TheClimateChanger

Can we let Grok decide what is the truth? As an AI, Grok has no dog in this fight. If he agrees with @ChescoWxso be it! But if, in its unbiased opinion, @ChescoWxis off the mark, then he agrees to stop?

@michsnowfreak Here is some additional analysis courtesy of Grok: To identify any discernible trend in the snowfall data over the 30-year period (1995-96 to 2024-25), I’ll analyze the numbers for patterns such as an overall increase, decrease, or cyclical behavior. One common approach is to calculate a simple linear trend (e.g., using a moving average or regression slope) and examine the variability. Let’s start with some observations and a basic analysis. Data Recap (in chronological order): 1995-96: 31.3" 1996-97: 35.9" 1997-98: 27.2" 1998-99: 52.1" 1999-00: 29.3" 2000-01: 47.3" 2001-02: 42.5" 2002-03: 66.9" 2003-04: 36.6" 2004-05: 80.7" 2005-06: 41.9" 2006-07: 36.3" 2007-08: 78.2" 2008-09: 64.8" 2009-10: 46.1" 2010-11: 69.4" 2011-12: 25.5" 2012-13: 47.9" 2013-14: 96.2" 2014-15: 48.5" 2015-16: 35.0" 2016-17: 41.6" 2017-18: 62.5" 2018-19: 31.9" 2019-20: 43.8" 2020-21: 47.0" 2021-22: 47.6" 2022-23: 37.2" 2023-24: 21.4" 2024-25: 27.9" Step 1: Visual Inspection Looking at the data, there’s significant year-to-year variability. For example: The highest snowfall is 96.2" (2013-14), and the lowest is 21.4" (2023-24). There are peaks (e.g., 80.7" in 2004-05, 78.2" in 2007-08, 96.2" in 2013-14) and troughs (e.g., 21.4" in 2023-24, 25.5" in 2011-12). Recent years (2020-25) show a mix of moderate (47.6", 47.0") and low values (21.4", 27.9"), suggesting no immediate sharp upward or downward trend. Step 2: Simple Moving Average (5-Year) A 5-year moving average can smooth out year-to-year fluctuations and reveal longer-term trends. Here’s a sample calculation for a few periods: 1995-96 to 1999-00: (31.3 + 35.9 + 27.2 + 52.1 + 29.3) ÷ 5 = 35.16" 2000-01 to 2004-05: (47.3 + 42.5 + 66.9 + 36.6 + 80.7) ÷ 5 = 54.8" 2010-11 to 2014-15: (69.4 + 25.5 + 47.9 + 96.2 + 48.5) ÷ 5 = 57.5" 2020-21 to 2024-25: (47.0 + 47.6 + 37.2 + 21.4 + 27.9) ÷ 5 = 36.22" Observations: The early period (1995-2000) averages around 35.16". The middle period (e.g., 2000-2005, 2010-2015) shows higher averages (54.8", 57.5"), with notable peaks. The recent period (2020-2025) drops to 36.22", closer to the earlier years. This suggests a possible rise in snowfall in the 2000s and early 2010s, followed by a decline in the 2020s. Step 3: Linear Trend (Simplified) To estimate a trend, I’ll calculate the slope of a linear regression line using the years as the x-values (1 to 30) and snowfall as the y-values. The formula for the slope (m) in a simple linear regression is: m=n∑(xiyi)−∑xi∑yin∑(xi2)−(∑xi)2m = \frac{n \sum (x_i y_i) - \sum x_i \sum y_i}{n \sum (x_i^2) - (\sum x_i)^2}m = \frac{n \sum (x_i y_i) - \sum x_i \sum y_i}{n \sum (x_i^2) - (\sum x_i)^2} Where: n=30n = 30n = 30 (number of years) xi=x_i =x_i = year number (1 to 30) yi=y_i =y_i = snowfall amount ∑xi=1+2+...+30=465\sum x_i = 1 + 2 + ... + 30 = 465\sum x_i = 1 + 2 + ... + 30 = 465 ∑xi2=12+22+...+302=9,315\sum x_i^2 = 1^2 + 2^2 + ... + 30^2 = 9,315\sum x_i^2 = 1^2 + 2^2 + ... + 30^2 = 9,315 ∑yi=1,367.3\sum y_i = 1,367.3\sum y_i = 1,367.3 (total snowfall, from earlier) ∑(xiyi)=\sum (x_i y_i) =\sum (x_i y_i) = sum of each year number multiplied by its snowfall Calculating ∑(xiyi)\sum (x_i y_i)\sum (x_i y_i) : Year 1 (1995-96): 1 × 31.3 = 31.3 Year 2 (1996-97): 2 × 35.9 = 71.8 Year 3 (1997-98): 3 × 27.2 = 81.6 ... Year 30 (2024-25): 30 × 27.9 = 837 Summing all 30 terms (computed step-by-step): ∑(xiyi)=31.3+71.8+81.6+156.3+146.5+283.8+297.5+534.4+329.4+807+461.9+435.6+639.1+842.4+691.5+830.7+432+622.7+1,345.4+727.5+560+707.2+1,125+606.1+919.8+1,027+1,142.4+1,005.6+642.6+837=20,392.9\sum (x_i y_i) = 31.3 + 71.8 + 81.6 + 156.3 + 146.5 + 283.8 + 297.5 + 534.4 + 329.4 + 807 + 461.9 + 435.6 + 639.1 + 842.4 + 691.5 + 830.7 + 432 + 622.7 + 1,345.4 + 727.5 + 560 + 707.2 + 1,125 + 606.1 + 919.8 + 1,027 + 1,142.4 + 1,005.6 + 642.6 + 837 = 20,392.9\sum (x_i y_i) = 31.3 + 71.8 + 81.6 + 156.3 + 146.5 + 283.8 + 297.5 + 534.4 + 329.4 + 807 + 461.9 + 435.6 + 639.1 + 842.4 + 691.5 + 830.7 + 432 + 622.7 + 1,345.4 + 727.5 + 560 + 707.2 + 1,125 + 606.1 + 919.8 + 1,027 + 1,142.4 + 1,005.6 + 642.6 + 837 = 20,392.9 Now, plug into the slope formula: m=30×20,392.9−465×1,367.330×9,315−4652m = \frac{30 \times 20,392.9 - 465 \times 1,367.3}{30 \times 9,315 - 465^2}m = \frac{30 \times 20,392.9 - 465 \times 1,367.3}{30 \times 9,315 - 465^2} m=611,787−635,794.5279,450−216,225m = \frac{611,787 - 635,794.5}{279,450 - 216,225}m = \frac{611,787 - 635,794.5}{279,450 - 216,225} m=−24,007.563,225m = \frac{-24,007.5}{63,225}m = \frac{-24,007.5}{63,225} m≈−0.38m \approx -0.38m \approx -0.38 The slope is approximately -0.38 inches per year, indicating a slight downward trend over the 30 years. Step 4: Interpretation Slight Downward Trend: The negative slope (-0.38"/year) suggests that, on average, snowfall has decreased slightly over the 30-year period. Over 30 years, this equates to a drop of about 11.4" (0.38 × 30), though this is a simplification and doesn’t capture variability. High Variability: The data fluctuates significantly (e.g., 96.2" in 2013-14 vs. 21.4" in 2023-24), so the linear trend may be overshadowed by natural year-to-year variation. No Clear Cycle: There’s no obvious repeating pattern (e.g., every 5 or 10 years), though peaks tend to cluster in the 2000s and early 2010s. Recent Decline: The last few years (2023-24: 21.4", 2024-25: 27.9") are among the lowest, which could hint at a recent downward shift, but it’s too early to confirm without more data. Conclusion The data shows a slight long-term downward trend in snowfall (about 0.38 inches per year), but the trend is weak due to high variability. Snowfall peaked in the 2000s and early 2010s (e.g., 96.2", 80.7", 78.2"), while recent years lean toward lower amounts. However, the fluctuations are large enough that no strong, consistent trend dominates. Weather patterns, climate factors, or regional influences could be at play, but this dataset alone doesn’t provide a definitive cause.

Here is Grok's ranking from highest to lowest: Ranked from Highest to Lowest: 2013-14: 96.2" 2004-05: 80.7" 2007-08: 78.2" 2010-11: 69.4" 2002-03: 66.9" 2008-09: 64.8" 2017-18: 62.5" 1998-99: 52.1" 2014-15: 48.5" 2012-13: 47.9" 2021-22: 47.6" 2000-01: 47.3" 2020-21: 47.0" 2009-10: 46.1" 2019-20: 43.8" 2001-02: 42.5" 2005-06: 41.9" 2016-17: 41.6" 2022-23: 37.2" 2003-04: 36.6" 2006-07: 36.3" 1996-97: 35.9" 2015-16: 35.0" 2018-19: 31.9" 1995-96: 31.3" 1999-00: 29.3" 2024-25: 27.9" 1997-98: 27.2" 2011-12: 25.5" 2023-24: 21.4" Let me know if you'd like further analysis!

Grok calculates your average to be 45.6 inches, if no additional measurable snow falls. Of course, you would need another ~30" to fall this year to raise that 30-year average by even 1 inch.

Looking solid for us. Kind of on the tripoint between broiling with average precipitation, sultry and thunder-filled, and brutally humid and wet.

This is interesting. If snowfall continues dropping at the average rate of the 21st century, it will drop below -20" [negative 20 inches] by 2050 at Cleveland.

This was also funny. Some "skeptics" allegedly used Grok to co-author a paper critical of AGW to publish in a bogus journal, and Grok rips the paper to shreds and denies he authored it.

You may be right. I see graphs posted all the time like the one Zeke addressed, and they seem to ignore the elephant in the room that, in the vast majority of time, temperatures were much warmer, but so was CO2. And temperatures were much warmer despite lower solar output. The "adjustment" arguments are just as ridiculous. How do these people explain decreases in ice cover, phenological changes, receding glaciers, increases in sea and lake temperatures, etc. all consistent with warming? Like, if the warming is due to adjustments, what the heck is causing those changes? How about the fact that satellite analyses largely confirm the trend since 1979, and radiosondes even longer? Gold standard USCRN stations are in lock step with NOAA's nClimDiv dataset since 2005 (actually slightly larger warming trend)?

Wow, I just noticed PIT had a gust to 54 mph at the top of the hour, without a wind advisory or even a special weather statement. I guess there is a hazardous weather outlook which notes gusts of up to 54 mph.

I mean over geologic time scales, not in the near future. CO2 levels have largely been declining naturally since the Paleocene, due to weathering and decreased volcanism/geological activity as the earth's core settles over time. Over that same interval, the climate has cooled naturally in response to the decrease in CO2 with ice ages commencing around 2.58 mya which have gradually become longer and harsher over the course of the Pleistocene. These trends would very likely continue indefinitely into the future if there was no massive release of stored carbon from human activity, until solar irradiance increased sufficiently to reverse that trend.

I ran it by Grok and he agreed with my theory, albeit maybe not to the extremes I posited. He suggests colder and longer lasting ice ages for up to the next 10 mya [again, in the absence of human activity], but nothing suggesting a total loss of the interglacial cycle.

Do you think in the absence of human activity, the planet would be destined for a near-permanent ice age in the geological future? Obviously, such an ice age could not truly be permanent, because solar irradiance is increasing over time as the sun is a main sequence star. In the very distant future, this will inevitably lead to runaway warming. But in the nearer term (next few millions of years), it seems likely that ice age conditions would become the norm. In millions of years, could the earth go from near snowball earth conditions to typical quaternary ice age conditions from Milankovitch cycles [rather than from ice age to interglacial]. Looking at the geological record, we can see, generally, a long-term cooling since the Paleocene, which coincides with a long-term decrease in carbon dioxide. This appears to be due to increased weathering and a decrease in volcanism over time. As the earth continues to age, there would continue to be fewer and fewer volcanic eruptions over time, which, in the absence of human activity, would result in continued decreases in carbon dioxide. I wonder if carbon dioxide levels would eventually drop so low that photosynthesis might cease. It looks as though the planetary trajectory is towards extreme cold and eventually extreme heat.

There are also statistical methods to correct for inhomogeneities that don't involve any explicit adjustments (kriging, pairwise homogenization).

But they can? You can just set up a controlled experiment to compare the two and determine the net bias? No need for any time travel!

And that's another reason they love the Tmax charts. They get to ignore the cooling bias of Tmax occasioned by the switch to MMTS from CRS. You guys are the real climate hoaxers!

Why don't you read a history book? Most of the old temperature records were compiled from rooftop stations in cities, often near chimneys and such, and in the late 1800s, the thermometers were sometimes housed on balconies or window cavities. I bet that automated sensor has more of a cooling bias relative to a LiG thermometer housed in a cotton-region shelter [aka Stevenson screen] than any warming bias from the surroundings.

Always the raw Tmax temperatures so they can ignore the warming bias of resetting at 5 or 6 in the afternoon in the olden days. I'm gonna guess the Tmin temperatures don't show the same trend, and Tavg in between. Also, they typically don't even bother to grid these data [which would account for changes in elevation and geospacial siting of the stations] but rather just average all of the data. Sorry, can't do that!

"Large" concrete pad. It looks like it's less than 10 square feet. There's literally nothing wrong with this.

Hmm, while the statement will probably still be true, given the recent cooldown and continued cooler weather for the next several days, it now looks like there will be a pretty substantial warmup for the last few days of the month with a couple more days in the 70s looking probable.

Small hail and gusty winds again with the showers this afternoon.

Here's an interesting recent post on RealClimate: RealClimate: Andean glaciers have shrunk more than ever before in the entire Holocene

A little glimpse into our collective future: