Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: how would snow cover look like after 20 years?  (Read 4504 times)
domik
Guest
« on: March 22, 2009, 06:59:34 PM »

I have been searching today and according to the text above based on Antarctica there would be at least 0.5m snow cover a year.
If would take it as an average, 0.5mx20 years is 10m of accumulated snow cover.

According to picture I made, if snow wouldn't be clear most of houses would be under snow. Also even if they wouldn't be covered by snow there would be problem with snow on roofs. There was catastrophe in Poland when to much snow on roof caused collapsing of whole building, some people were killed.

Next thing. Whole house would be squeezed by snow so there is also possibility of collapsing of houses or breaking glass in windows.

http://epic.awi.de/Publications/BerPolarforsch1999313.pdf
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/uwaosjournal/Volume5/theses/Knuth.pdf

Other thing are winds on Antarctica (max 350 km/h). Probably with snow everywhere this could happen to rest of the world. Wind wouldn't be stopped by obstacles. So there could be even bigger snow covers.

Correct me if I'm wrong somewhere.


* snow_cover.jpg (45.2 KB, 1231x301 - viewed 475 times.)
Logged
eleazzaar
Community member

Posts: 255


attempting lucidity


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2009, 02:22:38 AM »

I have been searching today and according to the text above based on Antarctica there would be at least 0.5m snow cover a year....

I guess you are assuming that the snow never melts.  We can't have that, because without a thaw, no plants will grow, thus farming is impossible, and all wildlife dies that doesn't feed on the ocean, and our game is an extremely empty and boring place.

Also be aware that if there's no thaw, there's little or no melting to replenish the moisture in the air, and thus there's no precipitation to fall.  If you lower the over all temperature, it's likely that scandinavia would get less precitpiation (norway excepted), because the non-thawing part of russia would extend further south.

Snow can indeed be a destructive force if you get too much.  That's why the distinctive architecture of places that get a lot of snow is very steep roofs.  Snow slides off easily.  Of course that's no good, if the snow has no where to go.


Other thing are winds on Antarctica (max 350 km/h). Probably with snow everywhere this could happen to rest of the world. Wind wouldn't be stopped by obstacles. So there could be even bigger snow covers.

Snow has little or nothing to do with the winds in Antarctica.  Winds are determined by things like mountain ranges and the pressure gradient caused by the thermal differences between land and sea.  Of course the amount of wind that you feel at ground level can be limited by obstructions like trees, but removing (or streamlining with snow) the obstructions doesn't ramp the winds up any faster than they are above the obstructions.

Antarctica has some unique weather patterns due in large part to being the only spot on earth where winds and currents have a straight e-w shot all the way around the world.  Look up "circumpolar current" if you are interested.
Logged
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2009, 09:28:51 PM »

since this came up on IRC and other places...

+1 to Eleaazzar... 10m snow cover "throughout the map" is silly both from a scientific and story perspective.

If we do go with "oncoming ice age" Parpg II (100 years later) it might make sense.
Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
shevegen
Community member

Posts: 705



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2009, 10:26:04 PM »

I guess the 10m cover needs to be refined anyway, because it must account that there are mountains, valleys, rivers, cliffs and even in the cloud is laden with dust I guess the temperature on earth will not be uniform throughout
Logged

Cleaning away the bureaucracy in PARPG to make our life easier.
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2009, 12:03:22 AM »

given that it was just a throwaway comment by a non-dev (domik)... can anyone make a defense of 10m snow cover/permafrost?  Like why would we want it?

 From a game/story perspective, I don't (at the moment) care to debate the science of it.

Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
Gaspard
Community member

Posts: 479


The Blackest Heart


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2009, 06:47:24 PM »

Around the Baltic Sea (not counting parts of Sweden and Finland) there are no mountains. The highest hill/"mountain" in Estonia for example is ~ 300 meters...
Logged
mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2009, 02:33:20 PM »

Thanks for the info Gaspard. I think we can pretty much drop the idea of 10m snow / ice in this case. Once we've agreed upon one storyline to focus the work on, we should work a rather specifc statement of the climate of the game world to ensure that we avoid confusion of this aspect when new writers get involved.
Logged
Gaspard
Community member

Posts: 479


The Blackest Heart


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2009, 04:04:26 PM »

I mean, check this out:



what's yellow or ochre is higher ground and green is flat. See how the surroundings of the Baltic Sea are flat as a ... flat ground..
Norway is mountainy as hell - the whole country is packed with tunnels through solid rock - helluva places where to survive the initial nuclear strikes. I've been mountain-skiing in mid- and northern Finland - there are some nice slopes, but nothing comparable with the Rockies or the Alps.
Logged
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to: