Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • only on Tr could it be even slightly controversial for the admins to make such an unambiguously correct call ngod bless the republic, islam is the light

Topic: NH winter cooling (Read 4671 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • MikeB
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #75
....
My immediate reaction to this alarming news was that the glaciers in Alaska must surely be advancing at a furious rate.  They would have to be.  Until I remembered that the rich and famous keep going to Alaska to weep great salty well documented tears over receding glaciers there and it is almost as much of a poster catastrophe as dead polar bears....
Hi everybody.  I don't want to enter the climate debate, not taking sides here, but I thought there should be a simple answer to glacier growth rate.  I'd propose this:

Growth of a glacier is dependent on the net rate of addition of snow.  If accumulation over a season outweighs the loss due to melting (into the soil or runoff) and sublimation, glacier mass is added.  So increased snowfall would have to outweigh the potentially increased losses in the warmer part of the season.  Over years, added glacier mass will gradually move downhill with more mass added uphill, normal glacier movement.

For a glacier to grow, do we look for it to extend its downhill reach?  If so, for a stable (non-extending) downhill reach, mass does have to be added each year higher on the glacier to compensate for the mass melted off at the downhill reach.  For extension of downhill reach it seems that a greater rate of mass growth is needed, or it needs to become cooler on average at lower elevations.

I'd guess that all of these factors are in play and will vary over extended periods of time, they did in the past, right?

Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #76
My immediate reaction to this alarming news was that the glaciers in Alaska must surely be advancing at a furious rate.  They would have to be. 

Guess what: your immediate reaction is wrong. Glacial advance is promoted by accumulation season-upon-season. Snow that falls, melts and runs off in the same season doesn't contribute to net accumulation.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #77
Difficult to know what to make of these diametrically conflicting phenomena in a world of settled science.
What you are running into is the theory of climate change.  Or the even broader term "scientific theory of climate change", which includes a dozen other names for the same theory.  The CO2 theory is the same thing as the greenhouse theory, AGW, global warming theory, or the theory of global warming.  (AGW is the simple way to type it out)

Unlike most of the other big theories, global warming theory isn't rock solid, like the theory of evolution, or the theory of plate tectonics.  While even a little modern scientific learning allows us to define, explain and appreciate a theory, AGW is nebulous, often misunderstood, poorly defined and certainly contentious.

For example
Quote
Plate tectonics is the theory that the outer rigid layer of the earth (the lithosphere) is divided into a couple of dozen "plates" that move around across the earth's surface relative to each other, like slabs of ice on a lake.
Then you can follow with
Quote
The theory of plate tectonics explains most of the features of Earth's surface. It explains why earthquakes, volcanoes and mountain ranges are where they are. It explains where to find some mineral resources.

Quote
Plate tectonics theory explains why:

Earth's geography has changed over time and continues to change today.
Some places are prone to earthquakes while others are not.
Certain regions may have deadly, mild, or no volcanic eruptions.
Mountain ranges are located where they are.
Many ore deposits are located where they are.
Living and fossil species of plants and animals are found where they are.
Some continental margins have a lot of geological activity, and some have none.
Plate tectonic motions affect Earth's rock cycle, climate, and the evolution of life.

If some alarmist moron can't define and explain the theory of AGW in such a way, they are an idiot.

Debating or even discussing the theory with them is like trying to talk to a flat earther, or a religious idiot about plate tectonics.  The theory came about to explain the ice ages when it was realized that the solar changes were not enough to explain climate change.  A mechanism was needed to explain why small changes in the sun and our relation to it could cause such massive changes in global climate.

A stumbling block for every incarnation of the CO2 theory was the saturation of CO2.  Then after that was somewhat resolved, the other issues that killed the theory had to be somehow explained.  Because a theory doesn't just predict, it explains.

But of the loud and idiotic don't know about this, they hand wave things away, and then go on the attack, like a religious idiot when confronted with evidence, or even worse, a zealot when confronted with scientific uncertainty on matters.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #78
Callendar  tried to explain how a warming world with increasing temperatures could result in a glacier building phase of the ice age, something almost nobody deals with in the modern war over CO2 (which often resembles a terrorist attack on anything the even suggests a problem with the theory)

Plass also knew that the theory would have to explain why the short warm periods resulting after C)2 levels reached a maximum.   By focusing on the insane war over fossil fuels, the never ending shitfest over climate just ignores the scientific data and increasing knowledge of climate history.

So much that the Holocene climactic optimum (Altithermal) gets fucked over by alarmists, who would rather change data and scientific findings than explain why shit actually happened.

