Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Let's see, increasing global temperatures lead to hotter air. Hotter air holds more moisture. (yes) More moisture means more snow in areas where it's still cold enough to snow but more r*in (i.e. less snow) where it's not. (NO!) So around here, I would expect less snow than average at the beginning and end of the season (too warm for snow), but bigger storms mid season (more moisture and cold enough for snow).

In any case, I'm sure the good folks who run Killington believe that global warming is a hoax and have apportioned their resources accordingly.

Air below 32F holds the same amount of moisture it always has. The only way you'd get more snow from higher moisture content warmer air is to modify the distribution of what air temperature occurs during the winter, ie instead of raising the temp 1 degree so that we are at 28 instead of 27 in December and -9 in February instead of -10, you would need to raise the temp in February, but not in December.

I didn't claim we'd get more total snow, I said I expected less snow in the early and late season, but bigger storms than average during the mid-season.

Higher temperature air can hold more moisture than colder air. If the temperature is below freezing, more moisture means more snow. An increase in 1F corresponds to a 4% increase in moisture holding capacity. So air at 32F has double the moisture holding capacity as 14F air.

Because air at 32F holds twice the moisture as 14F, a storm at 32F is generally more intense than a 14F storm. In fact, the sweet spot for really big storms is 28F to 32F.

So as the temps increase, in the spring and fall I expect more moisture to fall as r*in (above 32F). But mid-season, with temps warmer than average but still plenty cold for snow, there is more of a chance of creeping into that sweet spot, leading to bigger storms, though not necessarily more total snow. A few degrees warmer for temps well below 28F probably won't make much of a difference in terms of storm intensity.

Less snow early and late season, a rise in the number of intense storms mid-season. Unfortunately, so far it appears it all adds up to less overall snow for Killington.

So for the relevant air masses surrounding Killington how much ATMOSPHERIC warming are you claiming has occurred over the last two decades???

We might agree that that number globally is less than 2 degrees (less that 1 degree in data sets I know) in the LAST CENTURY. US warming is probably less. And most consensus scientists agree that the ATMOSPHERE has NOT warmed even as much as 0.5 degrees over the last two decades.

So how did this minimal change in temperature lead to the SIGNIFICANT changes in moisture and temperature that would drive the dramatic changes in snowfall you are showing.

I think the regional weather patterns that drive snowfall patterns are NOT captured well in GCMs and mentioning atmospheric warming (however slight) let alone CO2 as a driver for changes in regional snowfall is a fool's errand.

[Mister Moose]

The consumer is where the money comes from.

Then reduce taxes on the consumer, not the corporation. The more money the consumer has, the more products/services they buy, leading to higher corporate profits while holding the corporate tax steady. You get higher corporate profits much faster without adding trillions to the debt.

Except that this idea still places US Corporations at a severe disadvantage to other countries with a far lower tax rate.

[Mister Moose]

Let's see, increasing global temperatures lead to hotter air. Hotter air holds more moisture. (yes) More moisture means more snow in areas where it's still cold enough to snow but more r*in (i.e. less snow) where it's not. (NO!) So around here, I would expect less snow than average at the beginning and end of the season (too warm for snow), but bigger storms mid season (more moisture and cold enough for snow).

In any case, I'm sure the good folks who run Killington believe that global warming is a hoax and have apportioned their resources accordingly.

Air below 32F holds the same amount of moisture it always has. The only way you'd get more snow from higher moisture content warmer air is to modify the distribution of what air temperature occurs during the winter, ie instead of raising the temp 1 degree so that we are at 28 instead of 27 in December and -9 in February instead of -10, you would need to raise the temp in February, but not in December.

I didn't claim we'd get more total snow, I said I expected less snow in the early and late season, but bigger storms than average during the mid-season.

Higher temperature air can hold more moisture than colder air. If the temperature is below freezing, more moisture means more snow. An increase in 1F corresponds to a 4% increase in moisture holding capacity. So air at 32F has double the moisture holding capacity as 14F air.

Because air at 32F holds twice the moisture as 14F, a storm at 32F is generally more intense than a 14F storm. In fact, the sweet spot for really big storms is 28F to 32F. You obviously have never been in a Rocky Mountain snowstorm.

