Snow and Ice in the Northern Hemisphere 2013/14

[Methuselah]

I'd rather my life depended on a weak, broken chain hanging in the balance than no chain at all 

Me too!

[Gavin Hannah]

As always, this field of science is vast and trying to get a handle on everything is a challenge indeed.

Who's to say that tomorrow there won't be a discovery that renders all the current research moot?  

 

The weather will do what it wants because it can and whether we like it or not lol......Perhaps it is all entirely random and unpredictable at long ranges.

All we can say is Winter = colder, summer = warmer and there will be sun, wind, rain and snow at various times lol.

[Isolated Frost]

Cheers for the links BFTV, and input Interitus. Definitely muddled myself up mixing the SAI and the cover extent.

I think that the SAI and in turn Polar Vortex (both stratospheric and tropospheric) are increasingly vital in long term forecasting- and it's great seeing the attention- especially off last year- but hopefully again this year.

[bobbydog]

i know it keeps us busy but its becoming more and more apparent, that finding correlations to produce a winter LRF, is a bit like trying to predict the winner of the grand national, without knowing which horses will actually be running!

[snowking]

To be fair, nobody has claimed an exact linkage, and your example can be done with absolutely any teleconnection, doesn't prove anything either way. For example, December 2010 and December 2011 were both during La Nina events, yet one was 5.4C below the 61-90 average, the other 1.3C above average. Just demonstrates that a vast number of factors need to be taken into account when attempting to produce a long range forecast.

 

The paper/s flying around have a lot more to them than simple correlations related to the Barents sea too. They have a physical basis which goes towards explaining the relationship based on both observational and model data

 

Have a read

http://www.tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/view/19375/html

http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/26-4_cohen.pdf

 

There are plenty more papers out there if you'd like them?

 

This is the point I was trying to get across

 

Thanks for the papers but believe me I have already read through them and then some!

 

This doesn't invalidate the 'warm Arctic, cold continents' theory. In fact your choice of winter 1978/9 is interesting because there was a SSW on around 22nd February but this was after the coldest weather and also the lowest AO/NAO values.

Clearly SSW don't depend on lower ice levels, and don't always result in cold in any case, and In the same way low ice in the past decade hasn't led to extreme cold weather every winter such as after the previous record melt in 2007.

As BFTV says the overall situation is more complicated, but the theories go some way to suggesting underlying mechanisms as well as just mere linkages. The point is that the research into SAI has shown a very high correlation with the following winter AO, and that this in turn may be enhanced by increased water vapour from an ice-free Arctic.

 

I didn't suggest it does. What I was trying to get across was that looking at any one single factor in isolation is unlikely to yield gold in terms of long range forecasting - part of the reason that I have just spent the last 2 days compiling a database of ENSO, QBO, GWO and MJO phases and amplitudes for every day between 1974 and 2013.

 

There are very likely linkages there, but as you go on to say it's likely to be a combination of factors, just as I suggested too in the original post

 

SK

[Methuselah]

This is the point I was trying to get across

 

Thanks for the papers but believe me I have already read through them and then some!

 

 

I didn't suggest it does. What I was trying to get across was that looking at any one single factor in isolation is unlikely to yield gold in terms of long range forecasting - part of the reason that I have just spent the last 2 days compiling a database of ENSO, QBO, GWO and MJO phases and amplitudes for every day between 1974 and 2013.

 

There are very likely linkages there, but as you go on to say it's likely to be a combination of factors, just as I suggested too in the original post

 

SK

Absolutely, SK...That was my point also.

[be cause]

The trouble is, as has been discussed previously, whilst there may be some linkage with overall sea ice extent, it is not an exact relationship.

 

Here is an example of two Novembers which preceded colder winters.

 

1978:

 

N_197811_extn.png

 

2012:

 

N_201211_extn.png

 

A huge different in sea ice extent - over 2 million square kilometres! However, both produced cold winters.

 

The paper which has been flying around recently suggesting the possibility of ice extent across the Barents sea having a role - well certainly a possibility but then again when you look at the difference in the two years above, the theory begins to fall a little flatter (though admittedly the idea for this particular hypothesis was more October based).