It's a clown parade of fuckheads.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #79
....
My immediate reaction to this alarming news was that the glaciers in Alaska must surely be advancing at a furious rate.  They would have to be.  Until I remembered that the rich and famous keep going to Alaska to weep great salty well documented tears over receding glaciers there and it is almost as much of a poster catastrophe as dead polar bears....
Hi everybody.  I don't want to enter the climate debate,

And few would blame you for that Mike.


Quote
not taking sides here, but I thought there should be a simple answer to glacier growth rate.  I'd propose this:

Growth of a glacier is dependent on the net rate of addition of snow.  If accumulation over a season outweighs the loss due to melting (into the soil or runoff) and sublimation, glacier mass is added.  So increased snowfall would have to outweigh the potentially increased losses in the warmer part of the season.  Over years, added glacier mass will gradually move downhill with more mass added uphill, normal glacier movement.

For a glacier to grow, do we look for it to extend its downhill reach?  If so, for a stable (non-extending) downhill reach, mass does have to be added each year higher on the glacier to compensate for the mass melted off at the downhill reach.  For extension of downhill reach it seems that a greater rate of mass growth is needed, or it needs to become cooler on average at lower elevations.

I'd guess that all of these factors are in play and will vary over extended periods of time, they did in the past, right?

Yes I agree with what you're saying here.  What is being reported in the paper is that there is an effective doubling of precipitation as snow in the mountains over the last century.  Yet when I look at temperature records for Alaska over that same period there is little to no warming.  So then I would expect that the doubling of snow volume would be the dominant factor controlling glacier evolution and the glaciers ought to be advancing.  Yet the second article says they are in fact receding.  Hubbard glacier is indeed advancing and has been for more than a century but others nearby are apparently retreating which is difficult to reconcile with a doubling of snow volume coupled with fairly steady temperatures.

  • MikeB
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #80
I agree, something seems to be missing here.  If there has been a doubling of the average snowfall rate from a time that these glaciers were dubbed "stable", but now they are receding, where is this increased snowfall going?  Simplest answer would be that it melts during warmer months but you would think that would be possible to investigate by some sort of observations or measurements at the glacier top, or lower too if that matters.

Anyway, I live in So. Cal and it is T-shirt weather here today.  So dry I am getting static electricity shocks walking around, touching things.

Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #81
My immediate reaction to this alarming news was that the glaciers in Alaska must surely be advancing at a furious rate.  They would have to be. 

Guess what: your immediate reaction is wrong. Glacial advance is promoted by accumulation season-upon-season. Snow that falls, melts and runs off in the same season doesn't contribute to net accumulation.


:facepalm:

I don't think you read the article did you.  From the second paragraph

"The research not only finds a dramatic increase in snowfall, it further explains connections in the global climate system by attributing the record accumulation to warmer waters thousands of miles away in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans."

You see the word 'accumulation'?  What it means is that the snow, umm, accumulated you know and did not in fact seasonally melt and run off.  A massive shock for the high glacier-forming regions of Alaska I know but still.  Did you give much thought to how they worked out that the snowfall had doubled if it melted and ran off each season?  What do you think they measured to determine the increase?  Did you have too many egg nogs?

Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #82
Unlike most of the other big theories, global warming theory isn't rock solid, like the theory of evolution, or the theory of plate tectonics.  While even a little modern scientific learning allows us to define, explain and appreciate a theory, AGW is nebulous, often misunderstood, poorly defined and certainly contentious.

Global warming [anthropogenic] is not a 'big theory'.  It isn't a theory at all.  It is a politicised zombie hypothesis with a hugely funded theological 'research' spectrum attracting quasi-religious devotion.  It is the Western version of Lysenkoism.  As opposed to being 'rock solid' there is zero evidence in support of this hypothesis and over the half century course of its complete failure to predict anything at all it has gradually morphed into the fundamental standard of unfalsifiability we see today.
  • Last Edit: December 27, 2017, 05:21:02 PM by Cephus0

  • SkepticTank
  • Global Moderator
  • Calmer than you are
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #83
Have I mentioned that every time I see this thread title, I read it as New Hampshire Winter Cooling, and I have to think about it for 3 seconds or so to figure out it Northern Hemisphere and then I ignore it?

Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #84
Same
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • MikeB
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #85
.......
"The research not only finds a dramatic increase in snowfall, it further explains connections in the global climate system by attributing the record accumulation to warmer waters thousands of miles away in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans."