So as the temps increase, in the spring and fall I expect more moisture to fall as r*in (above 32F). But mid-season, with temps warmer than average but still plenty cold for snow, there is more of a chance of creeping into that sweet spot, leading to bigger storms, though not necessarily more total snow. A few degrees warmer for temps well below 28F probably won't make much of a difference in terms of storm intensity.

Less snow early and late season, a rise in the number of intense storms mid-season. Unfortunately, so far it appears it all adds up to less overall snow for Killington.

I didn't say more total snow either. I was referring to your higher snow mid season storm, just because the air is 1 degree warmer. My question to you is why don't we see those 'bigger' storms when it's 1 degree warmer in late December than mid season? You don't have to wait for climate change, the seasons already demonstrate storms at various air mass temperatures, and the data does not support your contention.

As you snipped out:
"Raising the temp 1 degree uniformly over the winter should result in less snow, not more. Raising the temp 1 degree should behave more like moving south in latitude 30 miles. We already know what that looks like, and it isn't more snow in the Berkshires than in VT."

[Mister Moose]

Corporate income taxes reduce corporate profit, and when lowered, increase margins and attract more entrants to the market causing more competition and a lowering of prices. Long term, prices settle to where the attraction to invest is stable given other options available to invest.

You've dressed up trickle down economic theory and given it a pseudo intellectual spin that history has shown it doesn't deserve. In theory, it can work if taxes at the upper income levels are prohibitively high; lowering tax rate may spur investment, the concept being that the decrease in revenue is offset by the increased economic growth. In most cases (all?) the result has been a massive increase in the federal deficit. Reagan's attempt at it reduced taxes at the highest bracket from 70% to 28%; he also dramatically increased federal spending. The result was a tripling of the national debt.

1) Trickle down had to do with money reaching consumers through more jobs and rising wages through investment of personal income, not lower product prices as a result of decreasing corporate costs.

2) There is no such thing as bigger than trickle down, ie pour down, that is confiscation or central planning, and the truism about running out of OPM still holds true.

3) Trickle down is better than faucet shut off.

4) Trickle down is just another way of saying enhanced opportunity, or higher GDP growth rate, nothing just falls into your hands.

5) Congress controls spending, not the President.

[Coydog]

I didn't say more total snow either. I was referring to your higher snow mid season storm, just because the air is 1 degree warmer. My question to you is why don't we see those 'bigger' storms when it's 1 degree warmer in late December than mid season? You don't have to wait for climate change, the seasons already demonstrate storms at various air mass temperatures, and the data does not support your contention.

As you snipped out:
"Raising the temp 1 degree uniformly over the winter should result in less snow, not more. Raising the temp 1 degree should behave more like moving south in latitude 30 miles. We already know what that looks like, and it isn't more snow in the Berkshires than in VT."

We do get big storms in December, I remember Christmas of 2010. But most of the big storms happen in January/February with fewer big storms in December/March. That 1 degree in December/March turns a 32F snow storm into 33F r*in and it turns a 27F snowstorm in February into a 28F monster. Essentially, our natural ski season is getting shorter.

[Coydog]

The consumer is where the money comes from.

Then reduce taxes on the consumer, not the corporation. The more money the consumer has, the more products/services they buy, leading to higher corporate profits while holding the corporate tax steady. You get higher corporate profits much faster without adding trillions to the debt.

Except that this idea still places US Corporations at a severe disadvantage to other countries with a far lower tax rate.

Border tax, problem solved.

[Mister Moose]

The consumer is where the money comes from.

Then reduce taxes on the consumer, not the corporation. The more money the consumer has, the more products/services they buy, leading to higher corporate profits while holding the corporate tax steady. You get higher corporate profits much faster without adding trillions to the debt.

Except that this idea still places US Corporations at a severe disadvantage to other countries with a far lower tax rate.

Border tax, problem solved.

So you're advocating trade tariffs based on the importing countries corporate tax rate?

[Mister Moose]

We do get big storms in December, I remember Christmas of 2010. But most of the big storms happen in January/February with fewer big storms in December/March. That 1 degree in December/March turns a 32F snow storm into 33F r*in and it turns a 27F snowstorm in February into a 28F monster. Essentially, our natural ski season is getting shorter.

If you have a 1 degree increase in climactic temperature, then sure, your winter is shorter. As I said, it's like moving south 30 miles.

28 degree storms aren't monsters by virtue of being one degree warmer than 27. By that theory the biggest snow belt would be on the southern edge of the 32 degree winter storm line, or the r*in/snow line but that doesn't happen. (atmospheric temps vary with altitude and surface temp has little to do with snow fall, ie it can snow at surface temp of 35 degrees, but we're simplifying here) Monster storms are due to large gradients in either air masses or pressure.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

We do get big storms in December, I remember Christmas of 2010. But most of the big storms happen in January/February with fewer big storms in December/March. That 1 degree in December/March turns a 32F snow storm into 33F r*in and it turns a 27F snowstorm in February into a 28F monster. Essentially, our natural ski season is getting shorter.

If you have a 1 degree increase in climactic temperature, then sure, your winter is shorter. As I said, it's like moving south 30 miles.

28 degree storms aren't monsters by virtue of being one degree warmer than 27. By that theory the biggest snow belt would be on the southern edge of the 32 degree winter storm line, or the r*in/snow line but that doesn't happen. (atmospheric temps vary with altitude and surface temp has little to do with snow fall, ie it can snow at surface temp of 35 degrees, but we're simplifying here) Monster storms are due to large gradients in either air masses or pressure.

I think you seem to be thinking logically …as usual.

Just trying to evaluate the idea presented by others that (roughly) “warmer weather means fewer snow events (they become r*in events instead) but those events dump more snow than colder days because colder days have lower moisture in air”….. I think that sorta captures the gist of the claim. I don't think that claim is even vaguely justified.

Looking for data to reflect this question I found this graph:

mspsnow.jpg (128.2 KiB) Viewed 489 times

This is average snow events for more than a century in Minneapolis grouped by size and date. The above claim would suggest that during the warmer periods (Early and late season) the snows would be less frequent (they are) but they would skew towards larger snowfalls (they don’t seem to).

Also on the issue of stability of air masses (and other factors) having a larger impact on snowfall I found this interesting presentation on the impact of instability on snowfall. According to his analysis really COLD upper air masses seem to cause more massive snowfalls!

Presentation of the spot in Japan that gets massive snowfall and the factors which cause it.
http://slideplayer.com/slide/7008772/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[madhatter]

global cold and snowy today...

[Coydog]

Just trying to evaluate the idea presented by others that (roughly) “warmer weather means fewer snow events (they become r*in events instead) but those events dump more snow than colder days because colder days have lower moisture in air”….. I think that sorta captures the gist of the claim. That is not the claim I don't think that claim is even vaguely justified.

Looking for data to reflect this question I found this graph:

mspsnow.jpg

This is average snow events for more than a century in Minneapolis grouped by size and date. The above claim would suggest that during the warmer periods (Early and late season) the snows would be less frequent (they are) but they would skew towards larger snowfalls (they don’t seem to).

Also on the issue of stability of air masses (and other factors) having a larger impact on snowfall I found this interesting presentation on the impact of instability on snowfall. According to his analysis really COLD upper air masses seem to cause more massive snowfalls!

Unless I'm reading it wrong, for your graph to be meaningful in this context, you need to show how the annual distribution changes over time, for example pre-1970 and post-1970.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Unless I'm reading it wrong, for your graph to be meaningful in this context, you need to show how the annual distribution changes over time, for example pre-1970 and post-1970.

Yeah... I think I get your point but I was merely trying to look at one issue at a time. That being... how does temperature effect snowfall frequency and amounts. My point was that early season and late season (on a 100+year average) would be the warmer parts of this graph and these do indeed show less frequent snowfall (of course) but.... it does not seem like the intensity of those snow events (% of snowfalls above three inches) seems to increase in the warmer months.


NOT claiming this data is in any way definitive....just trying to find data relevant to your claim. If you have better data please share... I could easily be convinced of your point with some good data, it doesn't sound ridiculous I'm just still a bit skeptical that slight "atmospheric" temperature changes have such a simple impact on snowfall (ie warmer = less but stronger events).
And what did you think about the analysis of impact on atmospheric stability on snowfall?... that spot in Japan is certainly the exemplar of a massive snowfall zone.

[Coydog]

We do get big storms in December, I remember Christmas of 2010. But most of the big storms happen in January/February with fewer big storms in December/March. That 1 degree in December/March turns a 32F snow storm into 33F r*in and it turns a 27F snowstorm in February into a 28F monster. Essentially, our natural ski season is getting shorter.

If you have a 1 degree increase in climactic temperature, then sure, your winter is shorter. As I said, it's like moving south 30 miles.

28 degree storms aren't monsters by virtue of being one degree warmer than 27. By that theory the biggest snow belt would be on the southern edge of the 32 degree winter storm line, or the r*in/snow line but that doesn't happen. (atmospheric temps vary with altitude and surface temp has little to do with snow fall, ie it can snow at surface temp of 35 degrees, but we're simplifying here) Monster storms are due to large gradients in either air masses or pressure.

The whole discussion is a huge simplification, but monster storms generally don't happen unless you have a lot of moisture - after all that''s what falls to the ground, no? I suppose you could have a stalled low moisture storm that produces more snow than a fast moving high moisture storm for a given region (or other combinations of time dependent parameters).

Atmospheric instability can indeed lead to heavier snow falls. The faster moist air rises, the faster it can form snow. All things being equal, for a given storm I would expect more snow in the region with higher instability since more snow will fall there over the same time period.

But there are plenty of regions on the planet that experience high temperature/pressure gradients but little moisture. Obviously, they rarely experience precipitation of any form. Variations in temperature/pressure/altitude are absolutely critical ingredients, but if it is cold enough for snow, water is the key fuel.

Compare the temperature profile and location of snow fall amounts for storms that happen in a relatively flat area - Massachusetts for example. Meanwhile, I'm gonna make some tracks in the pressure gradient.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

The whole discussion is a huge simplification, but monster storms generally don't happen unless you have a lot of moisture - after all that''s what falls to the ground, no? I suppose you could have a stalled low moisture storm that produces more snow than a fast moving high moisture storm for a given region (or other combinations of time dependent parameters).

Atmospheric instability can indeed lead to heavier snow falls. The faster moist air rises, the faster it can form snow. All things being equal, for a given storm I would expect more snow in the region with higher instability since more snow will fall there over the same time period.

But there are plenty of regions on the planet that experience high temperature/pressure gradients but little moisture. Obviously, they rarely experience precipitation of any form. Variations in temperature/pressure/altitude are absolutely critical ingredients, but if it is cold enough for snow, water is the key fuel.

Compare the temperature profile and location of snow fall amounts for storms that happen in a relatively flat area - Massachusetts for example. Meanwhile, I'm gonna make some tracks in the pressure gradient.

That all sounds reasonable.

I suppose we both agree that warmer air MIGHT under CERTAIN conditions lead to larger (but less frequent) snowfalls and under other conditions not. I think we both probably agreed upon that before sharing these posts. I hope we both agree that the systems that produce snowfall are VERY COMPLEX and in many instances hard to predict.

Hope you have a good time on the slopes!

[Bubba]

So its been 2 3/4 years since the start of this thread, and another (guessing) 2-3 years before that on the political board.

What's changed?

Perhaps the most vocal proponents of each side can sum up what has changed of significance in the last 5 years.

Anything?

Mister Moose, I'll put it in terms you might appreciate: you've gotten to sleep in more because there's been fewer powder days. Last time Killington reached it's nominal 250" average was 2010-2011. Over the 6 years since then the average snowfall has been 180 inches. Even ignoring that 81" outlier year, the average is still only 200 inches. I doubt it is a coincidence that 2016 and 2015 were the warmest years on record. 2017 is likely to crack the top 3 as well. Climate is changing, even right in Killington.

snowfall.JPG

The climate is always changing, like it was apparently doing back in the late 80's early 90's:

And ski resorts didn't embellish snow totals for marketing purposes either when they deemed it necessary. In other words, take those historic snow totals with at least a grain of salt and skepticism, much like we should take the accuracy of temperature estimates from hundreds and thousands of years ago based on tree rings and ice cores.