 

I think what we have to look at is whether ice extent is a cause or a result...and on present evidence I would argue the latter. But even as a result it could still prove part of the overall mechanism. I would suggest though that it is part of a very long chain reaction.

 

SK

There was a large difference in the relative winters of 1978/79 and 2012/13 . For example the winter CET was 1.6'C in 1978/79 (cold) and 3.8'C in 2012/13 (coolish) .

In 78/9 we didn't have to wish for an easterly .. if there was weather coming from any direction it was usually snow !

 

We really are looking at new (in my lifetime) conditions to our north For years I have hoped that there would be a positive correlation between Arctic Ice melt and increasing snowfall in the NH .

This has been dramatically true for the last few years:

 

 

however until this year Winter gains have been erased in early Spring. This year snow has melted later and returned in impressive quantity earlier .. in fact using the above graphs NH snow cover is over 60% higher than this time last year !!! ..

However much new ice there is in the Arctic this season there is no real difference from last year where it matters most to us .. between Greenland and East Siberian Seas ;probably less as the CAB has a big bite out of it ! 

 

So .. may we all have the winter we wish for  .. (I wish for mine to be beautiful !)

[sebastiaan1973]

A large positive snowcover anomaly in Siberia.

[cyclonic happiness]

I wonder what the ice in the Arctic was doing during the last Little Ice Age?

 

Do we actually 'need' the Arctic to be permanently frozen over to produce bitterly cold winters?

 

I think that, the colder the Arctic, the stormier and more turbulent the northern hemisphere.

As the ice levels drop in the Arctic, there's less of a temperature difference for the storms to 'feed' off, therefore or weather becomes sluggish, it hangs around for longer and longer periods of time.

 

All the severe weather of the past 6-7 years has been caused by 'sluggish' weather, not by wild storms. In fact, we've not had proper gales in the Midlands for over 10 years now.

 

I also think that this is the process that begins true 'ice ages' but it sometimes doesn't get going (hopefully it won't this time!)

 

The Arctic ice levels, IMO, is always the last part to catch up.  

 

Keep watching snow levels, both northern and southern hemispheres, they are the main guides :-)

[joggs]

I wonder what the ice in the Arctic as doing during the last Little Ice Age?Do we actually 'need' the Arctic to be permanently frozen over to produce bitterly cold winters?I think that, the colder the Arctic, the stormier and more turbulent the northern hemisphere.As the ice levels drop in the Arctic, there's less of a temperature difference for the storms to 'feed' off, therefore or weather becomes sluggish, it hangs around for longer and longer periods of time.All the severe weather of the past 6-7 years has been caused by 'sluggish' weather, not by wild storms. In fact, we've not had proper gales in the Midlands for over 10 years now.I also think that this is the process that begins true 'ice ages' but it sometimes doesn't get going (hopefully it won't this time!)The Arctic ice levels, IMO, is always the last part to catch up. Keep watching snow levels, both northern and southern hemispheres, they are the main guides :-)

Good Post CH,could be onto something there.

[Yarmy]

I wonder what the ice in the Arctic was doing during the last Little Ice Age?

 

Do we actually 'need' the Arctic to be permanently frozen over to produce bitterly cold winters?

 

I think that, the colder the Arctic, the stormier and more turbulent the northern hemisphere.

As the ice levels drop in the Arctic, there's less of a temperature difference for the storms to 'feed' off, therefore or weather becomes sluggish, it hangs around for longer and longer periods of time.

 

All the severe weather of the past 6-7 years has been caused by 'sluggish' weather, not by wild storms. In fact, we've not had proper gales in the Midlands for over 10 years now.

 

I also think that this is the process that begins true 'ice ages' but it sometimes doesn't get going (hopefully it won't this time!)

 

The Arctic ice levels, IMO, is always the last part to catch up.  

 

Keep watching snow levels, both northern and southern hemispheres, they are the main guides :-)

 

True ice ages begin as a result of the gradual changes in the orbital mechanics of Earth: Milankovitch cycles.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

 

Centennial and Decadal cold episodes happen for who knows what reasons: Solar variation? Ocean cycles? Enhanced volcanic activity?

 

Or is it just stochastic noise that will manifest itself in any sufficiently complex system?

