Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,586
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    23Yankee
    Newest Member
    23Yankee
    Joined

And we begin... Part Deux


Recommended Posts

My post had absolutely nothing to do with Global Warming Theory, Snowcover varies naturally over extended time periods, the end. :) What is your deal?

Issue arises when the entire discussion topic is diverted off topic, not that AGW theory is forbidden outside the CC-forum, but this thread isn't the place for debates on the matter unless it has to do with snowcover on it's own.

AGW theory and it's significance, measurable or not, is CC-forum talk.

You claimed, and just did again, that the variation in sea ice is natural which is directly contradictory to AGW science and instigating debate on the issue which doesn't belong here. I'm not going to derail this any further so this is my last response to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 436
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You claimed, and just did again, that the variation in sea ice is natural which is directly contradictory to AGW science and instigating debate on the issue which doesn't belong here. I'm not going to derail this any further so this is my last response to you.

:blink: Where did I claim anything like that? Again nothing I said had anything to do with global warming theory. Natural variations in snowcover happen all the time, is what I have been saying. I never said anything about sea ice or global warming. Calm down I'm not out to attack your opinions or insult believers in AGW theory.

Snowcover varies naturally over extended periods of time, the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that will depend on what we see with the NAO, what you reference is a correlation to September/October NAO, SST's are altered by many factors including the NAO. Keep in mind the NAO not only has an effect on the SSTs, but also storm tracks that will determine snowfall in those areas......areas with more sunshine tend to see higher SST's, visa-verse with diminished sunlight, sunlight is a very big factor in where we see specific SST anomalies.

Much of the NAO we've seen in 2009 & 2010 could very well be solar induced, in 2009 the upper atmsphere cooled and collapsed and while building back slowly we see with the weaker megnetic sun the wave-breaking up at the Stratospheric level seems altered.

The more frequent -NAO in supressing storm track also tends to coincide with La Nina in the Pacific, though as is obvious the -NAO & alterations in wx-patterns during low solar activity results in Jet stream positioning oriented further southward, cloud cover over tropical regions increases in response as general weather patterns change, it all ties together.

The very warm arctic SSTs this year and in several of the past 5 years have little to do with the NAO and much more to do with summer sea ice extent caused by the dipole anomaly, AO, global warming and the very low volume of sea ice remaining. When the ice melts early, it warms up more, regardless of the NAO. 2010 had SSTs far above average despite a -NAO.

It makes some physical sense that the very warm SSTs left over from summer reduce snowfall in October. There is some correlation. I'm not saying I can prove it but you can't disprove it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very warm arctic SSTs this year and in several of the past 5 years have little to do with the NAO and much more to do with summer sea ice extent caused by the dipole anomaly, AO, and global warming. When the ice melts early, it warms up more.

UGH dude.....you were correlating them to Eurasian snowcover (NAO is a much better correlation there is what I said)...cause of SST changes is Off-Topic.

SST's in the general vicinity correlate well to the AMO phase, just go to NOAA/CPC site and select "AMO" in the ESRL division. Though there are several reasons for the change and you should exect a reverse as we build back MY ice as the BG rebuilds and the AMO cools.

It makes some physical sense that the very warm SSTs left over from summer reduce snowfall in October. There is some correlation. I'm not saying I can prove it but you can't disprove it either.

Not trying to "prove" or "disprove" anything, just that the NAO correlates better than SST's, see 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very warm arctic SSTs this year and in several of the past 5 years have little to do with the NAO and much more to do with summer sea ice extent caused by the dipole anomaly, AO, global warming and the very low volume of sea ice remaining. When the ice melts early, it warms up more, regardless of the NAO. 2010 had SSTs far above average despite a -NAO.

It makes some physical sense that the very warm SSTs left over from summer reduce snowfall in October. There is some correlation. I'm not saying I can prove it but you can't disprove it either.

Arctic SSTs were considerably warmer in the 2000s than in the 1980s yet the snow cover increased.

I'm not sure there is any correlation. Climo in the Eurasia snow cover region is really cold in October, so precipitation likely has much more to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arctic SSTs were considerably warmer in the 2000s than in the 1980s yet the snow cover increased.

I'm not sure there is any correlation. Climo in the Eurasia snow cover region is really cold in October, so precipitation likely has much more to do with it.

Yeah exactly SST's were very warm in 2010 yet snowcover was quite high, coinciding with the -NAO and asociated storm track configuration. As for sea ice there isn't any correlation there at all upon looking at it, that'll fluctuate over extended timscales apart from the NAO or Synoptical patterns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'know, I haven't actually started counting...

But here (note that there is always a random error of about 20 pixels in the snow counts due to the white numbers at the bottom right):

SNOW PIXEL COUNTS (total white minus 8000 [approximate number of white pixels that are map lines and not snow])

Yesterday: 266

Today: 282

One year ago today: 350

ICE PIXEL COUNTS (total yellow)

Yesterday: 1546

Today: 1559

One year ago today: 1695

ims2011248.gif

ims2011249.gif

ims2010249.gif

SNOW PIXEL COUNTS (total white minus 8000 [approximate number of white pixels that are map lines and not snow])

Yesterday: 282

Today: 301

One year ago today: 351

ICE PIXEL COUNTS (total yellow)

Yesterday: 1559

Today: 1509

One year ago today: 1678

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arctic SSTs were considerably warmer in the 2000s than in the 1980s yet the snow cover increased.