You see the word 'accumulation'?  What it means is that the snow, umm, accumulated you know and did not in fact seasonally melt and run off.  A massive shock for the high glacier-forming regions of Alaska I know but still.  Did you give much thought to how they worked out that the snowfall had doubled if it melted and ran off each season?  What do you think they measured to determine the increase?  Did you have too many egg nogs?
This makes me wonder about several ways to interpret brief descriptions.  When I read the words "record accumulation", I assumed this referred to "annual snowfall".  So I suppose this would be measured from some stable point at the first snowfall of the season, to the new snow depth at the end of the snowy season.  Did not think about whether anything was implied about snow conditions at the beginning of the next snowy season, whether it was ascertained that additional snow depth remained compared to the same time one year prior.

If snow melts substantially during the snowy season, between storms, how would you know what the real "record accumulation" is unless you measure snowfall immediately after each storm and keep a record?

Admission - I don't know squat about a "snowy season" up in the NH.  Maybe there are snowfalls on occasion year round?  So would we use some consistent standard such as "beginning of October to end of March" to define the season?

  • MikeB
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #86
Have I mentioned that every time I see this thread title, I read it as New Hampshire Winter Cooling, and I have to think about it for 3 seconds or so to figure out it Northern Hemisphere New Hampshire and then I ignore it?
Fixed for you.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #87
My immediate reaction to this alarming news was that the glaciers in Alaska must surely be advancing at a furious rate.
From the link
https://www.dartmouth.edu/press-releases/warming_seas_double_snowfall-north_around_north_americas_tallest_peaks.html
Quote
The research, appearing in Scientific Reports, is based on analysis of two ice cores collected at 13,000 feet from Mount Hunter in Denali National Park. According to the authors, accumulation records in the separate samples taken from just below the summit of the mountain known as "Denali's Child" are in nearly complete agreement.

Quote
"It is now glaringly clear from our ice core record that modern snowfall rates in Alaska are much higher than natural rates before the Industrial Revolution," said Dominic Winski, a research assistant at Dartmouth and the lead author of the report. "This increase in precipitation is also apparent in weather station data from the past 50 years, but ice cores show the scale of the change well above natural conditions."
How is it possible to misunderstand that?

The paper
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-18022-5



"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #88
My immediate reaction to this alarming news was that the glaciers in Alaska must surely be advancing at a furious rate.  They would have to be.  Until I remembered that the rich and famous keep going to Alaska to weep great salty well documented tears over receding glaciers there and it is almost as much of a poster catastrophe as dead polar bears.
The large glaciers in Alaska of course have been "growing", which isn't as simple as it sounds.

The mountains in the study never melt at high altitudes, which is why they chose them to do ice cores.   While the idiotic deniers of evidence like to imagine all the glaciers are melting away, they are certainly not.  What is happening is down near sea level the foot of the glaciers (not the large ones, the smaller ones) are melting due to a climate shift to warmer summer temps, while the ice fields that feed the glaciers, up high, are showing a drastic increase in ice (from increasing snow).  If you just look at small glaciers down low you might think they are "shrinking", even when the source of the glacier is showing a massive increase in ice.

This study and the ice cores it is based on show the bigger picture, which is an increase in the glacier mass.  This won't show up at the foot of the glacier for a long time.  The same thing was found in other regions.  The increased calving for tidewater glaciers is assumed to mean the glacier is in trouble, when in reality the glacier is growing.  The problem for the simple minded is the assumption that more ice calving means trouble, when it just might mean there has been more snow, and it takes a long time to show up down where it is easy to observe a glacier.

In fact, that is exactly what this study shows.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #89
Greenland and Antarctica also show the same thing.  Even while near the ocean there is "ice loss", easy to observe, the source of the glaciers shows a drastic increase in snow, which turns to ice, which is the source of the glacier.  Warmer tropical oceans results in more snow and ice, not less.   While this is true for high altitudes and polar regions, it is not the case in the mid latitudes.  There more snow ( instead of rain) in winter is an indication of colder temps, not warmer.

Warmer tropics leads to more precipitation, but in a warming world in the mid latitudes,  it means more rain, or ice storms, not more snow.  Snow is an indicator of colder conditions, never warmer ones.  This shows up clearly in all valid data.  There is no question for anyone who studies this.

As Cohen keeps saying, it is possible a warmer world means more snow early on for Siberia, and that creates colder winters for the entire northern hemisphere, but especially for the eastern US and Eurasia.  With more snow.  That globally snow is increasing in fall and winter is also with out question. 



  • Last Edit: December 28, 2017, 11:08:52 AM by F X
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #90
.......
"The research not only finds a dramatic increase in snowfall, it further explains connections in the global climate system by attributing the record accumulation to warmer waters thousands of miles away in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans."

You see the word 'accumulation'?  What it means is that the snow, umm, accumulated you know and did not in fact seasonally melt and run off.  A massive shock for the high glacier-forming regions of Alaska I know but still.  Did you give much thought to how they worked out that the snowfall had doubled if it melted and ran off each season?  What do you think they measured to determine the increase?  Did you have too many egg nogs?
This makes me wonder about several ways to interpret brief descriptions.  When I read the words "record accumulation", I assumed this referred to "annual snowfall".  So I suppose this would be measured from some stable point at the first snowfall of the season, to the new snow depth at the end of the snowy season.  Did not think about whether anything was implied about snow conditions at the beginning of the next snowy season, whether it was ascertained that additional snow depth remained compared to the same time one year prior.

If snow melts substantially during the snowy season, between storms, how would you know what the real "record accumulation" is unless you measure snowfall immediately after each storm and keep a record?

Admission - I don't know squat about a "snowy season" up in the NH.  Maybe there are snowfalls on occasion year round?  So would we use some consistent standard such as "beginning of October to end of March" to define the season?

Yes I should have been plainer.  The measurements of snow accumulation are taken using ice cores - as F X points out above - from the high corries or cwms or whatever word you use for the depressions in high mountainous regions which are the birthing sites of glaciers.  There isn't much of any melting going on at those sites in Alaska so the ice core accumulation data is pretty much a straight record of precipitation as snow.  In fact the article goes on to say:

"According to the research, wintertime snowfall has increased 117 percent since the mid-19th century in southcentral Alaska in the United States. Summer snows also showed a significant increase of 49 percent in the short period ranging less than two hundred years."

  • MikeB
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #91
Thanks guys, this all makes sense to me.  I think anyone would understand about apparent shrinking glaciers, if it was explained to them that they are observing more melting at lower elevations but the ice is being well replenished up top.  So this does appear to reflect a global system change from what's lower in the ice cores.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #92
"According to the research, wintertime snowfall has increased 117 percent since the mid-19th century in southcentral Alaska in the United States. Summer snows also showed a significant increase of 49 percent in the short period ranging less than two hundred years."
This is, to me, one of the more important matters regarding climate. Unexpected feedbacks and other unknowns make the climate models unrealistic still.

The MIT idea that the most warming will actually occur from albedo changes at high latitudes, because the models show this, may not be true.
  • Last Edit: December 28, 2017, 12:27:46 PM by F X
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #93
My immediate reaction to this alarming news was that the glaciers in Alaska must surely be advancing at a furious rate.  They would have to be.  Until I remembered that the rich and famous keep going to Alaska to weep great salty well documented tears over receding glaciers there and it is almost as much of a poster catastrophe as dead polar bears.
The large glaciers in Alaska of course have been "growing", which isn't as simple as it sounds.

The mountains in the study never melt at high altitudes, which is why they chose them to do ice cores.  While the idiotic deniers of evidence like to imagine all the glaciers are melting away, they are certainly not.  What is happening is down near sea level the foot of the glaciers (not the large ones, the smaller ones) are melting due to a climate shift to warmer summer temps, while the ice fields that feed the glaciers, up high, are showing a drastic increase in ice (from increasing snow).  If you just look at small glaciers down low you might think they are "shrinking", even when the source of the glacier is showing a massive increase in ice.

This study and the ice cores it is based on show the bigger picture, which is an increase in the glacier mass.  This won't show up at the foot of the glacier for a long time.  The same thing was found in other regions.  The increased calving for tidewater glaciers is assumed to mean the glacier is in trouble, when in reality the glacier is growing.  The problem for the simple minded is the assumption that more ice calving means trouble, when it just might mean there has been more snow, and it takes a long time to show up down where it is easy to observe a glacier.

In fact, that is exactly what this study shows.

Agree with all of this.  So then the ice core data is unequivocal and snowfall in the mountains of Alaska is indeed currently increasing and has been for some time.  The article is redolent with the customary hyperbole and uses lots of emotionally charged terminology with the finger of fate of course being unwaveringly pointed at anthropogenic global warming as the villain of the piece and this time the vector is heating of tropical waters.

The hypothesis is that downwelling longwave radiation from increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations is resulting in additional evaporation from tropical oceans and this is the source of the increasing precipitation in the highlands of Alaska.  Stepping over the physical plausibility of that mechanism for now the next obvious question is can we find a correlation between snow volume and atmospheric humidity to support the hypothesis?  I'm currently struggling to find any such correlation and if anything relative humidity has been slightly decreasing over the same time period as increasing snow in Alaska.



The paper attempts to forge a link between tropical sea surface temperature increases and deepening of the Aleutian low via. an atmospheric bridge and hence to the increased precipitation in Alaska.  Sadly this critical part of the hypothesis is supported only by General Circulation Model output and some arm-waving about Rossby waves.  No data is presented to support the hypothesis that the Aleutian low has been deepening over the period in question or that humidity in that area has been increasing

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #94
 Compare and contrast.




  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #95
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-humidity

Quote
Overall, water vapor in the surface atmosphere has increased over land and ocean relative to the 1970s (specific humidity is rising), while the atmosphere over land is becoming less saturated (relative humidity is dropping). At first glance, that seems impossible. How can the atmosphere be getting less saturated if there is more water vapor in the air?

The drivers of this are not yet well understood but differences in rate of warming between land and ocean, and land surface water availability may be factors. Saturation--the point at which water vapor condenses back into water or ice, often forming clouds--depends on the air temperature, and air temperature around the world is also rising. Over many land areas, it's getting warmer faster than it is getting wetter, which means the air is less saturated (relative humidity goes down), even as specific humidity goes up.

Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #96
Compare and contrast.



Well ok, let us compare - and not only that - contrast!  The first graph shows changes in land and sea specific humidity anomaly over the period 1970 - present.  At first glance it looks like some sinusoidal approximation over a half wavelength.  If I compare it with the oceanic temperature fluctuations governed by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation I get a pretty good fit.



 I don't find it surprising that ocean temperatures affect atmospheric water vapour content.

Are you presenting this graph as support for the increased snow in Alaska being due to oceanic warming in the tropics?

The second relative humidity graph with two curves which are not identified shows ...  well I don't know.  Looks flat from 1970 until 2000 then a bit of a down blip.  What significance does the second graph hold for you in terms of Alaskan precipitation?

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #97
w/e, as long as it's clear the trend is to more total atmospheric water vapor, not less, so it's no mystery why we can get more precip

  • MikeB
Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #98
Except here dammit!

Re: NH winter cooling
Reply #99
w/e, as long as it's clear the trend is to more total atmospheric water vapor, not less,

:stare:  Except it isn't.  You've shown what looks like a cyclical trend in SH which has a reasonable correlation to AMO over a third of the period of increasing snowfall and which does not correlate at all well with the snowfall data.  You've also shown some unidentified RH curves which are recently decreasing and indicative of reduced precipitation.

Meanwhile further down the coast your 'clear trend to more atmospheric water vapour' was apparently resulting in permanent drought conditions.  Until it wasn'tAnd then was again.

How strange.  How can that be?  Water vapour, much like carbon dioxide, is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere and if as you appear to believe - although you only supplied a small 30 year cyclical data segment - there has been continuously increasing SH over the last hundred years or so which accounts for increasing snowfall in Alaska then we would surely expect to see that reflected in global precipitation levels.



We don't.

Now you could try and make the case that the reason we don't see increased global precipitation is that global warming is keeping RH fairly constant despite your proposed monotonic SH increase.  So then the only way you can account for increased snowfall in Alaska is to postulate cooling there.  But that doesn't fit with the NH global warming meme with which F X and others disagree.



Which is why this paper is forced to reach for bizarre and unevidenced mechanisms in order to account for it while keeping the global warming narrative alive.  They postulate that water vapour is being miraculously sucked from tropical oceans and preferentially squirted into the semi-permanent weather system known as the Aleutian low via. an atmospheric bridge and the magic of Rossby waves.  Moreover this arrangement has apparently been operating stably over more than a century.  The magical parts of this argument are supported as ever by models.

While we are told that humans are causing the atmosphere to be whipped into a vicious maelstrom of ever increasing extreme weather and the polar vortex is mangled beyond all recognition we are here asked to believe that amidst the fury and chaos there is an exquisitely delicate system stretching halfway across the globe which is seemingly as stable at least as Jupiter's Great Red Spot and which is dumping snow on Alaska's mountains.  And why are we asked to believe this unbelievable thing?  Because we must in order to maintain a religion which holds that each and every feature of the climate is controlled by a trace atmospheric compound.  I love global warming - it's the comedy gift that never stops giving.