario, all of Quebec, the Maritimes and Maine (among other regions).

How do we measure that exactly? Average temp, nightly lows, daily highs?
Sorry, those are my anticipated 500MB anomalies. I would say the reds will be +100 and the blues will be -100 (and higher or lower). Cold or record cold is likely within and to the west of the Quebec bubble (stretching to the Upper GL and interior NE), and within/to the SE of the Scandinavian bubble.

See below for temps overlaid. Not records entirely within each blob, but general to severe coldness/warmth with records close to the center. The cold blob over Japan is likely to be more mild as it is adjacent to the main heat import routes for the CAB / snowcover will be mostly absent by June, therefore it will be extremely wet but not extremely cold (just mild or chilly).

PS: Welcome to May! If the 12z EURO is correct, even WITH its recent warm bias, there is no end to winter in sight for some regions. Just temporary breaks. It will be very interesting to see how much SWE melts off in May, as if it may indicate an upper bound of possibility (or not). I do not think it will be more than 750KM^3 (for North America). I suspect Eurasia will bear the brunt of the May melt, possibly even making things more lopsided than today (however temporarily). 

« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 09:44:11 PM by bbr2314 »

numerobis

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 838
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« Reply #99 on: April 21, 2018, 09:49:42 PM »
OK, to be specific, let's say that we take the average of the 500 mb geopotential height anomaly over the province of Quebec (that's entirely within your blue region, and covers about half of it, and there's no dispute about the boundaries) for the month of June.

You predict -100m. CFSv2 predicts about +20m.

Sound like a reasonable and measurable prediction to you?

Time will tell who gets closer.