I'm not sure there is any correlation. Climo in the Eurasia snow cover region is really cold in October, so precipitation likely has much more to do with it.

Yes the 2000s were 'warm' but 2007 and 2011 are so much radically warmer than any other years in the 2000s. The 2000s as a whole (minus 2007 and 2011) bear much more resemblance to the 1980s than they do to 2007 and 2011 individually.

Also, I believe it is very temperature limited as well as precip limited. It is the very beginning of the snow season.. prior to October almost none of the NH is cold enough for snow. By october, it is just cold enough to snow and widespread cold will increase the chances of cold in the marginal areas which are the areas that ultimately make or break the anomalies. In this map of the first two weeks of October 2007, you can see a lot of heat was being released from the arctic ocean. Cold was a limiting factor to snowfall, as the blues and purples (units Kelvin) were confined to Siberia Alaska and Greenland, providing little opportunity for snowfall in the rest of Russia or Europe. By the end of October, a good year would have plenty of snowcover outside of Siberia and Alaska over most of Russia and northern Europe. So I believe temperature is constraining. Had the arctic ocean not been releasing so much heat in October 2007, perhaps the cold air source would have been better and the cold would have been slightly more widespread, thus increasing the snowfall anomalies.

compday1088223611524821.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the 2000s were 'warm' but 2007 and 2011 are so much radically warmer than any other years in the 2000s. The 2000s as a whole (minus 2007 and 2011) bear much more resemblance to the 1980s than they do to 2007 and 2011 individually.

That certainly doesn't mean it decreases snow cover ability in Eurasia in October. Its possible, but we are talking about a land mass here and not just along the coast where warmer SSTs might affect it.

At any rate, until we see distinct snow cover decreases with warmer SSTs, this is really not much of a story IMHO. I think the precip patterns are much more responsible in a place that has the climo of Eurasia.

Last year certainly didn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That certainly doesn't mean it decreases snow cover ability in Eurasia in October. Its possible, but we are talking about a land mass here and not just along the coast where warmer SSTs might affect it.

At any rate, until we see distinct snow cover decreases with warmer SSTs, this is really not much of a story IMHO. I think the precip patterns are much more responsible in a place that has the climo of Eurasia.

Last year certainly didn't matter.

Yes it is just an idea at this point with some anecdotal data supporting it. Even if the idea were correct it would likely still only be a lesser factor compared to where the blocking sets up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That certainly doesn't mean it decreases snow cover ability in Eurasia in October. Its possible, but we are talking about a land mass here and not just along the coast where warmer SSTs might affect it.

At any rate, until we see distinct snow cover decreases with warmer SSTs, this is really not much of a story IMHO. I think the precip patterns are much more responsible in a place that has the climo of Eurasia.

Last year certainly didn't matter.

I think it's pretty clear that the early snowcover in Eurasia is tied more closely to the NAO/AO than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big gains for this time of year... looks like it's starting up early again! (notice especially around 95 E longitude)

ims2011249.gif

ims2011250.gif

ims2010250.gif

SNOW PIXEL COUNTS (total white minus 8000 [approximate number of white pixels that are map lines and not snow])

Yesterday: 301

Today: 362

One year ago today: 326

ICE PIXEL COUNTS (total yellow)

Yesterday: 1509

Today: 1482

One year ago today: 1658

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the late report.

ims2011250.gif

ims2011251.gif

ims2010251.gif

SNOW PIXEL COUNTS (total white minus 8000 [approximate number of white pixels that are map lines and not snow])

Yesterday: 362

Today: 357

One year ago today: 387

ICE PIXEL COUNTS (total yellow)

Yesterday: 1482

Today: 1487

One year ago today: 1643

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wait... there may be some maps for that in a few days ;)

Coolio! Props to you for starting this thread early and predicting what looks to be yet another insanely early start to the snow cover season... I saw the same thing and was actually going to start it on the 1st, but you beat me to it.

Also, sorry for going OT, but would you mind adding Canada maps soon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we currently have the largest negative anomaly for the date:

Although you're using a different dataset, I usually take the sea ice state into account and attempt to do a correction, albedo loss after losing all that MY Ice in 07/08 tends to put a dent in early season SC gains.

The Arctic Ice pack is much more vunerable after losing the stable ice a few yrs ago, so it will be hard to make accurate early season predictions until/if we increase MY Ice since wx patterns can bully the ice pack much more easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine my disappointment when okie took my question seriously and is now posting daily pixel updates :axe:

Funny that you would mention shortly before the HUGE GAINS IN SIBERIA AND ALASKA!!! :snowman:

ims2011252.gif

ims2011253.gif

ims2010253.gif

SNOW PIXEL COUNTS (total white minus 8000 [approximate number of white pixels that are map lines and not snow])

Yesterday: 337

Today: 572

One year ago today: 428

ICE PIXEL COUNTS (total yellow)

Yesterday: 1484

Today: 1443

One year ago today: 1634

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...