More Snow = Cooler Summer?

[Cutlass]

I've noticed you quickly resort to insults and flat out lies when your limited knowledge of the subject matter fails you. Please stay out of my threads from now on, you are not welcome.

Tough nuggies.
Moderator Action: Warned, trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Depends on how old that folksy wisdom goes back... I believe 10,000 years ago the northern hemisphere was closer to the Sun during summers so cold winters and warmer summers were the norm.



Now if I responded to that in kind, I'd get in trouble. But I do have a suggestion, when you call people stupid, spell the words right.



I've made that point in prior climate debates, remember that Cutlass? How did you respond then?

Heavy flooding does not make anyone better off.

I'm not ignoring it, Abaddon already mentioned it. I just dont think the insulation makes up for the lost sunshine. Same thing with cloud cover, it may insulate some but it blocks out more. Clear cold skies are typically high pressures zones, but the colder the air the less moisture it can carry.



Sure, its the overall snow cover that matters. I just have the impression the lower latitudes saw more snow cover this year.



I was responding to someone who asked about the weather in my tiny segment.



No, it aint like that. This aint about the weather in Washington, or global warming: fact or fiction. Its about a very simple question, will more snow cover during the winter and spring result in a cooler spring and summer? You and Cutlass may want to turn that into a political debate, I dont give a damn about the politics.



The thread is about one specific question relating to albedo and insolation. I and we already know there are many factors affecting weather.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I just dont think the insulation makes up for the lost sunshine. Same thing with cloud cover, it may insulate some but it blocks out more.

It depends what kind of clouds you're talking about. As for snow, I suspect you're right.

There may be a good geoengineering idea in here - force more snow over land (instead of ocean) and maybe we could keep the climate a bit cooler. I suspect it'll probably be cheaper to try other tricks, though.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Actually, the polar regions need as much snow as they can get nowadays. We've got drowning polar bears here in Canada, and Inuit settlements literally falling into the ocean because the permafrost on which they're situated is melting.

Otherwise, yes, we could use more precipitation inland at certain times of the year. I recall one year we had water rationing in April, which is 3-4 months earlier than when it might be expected if we're having a dry summer. Heck, quite often we still have snow or snow/mud close to the end of April - and having that month be so dry is a bad sign.

 

[Berzerker]

Tough nuggies.

Do you get your ass kicked much or do you behave when within reach of other people?
Moderator Action: Warned - trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Heavy flooding does not make anyone better off.

Tell that to people in need of water... Cant have it both ways, cant complain that "global warming" is bad because of drought and bad because of more rain and snow. Oh wait, yes you can, thats the AGW argument. But you can argue with Valka about that, she's the one who said they needed more snow to refill water tables etc. Tell her the heavier flooding they'll get proves her wrong.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Tell that to people in need of water... Cant have it both ways, cant complain that "global warming" is bad because of drought and bad because of more rain and snow. Oh wait, yes you can, thats the AGW argument. But you can argue with Valka about that, she's the one who said they needed more snow to refill water tables etc. Tell her the heavier flooding they'll get proves her wrong.

I'm right here; you can tell me yourself. And while I may not be an expert on ecology in general, I have taken courses in physical geography - including climatology - and have lived in Central Alberta for the past 46 years. I remember quite well what winters used to be like in comparison to now. I know what the local water tables are like, and where our river's water actually comes from. I know what areas around here are generally safe from flooding. And I know that we don't get anywhere close to the amount of water that we used to and that's why I said what I did!

It seems pretty simple - precipitation falls, and in the higher altitudes it becomes part of the snow pack. In the spring we get runoff and the rivers and creeks have spring breakup. If it happens gradually, everything is fine. If it happens suddenly, or there is a problem such as damming or a heavier than usual snow pack, we're more apt to get a flood.

Right now, it's been quite warm and I've noticed that it isn't safe to be on the river. This is happening much too early, so I am actually hoping we get at least one more good snowfall before spring really comes.

In short, I won't claim expertise on the area where you live, and would appreciate your according me the same courtesy.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

Because you specifically stated that the intent of this topic is the microclimate of your specific area, yes, I'd wager you're correct. A higher reflectance of incoming radiation during the winter months will slow the warming of local conditions. Of course, the difference is likely to be so negligible that a more potent factor (off the top of my head... wind patterns being displaced by warmer weather up north here) will completely negate it.

On the topic of increased precipitation and flooding: it can be a boon or a catastrophe depending on the infrastructure of a community to handle it. More advanced nations and regions such as, taking Valka D'ur's example, southern Alberta are well adapted to accommodating increased flow rates. Although flood damage in extraordinary events can be expected.
The real issue is nations that don't have the infrastructure to handle the received rainfall as is. Again, off the top of my head, places in Southeast Asia (Malaysia?) already struggle to handle a climate that shifts from extreme floods to extreme drought. They can't possibly hope to handle all the water that comes in the wet season and experience long periods of drought during the dry. The increased rainfall will just result in more damage during the floods and just the same drought issues during the dry season.

 

[Homie]

You got to be kidding me, how does this theory make any sense?

Even if the snow reflecting sunlight would have a noticeable effect on the temperature, it wouldn't make the SUMMER any less warm. The snow will be far gone by then, and with it, it's cooling reflective abilities.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

New snow has a high albedo (~reflectivity), and as more of the northern hemisphere is covered by it each minute/hour etc, the north - and the world - absorbs less sunshine. So shouldn't this translate into a cooler summer? We wont have long to find out, taking bets now

Indeed. The climate is that easy to predict, you listed the only factor involved in it, so there must be cooler summers ahead

 

[Cutlass]

Do you get your ass kicked much or do you behave when within reach of other people?

In real life I don't hang out with people who are as obnoxious and insulting as I find around here.

Tell that to people in need of water... Cant have it both ways, cant complain that "global warming" is bad because of drought and bad because of more rain and snow. Oh wait, yes you can, thats the AGW argument. But you can argue with Valka about that, she's the one who said they needed more snow to refill water tables etc. Tell her the heavier flooding they'll get proves her wrong.

You're the one having it both ways. It's a big world out there. And different places thrive on different climates. There are very few places in the world likely to get more water, where that more water is welcome. Most places that are short on water will become even shorter on it. A number of places that have a good amount will get too much, and therefor have floods. Except in a very few places, floods are always bad things. Floods do not increase the water available to people. Because floods wash away property and topsoil and just keep going without filling watersheds or ground water.

All of this is extremely simple and has been said many times. So the same question you've always refused to answer in the past still applies: Why do you expect all current trends to simply reverse so that your utopia comes into existence?

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: Enough of the personal attacks. Discuss the topic, not the posters.

I will not tolerate any more trolling or flaming in this thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Berzerker]

I'm right here; you can tell me yourself.

You told me

And while I may not be an expert on ecology in general, I have taken courses in physical geography - including climatology - and have lived in Central Alberta for the past 46 years. I remember quite well what winters used to be like in comparison to now. I know what the local water tables are like, and where our river's water actually comes from. I know what areas around here are generally safe from flooding. And I know that we don't get anywhere close to the amount of water that we used to and that's why I said what I did!

It seems pretty simple - precipitation falls, and in the higher altitudes it becomes part of the snow pack. In the spring we get runoff and the rivers and creeks have spring breakup. If it happens gradually, everything is fine. If it happens suddenly, or there is a problem such as damming or a heavier than usual snow pack, we're more apt to get a flood.

Right now, it's been quite warm and I've noticed that it isn't safe to be on the river. This is happening much too early, so I am actually hoping we get at least one more good snowfall before spring really comes.

In short, I won't claim expertise on the area where you live, and would appreciate your according me the same courtesy.

Where did I claim expertize on your area? YOU said your region needs more snow to rebuild water tables. YOU said that, not me.

Because you specifically stated that the intent of this topic is the microclimate of your specific area, yes, I'd wager you're correct.

Where did I say that, specifically? The topic is whether or not more snow cover will deflect radiation enough to cause a cooler summer. Somebody asked me if we had more snow and clouds where I live and I answered, you then took that to mean I started this thread about my locality. Thats your problem, I'm asking about ~hemispheric cooling as a result of more snow cover. In the northern hemisphere more snow cover should translate into a cooler coming summer season.

A higher reflectance of incoming radiation during the winter months will slow the warming of local conditions. Of course, the difference is likely to be so negligible that a more potent factor (off the top of my head... wind patterns being displaced by warmer weather up north here) will completely negate it.

Yes, there are other factors. This thread deals with one

You got to be kidding me, how does this theory make any sense?

Even if the snow reflecting sunlight would have a noticeable effect on the temperature, it wouldn't make the SUMMER any less warm. The snow will be far gone by then, and with it, it's cooling reflective abilities.

The Earth absorbs radiation during winter months too, if less is absorbed we wont have the same level of surface heat going into the summer months.

In real life I don't hang out with people who are as obnoxious and insulting as I find around here.

Yer a real saint So you do behave face to face with people, I knew that. Dont you find that hypocritical? I do...

You're the one having it both ways. It's a big world out there. And different places thrive on different climates. There are very few places in the world likely to get more water, where that more water is welcome. Most places that are short on water will become even shorter on it. A number of places that have a good amount will get too much, and therefor have floods. Except in a very few places, floods are always bad things. Floods do not increase the water available to people. Because floods wash away property and topsoil and just keep going without filling watersheds or ground water.

All of this is extremely simple and has been said many times. So the same question you've always refused to answer in the past still applies: Why do you expect all current trends to simply reverse so that your utopia comes into existence?

Your question makes no sense, I expect more rain and snow if the world warms. Why is that a reversal of a current trend? As for the rest of that, deserts and aridity increase as the world cools. Thats a trend too, the "reverse" of that is a warming world where evaporation and precipitation increase. Your argument is that areas with water will get too much and arid regions will get less. Based on what?

global warming is bad because drought increases

someone disagrees and

global warming is bad because flooding will increase with more rain and snow

I expect the latter, not the former. Now tell people in need of water why more flooding is worse than not enough water.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why not both in different regions of the world?

I'm not saying I know what to expect, just saying it doesn't have to be just the one option.

 

[Berzerker]

I imagine the Sahara will still be the Sahara until the monsoons return in 25-30 ky, but over all more water vapor in the air makes for a wetter world. It would be quite an amazing coincidence if that translated into a world where arid regions got less water and wet regions got more. Arid regions dont become arid because of increasing water vapor in the air. They become arid because fresh water gets locked up into ice sheets reducing the amount of water vapor in the air.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

As I said, I don't know. All I do know is that I have grown to mistrust simple explanations with regard to climate change. Some arid regions might become more habitable, other regions might become flooded. All kinds of ocean streams go nuts causing frantic weather. The extreme weather I hear abotu doesn't sound tempting either. I find it hard to determine and judge whether the overall effect will be beneficial or not.

I wouldn't rely on it. As I wouldn't rely on a coin toss when the stakes are that high.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

I apologize, Berzerker, I misinterpreted that statement you made in response to Abaddon.

That being said, I think this thread is completely inane. The effect that an increase in snowfall in one particular segment of an entire hemisphere would have is completely moot. Not only would it result in a difference so small to be almost unquantifiable, but it will probably be negated by decreased snowfall in other parts of the hemisphere (as stated multiple times before). To argue that this has any tangible bearing on Climate Change as it relates to human well-being is, at it's very best, hopelessly misguided optimism.