46 replies to this topic

[weatherpsycho]

OHweather, on 7 February 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

No, they change an awful lot, especially on a shallow lake like Erie. The water temperatures off of Cleveland are measured at a location about 40' below the surface, and those temps surge into the 70s over the summer and dip into the lower-mid 30s in winter. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong with the depth of the Cleveland water temperature reading.

No the temps are pretty much surface temperatures.
Here is the data:
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/

BTW. Lake Erie only gets about 80' deep. It is a very shallow lake for its size.

EDIT: Yes I know this post in not accurate. I meant to say. Most of Lake Erie is around 80' deep. I know there is a area on the eastern side that is 64 meters (~210').

[Stebo48858]

Geos, on 7 February 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

That would make a world of difference. Waters a dozen or so feet below the surface hardly change throughout the year.

They change seasonally, I don't think in the summer the water temp is 35 at say 60' in depth

[Geos]

OHweather, on 7 February 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

No, they change an awful lot, especially on a shallow lake like Erie. The water temperatures off of Cleveland are measured at a location about 40' below the surface, and those temps surge into the 70s over the summer and dip into the lower-mid 30s in winter. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong with the depth of the Cleveland water temperature reading.

I guess with down-dwelling and up-dwelling flucuations in temperatures make sense. I know the thermocline flucuates less as you move to deeper waters, regardless of season. That would be more the case for the deeper lakes.

[Trent]

I think that's the flaw in the comparison ... when a lake is frozen over the surface temp is considered to be 32, not the actual temp of the surface ice. So a winter that froze over could only be 32, and a mild ice cover free winter might be just a touch warmer. Very misleading.

[Geos]

weatherpsycho, on 7 February 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

No the temps are pretty much surface temperatures.
Here is the data:
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/

BTW. Lake Erie only gets about 80' deep. It is a very shallow lake for its size.

One small area exceeds 80' (64m). 80' is probably the average depth though.

http://www.ngdc.noaa...tml/e_area5.htm

[OHweather]

weatherpsycho, on 7 February 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

No the temps are pretty much surface temperatures.
Here is the data:
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/

BTW. Lake Erie only gets about 80' deep. It is a very shallow lake for its size.

I'm talking about strictly the reading off of Cleveland, the singular reading, not the surface temps shown on those maps. Lake Erie is very shallow, which in a normal winter means ice and a cut off to lake effect at some point in January.

Geos, on 7 February 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

I guess with down-dwelling and up-dwelling flucuations in temperatures make sense. In know the thermocline flucuates less as you move to deeper waters, regardless of season. That would be more the case for the deeper lakes.

My guess is that's the case. I know that at some points during the year the thermocline in Lake Erie gets close to where the Erie, PA temperature readings are taken, the water temperatures will vary significantly when that occurs.

[weatherpsycho]

Geos, on 7 February 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

One small area exceeds 80' (64m). 80' is probably the average depth though.

It is funny but I lost internet for the past 25 minutes. I love Comcast. NOT!

I didn't finish my post yet it got posted. Uggggg. I was clicking on anything to get the webpage working (then realized the Comcast box was out). Oh well.

[Geos]

weatherpsycho, on 7 February 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

It is funny but I lost internet for the past 25 minutes. I love Comcast. NOT!

I didn't finish my post yet it got posted. Uggggg. I was clicking on anything to get the webpage working (then realized the Comcast box was out). Oh well.

Yeah a couple times that's happened to me in the middle of a post. Once it was because a storm cut the power though!

Lake Erie is definitely the shallowest lake, therefore is freezes quicker. Lake Superior is further north, but the size and depth keeps large areas open.

[Rainman]

Ice on the lakes has the same effect as having upstream areas covered in snow, so yes it will have an effect on spring in the Great Lakes.

Warm airmasses have a harder time moving into and staying in an area that is covered in ice. This year, I would expect warm fronts to have an easier time moving north into the Great Lakes compared to normal. The lakes will still act like a buffer, but not as strongly and not for as long. The first reason is that ice is colder than water. The second reason is that water gets warmer as the weather gets warmer. Ice stops at 32 degrees until it melts. I think it's safe to say that once spring arrives, we will be several weeks ahead of the game, assuming that spring is normal and that we aren't in a very cold pattern or getting pummeled mercilessly with record snow after record snow clear through April.

[Geos]

I heard a really interesting bit from Tom Skilling about the lake levels, lack of ice and cold this winter. He said Lake Michigan is 7" higher then it was this time last February. The other lakes are higher than last year as well. He said he thinks it may be due to a lack of lake effect snow and cold air masses picking up the lake moisture and transporting it elsewhere.

It sounds like that may be partially the reason, but I think the wet summer last year, might be part of that reason. Thoughts?

[turtlehurricane]

Geos, on 16 February 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

I heard a really interesting bit from Tom Skilling about the lake levels, lack of ice and cold this winter. He said Lake Michigan is 7" higher then it was this time last February. The other lakes are higher than last year as well. He said he thinks it may be due to a lack of lake effect snow and cold air masses picking up the lake moisture and transporting it elsewhere.

It sounds like that may be partially the reason, but I think the wet summer last year, might be part of that reason. Thoughts?

Lack of cold/dry Arctic air indeed leads to much less evaporation. LES accumulations are a physical manifestation of evaporation rates so it's spot on.

[blackrock]

Rainman, on 8 February 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

Ice on the lakes has the same effect as having upstream areas covered in snow, so yes it will have an effect on spring in the Great Lakes.

Warm airmasses have a harder time moving into and staying in an area that is covered in ice. This year, I would expect warm fronts to have an easier time moving north into the Great Lakes compared to normal. The lakes will still act like a buffer, but not as strongly and not for as long. The first reason is that ice is colder than water. The second reason is that water gets warmer as the weather gets warmer. Ice stops at 32 degrees until it melts. I think it's safe to say that once spring arrives, we will be several weeks ahead of the game, assuming that spring is normal and that we aren't in a very cold pattern or getting pummeled mercilessly with record snow after record snow clear through April.

Yeah I have already seen it affecting our weather around here greatly. We have had early December like weather. With no ice on Lake Michigan, which would normal keep us colder along the lakeshore this time of year, every southwest wind we have gotten has warmed Lakeshore areas up and actually caused our snow to melt faster. That is not normal at all for February. Like you said, it's also helped warm fronts to move up easily and quickly.