psuhoffman

Then why is DC and Baltimores average snowfall declining?

Chuck I accounted for Decadal flux in my 30% statement. If we used the last 10 years as a judge Baltimore has lost over 50% of its snowfall since 100 years ago baltimore averaged about 27" and they are averaging about 12" the last 10 years. My 30% loss is based on its long term mean snowfall regression factoring in shorter turn fluxuations. Yes we have been in a particularly bad cycle and that is why over the last 10 years Baltimore is about 55% below normal. That will go up...we will have some -NAO+PDO cycle where Baltimore Averages 20" someday. But they probably will never have a period where they average close to 30" again like they did 100 years ago! The ups are less up and the downs are more down. This current cycle is 20% worse than the previous worst 8-10 year periods on record! You are acting like warming isn't hurting but it is...clearly. The cycle is making it even worse but the long term 100 year trend in snowfall is down regardless of the short term patterns.

I'm genuinely confused what part of this is even remotely controversial or complicated. The boundary is warming. That is a fact. And over the last 10 years there have been a number of storms where boundary temps were very marginal...within a degree or two of freezing in my area for a large part of the storm, where any colder would have helped me quite a bit. I can't tell you how much. No I can't say it would have been exactly 1f or 2f or 3f colder at a specific year. But it would have been colder. and ANY colder would have meant more snow. 30 years ago I would have got more snow from todays setup. I can't say if it would have been 1" more or maybe 4" more but it would have been more...why do we need to debate about exactly how much more. We do know that DC and Baltimore have lost about 30% of their snow on the whole to warming. While we can't predict exactly what it means to a specific storm the ones with marginal boundary temps are the ones being impacted most. I really really really don't get why this is even a controversial thing, its common sense. ETA: and the delmarva and NJ would have had more snow also! They lost snow to rain today also before it flipped and then had crazy low rations...a little colder and places that get 12" might have got 15 or 18". So even there it hurt them.

Remember that well. I was in Herndon VA. For about 8” there too

I think that’s a good estimate. I think some misunderstand when I say it’s hurting. Like last weekend. I didn’t think I should have got some 10” storm. But I do think 30 years ago that was a 2-3” snow instead of .4 qpf of slush bombs at 34-35 degrees. It’s hurting on the margins. And it all adds up. Not saying some 3” storm should have been 20” or anything crazy. But you add a couple other minor events. Tack on an inch here or there and some of these years aren’t as dreg.

Can we get that to rotate east some please

IVT

The thing is we can get stuck on exactly how much colder it would have been in 2000/1970/1950… yes the 2f/3f figure is an average. But it would have been colder. And any colder would have helped. I can’t say how much. Would I have got 6” instead of 5? Or 7 or 8. I dunno. But I find it weird that people are getting stuck on that specific “we can’t say exactly how much it’s hurting” argument. Yes we kinda do. On the whole DC has gone from 25” to 14” over 100 years. Maybe we can attribute some of that to the location change so let’s say the real figure is 25 to 17. That’s still a very significant decrease! No we can’t say each storm exactly how it would have been different but we know we’ve lost about 30% of our snowfall. Same at Baltimore. Why get stuck on “well exactly how much did it hurt”. It hurt. It is hurting. We are snowing less because it is warmer. Some storms it impacts more than others but when we’re borderline temps seems pretty obvious to me those are the most impacted.

Loved you in the East West all star game

On a micro scale somewhere will get 8-10 from the IVT yes. But the way they increased a large area indicates it wasn’t IVT related. Unless they are just hedging and know they will bust high where the IVT misses. Just wondering.

I was being honest. I never would have even gone 5-10. I was thinking 4-8 and I’d be dropping it right now to 3-7 maybe not increasing it. I honestly want to know what went into their decision. Maybe I’m missing something and I can learn.

Be careful

NWS just upped me to 8-12. Am I missing something? Hope they are right and I’m way wrong.

Thank you. I really appreciated the reply. Seems we are much closer on thinking and you can’t and shouldn’t have to justify others decisions lol. I was just perplexed because while there was some model support for that 5-10 call it relies on a decent amount of accumulation today. The NAMs and the SREF and RAP all showed what would justify a 5–10 call. But they all had accumulating snow today. The forecast went non accumulating today which was correct but still higher totals. Seemed like a weird combo of two opposite scenarios. Maybe a hedge?

Respectful question. Not trying to be critical just trying to understand rationale. My forecast is 5-10”. But it’s clear it’s too warm today and snow won’t start to stick until after 4pm or so. And the forecast kinda indicates this. But it’s also been clear to me there won’t be enough QPF to reach those totals if we lose all the precip today! I’ve been doing this math for 24 hours now and not getting it because the model runs that showed 5-10” also snowed 3-5” of that falling today right now! And the runs that didn’t only have me getting 3-5” not 5-10. There has never been anything that shows no snow until this evening AND 5-10”. There isn’t enough qpf left after 5pm for that. I only see about .3-.4 qpf across guidance after 5pm. So I guess I’m confused. What’s the thinking on the 5-10” forecast with all the snow coming tonight when everything I see indicates half the storm is over by then and only .3-.4 qpf left tonight up here.