Edited September 26, 2013 by Yarmy

[be cause]

As CH says 'keep watching the snow ' ...WOW !

[BornFromTheVoid]

As CH says 'keep watching the snow ' ...WOW !

 

That looks quite remarkable! We haven't had an above average snow cover in September since 2002, and significantly above above since 2000.

 

[Gavin Hannah]

Has there been any indication of the Arctic Ice levels during the Minimums? Is it possible that the ice has been reducing in size since the end of the last minimum? And if so, what will be the effects on it if we are indeed in/entering a new minimum period?

[Mark Neal.]

As CH says 'keep watching te

snow ' ...WOW !

We are doing incredibly well when you compare to last year! 

[BornFromTheVoid]

Has there been any indication of the Arctic Ice levels during the Minimums? Is it possible that the ice has been reducing in size since the end of the last minimum? And if so, what will be the effects on it if we are indeed in/entering a new minimum period?

 

What do you mean by the minimums? Solar?

[cheeky_monkey]

That looks quite remarkable! We haven't had an above average snow cover in September since 2002, and significantly above above since 2000.

 

Don't remember the early 2000s being cold and snowy though..in fact a lot of negative years during the early to mid 80s which had relatively cold winters...maybe lots of snow in Siberia and very little snow elsewhere like N.America is a good thing early doors?

[jonboy]

 

What do you mean by the minimums? Solar?

 I think solar minimum and I very much doubt we have accurate records associated with the level of solar minimum we are entering. This is a whole new learning curve as to impacts etc

[Yarmy]

  I think solar minimum and I very much doubt we have accurate records associated with the level of solar minimum we are entering. This is a whole new learning curve as to impacts etc

 

The usual proxy is to examine ice rafted debris from deep sea cores. There is an intriguing (and much disputed) link between reduced solar activity (as determined using beryllium-10 and carbon-14 proxies) and cold interludes. E.g.

 

http://one.geol.umd.edu/www/preprints/Bond_et_al.pdf

 

I'm not planning on migrating closer to the equator just yet though.

[sebastiaan1973]

Don't remember the early 2000s being cold and snowy though..in fact a lot of negative years during the early to mid 80s which had relatively cold winters...maybe lots of snow in Siberia and very little snow elsewhere like N.America is a good thing early doors?

 

Sea ice or snow cover ain't the only factor. There is of course also the natural atmospheric internalvariability (AIV).

As you can read in the conclusion of this interesting article.

This study http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/cdeser/docs/screen.seaice_atm_impacts.climdyn13.pdf

[BornFromTheVoid]

Don't remember the early 2000s being cold and snowy though..in fact a lot of negative years during the early to mid 80s which had relatively cold winters...maybe lots of snow in Siberia and very little snow elsewhere like N.America is a good thing early doors?

 

Yep, the change from recent years is rather impressive, but as to the impacts on winter weather, tis a tough one.

 

 

 

I think solar minimum and I very much doubt we have accurate records associated with the level of solar minimum we are entering. This is a whole new learning curve as to impacts etc

 

 

The usual proxy is to examine ice rafted debris from deep sea cores. There is an intriguing (and much disputed) link between reduced solar activity (as determined using beryllium-10 and carbon-14 proxies) and cold interludes. E.g.

 

http://one.geol.umd.edu/www/preprints/Bond_et_al.pdf

 

I'm not planning on migrating closer to the equator just yet though.

 

This may be of interest

 

Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years

 

Relating the sea ice extent to weather backs 100s of years ago is a whole different kettle of fish though!

[Gavin Hannah]

Yea, I was referring to the Solar minimums.

 

 

This may be of interest

 

Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years

 

Relating the sea ice extent to weather backs 100s of years ago is a whole different kettle of fish though!

 

 

First thing that struck me was this line in the synopsis.  

 

 

 

extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century

 

 

and then this line

 

 

 

Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic⁶ seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales,

 

 

The author of the main paper says on the first page:

 

Sea ice cover is thermodynamically and dynamically controlled by

 both the atmosphere and the ocean. A proxy-based reconstruction

 should therefore include atmospheric as well as oceanic proxies (such

 as water temperature or salinity). Unfortunately there are currently

 very few oceanic proxy records of sea ice cover with high (less than

 10-year) temporal resolution.

 

 

The author is relying on terrestrial records.

 

Alternatively, terrestrial archives can

 be used to document the atmospheric forcing of, or atmospheric res-

 ponse to, changes in sea ice cover. Ice cores preserve signals of

 atmospheric temperature, moisture source and marine aerosol load-

 ings, all of which may be linked to sea ice conditions

 

 

 

 

 

Scrolling down to the comments lead to this interesting and only comment regarding the paper.

 

 

 

013-05-26 04:33 AM

Report this comment #58731

Arno Arrak said:

The authors conclude their article with the statement that '...anthropologically forced ("greenhouse gases") warming stands out as a very plausible cause of the record atmospheric and oceanic warmth of the recent decades...' This is just a statement of opinion because there is nothing whatsoever in this paper to back it up. I have no idea why reviewers and editors let it go through. Their theory, such as it is, is entirely inadequate to explain the Arctic warming that controls the ice cover. In my paper which appeared two years ago ¹ and which they ignore, I provided a full explanation of Arctic warming during the past century. I ruled out greenhouse warming as a cause because the laws of physics do not permit it. Having carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in and of itself is not sufficient to start a greenhouse warming. If we are dealing with Arrhenius type warming then starting one requires a simultaneous increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. That is the only way to increase absorption because the IR absorptivity of carbon dioxide is a property of the gas and cannot be changed. The present Arctic warming began suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century. There was no parallel increase of atmospheric CO2 at the time which immediately rules out carbon dioxide as its cause. The credit for discovering the warming goes to Kaufman et al. ² who published it in 2009. Using lake sediments they worked out a two thousand year record of Arctic temperatures. For most of these two thousand years there was nothing but slow, linear cooling, most likely due to orbitally driven reduction of summer insolation. This came to a sudden end at the turn of the twentieth century when temperatures turned sharply upward. Since carbon dioxide was ruled out as a cause it became obvious to me that the only logical cause could be a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system that started carrying warm water north. The source of that warm water is of course the Gulf Stream. That is why the Arctic is still warming when global warming as a whole is at a standstill. According to Kaufman the warming paused in the middle of the century, then resumed, and is still going strong. There are numerous observations of this warming going back to the twenties. Some are documented in my paper. The most recent observation is by Spielhagen et al. ³ who measured Arctic temperature directly and took a foraminiferal core near Svalbard. They found that temperatures reaching the Arctic today exceeded anything seen for the last two thousand years. Both Kaufman and Spielhagen have made seminal discoveries about Arctic warming but both are still firm believers that the warming is anthropogenic. Kaufman puts it this way: "...This shift correlates with the rise in global average temperature which coincided with the onset of global anthropogenic changes in global atmospheric composition..." Here he has just made an important discovery but he throws the effect away with this gobbledygook that has no science content. Great job, good technician, but not a scientist is my judgement about that. Judging by the literature he is not alone. His data for the twentieth century were hard to see so I used NOAA Arctic Report Card for 2010 to get a more detailed picture of twentieth century temperatures. It showed the warming in more detail than Kaufman did and also showed that the pause in mid-century lasted thirty years. Furthermore, it was not just a warming pause but an actual cooling at the rate of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade. It is very likely that what happened was a temporary return of the former flow pattern of ocean currents. If so, we should be ready for a repeat performance. Nature is fickle and what has happened before can happen again. Needless to say, this is of huge importance to the exploitation of Arctic resources. Now lets look at some of the temperature curves in this paper. What strikes me most is their choice of scale. The last part of the curve shows an abrupt drop at the edge of the graph. Knowing that the warming started at the turn of the twentieth century it would be important to see what happened before and after the start of warming. Which means the last two centuries but that is impossible with their compressed scale. And this is probably not from ignorance but a deliberate choice because he does list Kaufman's paper among his references. Another peculiarity is that more ice loss takes place during the Little Ice Age than during the Medieval Warm Period. This is simply contrary to expectations. The small scale sea ice graph in Figure 2c shows a drop in sea ice after 1970 which I can believe because 1970 was the year when the warming resumed after a pause. But I do not see an equal drop between 1900 and 1940 when the warming was equally intense. Their hypothesis is that their proxy network contains an embedded climate signal specifically related to sea ice variability. To me the reversal of expectations for LIA and MWP means that this hypothesis is not working too well. I personally would not want to use their data for anything important to do with the Arctic.

¹ Arno Arrak, "Arctic Warming is not greenhouse warming," E&E 22(:1069-1083 (2011)
[2} Darrell S. Kaufman, Davud P. Schneider, Nicholas P. McKay, Caspar M. Ammann, Raymond S. Bradley, Keith Briffa, Jonathan T. Overpeck, Bo M. Vinther, Arctic Lakes 2K Project Members, "Recent Warming Reverses Long Term Arctic Cooling" Science 325:1236-1239 (4 September 2009)
³ Robert F. Spielhagen, Kirstin Werner, Steffen Aagaard Sorensen, Katarzina Zamelczyk, Evguenia Kandiano, Gereon Budeus, Katrine Husum, Thomas M. Marchitto & Morten Hald, "Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water, " Science, 331:450-453 (28 January 2011)

 

 

 

 

Note the line in the comment:

 

 

the only logical cause could be a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system that started carrying warm water north. The source of that warm water is of course the Gulf Stream.

 

 

combined with this one

 

 

Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic⁶ seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales,

 

 

 

Going out on a looooong limb here, but maybe the gulf stream never carried water to the arctic pre-20th century. 

 

 

Thoughts...... 

 

Oh and almost forgot..

 

The latest value: 5,143,721 km²â€‚(September 25, 2013) 

 

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Edited September 26, 2013 by IBringTheHammer

[BornFromTheVoid]

Yea, I was referring to the Solar minimums.

 

 

 

First thing that struck me was this line in the synopsis.  

 

 

 

and then this line

 

 

 

The author of the main paper says on the first page:

 

 

The author is relying on terrestrial records.

 

 

 

 

Scrolling down to the comments lead to this interesting and only comment regarding the paper.

 

 

 

 

Note the line in the comment:

 

 

combined with this one

 

 

 

Going out on a looooong limb here, but maybe the gulf stream never carried water to the arctic pre-20th century. 

 

 

Thoughts...... 

 

The error range is shown on the graph. Something like that without an error range should be cause for concern!

 

The author of that comment uses a common line of climate "sceptic" reasoning by claiming that CO2 cannot cause warming because is defies the 1st law of thermodynamics, which is complete and utter nonsense and renders the rest of his argument void!

 

Anyway, he refers to a paper he published in E & E, which is Energy and Environment, which is faux climate related journal, known for publishing anti-AGW work, some of which has been really poor stuff.

From here

 Boehmer-Christiansen “tries to give

people who do not have a platform a

platform,†says Hans von Storch, director

of the Institute for Coastal Research at

the GKSS Research Center (Germany).

“This is then attractive for skeptic

papers. They know they can come

through and that interested people make

sure the paper enters the political

realm.â€

 

From here

The journal’s editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull, in England, says she sometimes publishes scientific papers challenging the view that global warming is a problem, because that position is often stifled in other outlets. “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway,†she says. “But isn’t that the right of the editor?â€

 

 

That guys argument is nonsense! 

[Gavin Hannah]

I'm not aware of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics but what I understood Arno Arrak (The commentator) to  be saying was that there was not an observable increase in CO2 at the turn of the 20th century.

 

 

The present Arctic warming began suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century. There was no parallel increase of atmospheric CO2 at the time which immediately rules out carbon dioxide as its cause

 

 

He also points out that

 

 

the pause in mid-century lasted thirty years. Furthermore, it was not just a warming pause but an actual cooling at the rate of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade.

 

 

 

If what he has argued is correct, how has CO2 been proven to be the main driver of global warming?  And was the Cooling period due to less CO2 or just a 'blip' on the long term trend? Bearing in mind, from what I've read, we've been in a similar 'pause' since the early 2000's??

 

I'm not saying I believe the guy, but I'm coming at this from a laymans point of view.

Edited September 26, 2013 by IBringTheHammer

[Methuselah]

Does he know the difference between latent and sensible heat, let alone the Laws of Thermodynamics?

Edited September 26, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue