Historic Storm frequencies increasing?

[Heisy]

While there have been dud winters mixed in 2001-02, Last year, it seems almost every winter some place from M/A to SNE gets a historic snowstorm. Is it just randomness or are big storms becoming more frequent? 

[JoMo]

No.

[blizzard1024]

see   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/climate-change-blizzard-global-warming_n_2649587.html?1360374066&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008%40lynnepeeps

 

 

This is why the average joe or sally are skeptical. It is counter-intuitive. Why don't they just leave this stuff out. Confuses the public and makes them skeptical. 

Extratropical cyclones need  a strong thermal contrast...with a warming climate preferentially toward the poles...these storms will be weaker and less frequent. It happens every year...when winter turns to summer. So it is reasonable to think with warmer winters...preferentially toward the polar regions... we will see storms but NOT as

bad as one that we just saw. This is meteorology 101. Maybe the snow is a bit heavier(MAYBE)...but also we have thousands of people measuring snow now...

compared to 30 or 40 years ago. Plus we find "snow inflation" with storm spotters wanting to make the weather channel and get reports on the news...it happens.

believe me. Anyway, this storm is a testament that we still could see major blizzards despite a warming climate. I do believe that IF the climate warms another

2-3C such storms will become rare in the northeast. Not more frequent or worse. Again it is basic baroclinic instability. Articles like this confuse the issue. I

wish they would stop doing this. It began with the blizzard of 1996 way back when... 

 

 

 

 

[bluewave]

see   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/climate-change-blizzard-global-warming_n_2649587.html?1360374066&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008%40lynnepeeps

 

 

This is why the average joe or sally are skeptical. It is counter-intuitive. Why don't they just leave this stuff out. Confuses the public and makes them skeptical. 

Extratropical cyclones need  a strong thermal contrast...with a warming climate preferentially toward the poles...these storms will be weaker and less frequent. It happens every year...when winter turns to summer. So it is reasonable to think with warmer winters...preferentially toward the polar regions... we will see storms but NOT as

bad as one that we just saw. This is meteorology 101. Maybe the snow is a bit heavier(MAYBE)...but also we have thousands of people measuring snow now...

compared to 30 or 40 years ago. Plus we find "snow inflation" with storm spotters wanting to make the weather channel and get reports on the news...it happens.

believe me. Anyway, this storm is a testament that we still could see major blizzards despite a warming climate. I do believe that IF the climate warms another

2-3C such storms will become rare in the northeast. Not more frequent or worse. Again it is basic baroclinic instability. Articles like this confuse the issue. I

wish they would stop doing this. It began with the blizzard of 1996 way back when... 

 

I don't see any confusion here. It's pretty straightforward that that increasing daily precipitation extremes can lead to heavier rain

and snowfall. Just last month we broke heavy rainfall and moisture records. With the cold this week it was snow.

 

It's a loading of the climate dice to produce more record breaking precipitation events.

 

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-extreme-rainfall-linked-global.html

 

In the most comprehensive review of changes to extreme rainfall ever undertaken, researchers evaluated the association between extreme rainfall and atmospheric temperatures at more than 8000 weather gauging stations around the world.

 

 

 

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/archive.html?year=2013&month=01

 

A very moist air mass was entrained into the atmosphere ahead of the frontal passage with extreme QPF’s (precipitable values) that exceeded any previously observed in January over the upper Midwest and Northeast. Caribou, Maine for instance reached a value of 1.21” at 7 a.m. on January 30th, tying their record for atmospheric moisture content last set on Jan. 14, 2005. Record January QPF’s were observed also in Detroit, Michigan: 1.21" old record: 1.20" on Jan. 11, 1975 and Lincoln, IL: 1.46" old Record: 1.35" Jan. 12, 1960. 

Widespread rainfalls of 1-3” occurred in Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and New England. Houghton Lake, Michigan recorded its wettest January day on record when 1.21” fell eclipsing their previous record of 1.08” set in 1938. The Memphis, Tennessee WFO (Weather Forecast Office) picked up 4.41” of rain on Jan. 29-30. Madison, Wisconsin recorded 1.62” of precipitation on Jan. 29th, its wettest January day since Jan. 1, 1892.

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/archive.html?year=2013&month=01

 

Record moisture and rains

 

Accompanying the exceptional January warmth yesterday were record levels of January moisture, as a flow of unusually moist air rode northwards from the Gulf of Mexico, where water temperatures were about 0.5°F above average. Meteorologists use a term called "precipitable water" to discuss how much water vapor is in the atmosphere. Precipitable water is defined as how much rain would fall on the ground if one took a vertical slice of the atmosphere above a given location and condensed all the water vapor into rain. Precipitable water levels tend to be highest in the summer, since warm air holds more waver vapor, and can exceed two inches in the Midwest U.S. In winter, though, it is rare to see precipitable water values higher than one inch. However, Tuesday night, precipitable water was well over an inch well into Canada, and two upper air stations--Detroit, MI and Lincoln IL--set all-time records for January moisture. From the 00Z Wednesday January 30 upper air balloon soundings taken at the 73 radiosonde stations in the contiguous U.S., we observed these precipitable water values for January:

Detroit, MI: New Record: 1.21" Old record: 1.20" 1/11/75

Lincoln, IL: New record: 1.46" Old Record: 1.35" 1/12/60

Alpena, MI: 2nd place, 0.99". First place: 1.01", 1/5/97

Buffalo, NY: 2nd place, 1.21". First place: 1.34", 1/15/95

Green Bay (4th), Shreveport (6th), and Little Rock (3rd) all had top-ten January precipitable water values. Radiosonde data goes back to 1948.

The exceptional moisture led to record rains in many regions of the Midwest, with numerous locations setting daily precipitation records. Two airports recorded their wettest January day on record, including Madison, WI (1.84", previous record 1.80" on January 1, 1892) and Houghton Lake, MI (1.21", old record 1.08" on in 1938.) Top-five wettest January days in recorded history were also set at Muskegon, MI (2.48"), Marquette, MI (1.21"), and South Bend, IN (1.94".) Here where I live, in Southeast Michigan, being outside yesterday was like walking through a surreal white soup. Rains like nothing I've ever seen in January fitfully poured from the sky throughout the day, ponding up on the frozen ground. Eerie white fog swirled over the sodden snow drifts as thunder rumbled overhead in temperatures 25°F above average. What planet was this? The heavy rains of 1.60" that fell in 26 hours at the nearby Flint airport made this month our wettest January in recorded history, with 3.66" of precipitation.

Jeff Masters

 

 

 

[blizzard1024]

I don't see any confusion here. It's pretty straightforward that that increasing daily precipitation extremes can lead to heavier rain

and snowfall. Just last month we broke heavy rainfall and moisture records. With the cold this week it was snow.

 

It's a loading of the climate dice to produce more record breaking precipitation events.

 

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-extreme-rainfall-linked-global.html

 

In the most comprehensive review of changes to extreme rainfall ever undertaken, researchers evaluated the association between extreme rainfall and atmospheric temperatures at more than 8000 weather gauging stations around the world.

 

 

 

precip-chart.jpg

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/archive.html?year=2013&month=01

 

A very moist air mass was entrained into the atmosphere ahead of the frontal passage with extreme QPF’s (precipitable values) that exceeded any previously observed in January over the upper Midwest and Northeast. Caribou, Maine for instance reached a value of 1.21” at 7 a.m. on January 30th, tying their record for atmospheric moisture content last set on Jan. 14, 2005. Record January QPF’s were observed also in Detroit, Michigan: 1.21" old record: 1.20" on Jan. 11, 1975 and Lincoln, IL: 1.46" old Record: 1.35" Jan. 12, 1960. 

Widespread rainfalls of 1-3” occurred in Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and New England. Houghton Lake, Michigan recorded its wettest January day on record when 1.21” fell eclipsing their previous record of 1.08” set in 1938. The Memphis, Tennessee WFO (Weather Forecast Office) picked up 4.41” of rain on Jan. 29-30. Madison, Wisconsin recorded 1.62” of precipitation on Jan. 29th, its wettest January day since Jan. 1, 1892.

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/archive.html?year=2013&month=01

 

Record moisture and rains

 

Accompanying the exceptional January warmth yesterday were record levels of January moisture, as a flow of unusually moist air rode northwards from the Gulf of Mexico, where water temperatures were about 0.5°F above average. Meteorologists use a term called "precipitable water" to discuss how much water vapor is in the atmosphere. Precipitable water is defined as how much rain would fall on the ground if one took a vertical slice of the atmosphere above a given location and condensed all the water vapor into rain. Precipitable water levels tend to be highest in the summer, since warm air holds more waver vapor, and can exceed two inches in the Midwest U.S. In winter, though, it is rare to see precipitable water values higher than one inch. However, Tuesday night, precipitable water was well over an inch well into Canada, and two upper air stations--Detroit, MI and Lincoln IL--set all-time records for January moisture. From the 00Z Wednesday January 30 upper air balloon soundings taken at the 73 radiosonde stations in the contiguous U.S., we observed these precipitable water values for January:

Detroit, MI: New Record: 1.21" Old record: 1.20" 1/11/75

Lincoln, IL: New record: 1.46" Old Record: 1.35" 1/12/60

Alpena, MI: 2nd place, 0.99". First place: 1.01", 1/5/97

Buffalo, NY: 2nd place, 1.21". First place: 1.34", 1/15/95

Green Bay (4th), Shreveport (6th), and Little Rock (3rd) all had top-ten January precipitable water values. Radiosonde data goes back to 1948.

The exceptional moisture led to record rains in many regions of the Midwest, with numerous locations setting daily precipitation records. Two airports recorded their wettest January day on record, including Madison, WI (1.84", previous record 1.80" on January 1, 1892) and Houghton Lake, MI (1.21", old record 1.08" on in 1938.) Top-five wettest January days in recorded history were also set at Muskegon, MI (2.48"), Marquette, MI (1.21"), and South Bend, IN (1.94".) Here where I live, in Southeast Michigan, being outside yesterday was like walking through a surreal white soup. Rains like nothing I've ever seen in January fitfully poured from the sky throughout the day, ponding up on the frozen ground. Eerie white fog swirled over the sodden snow drifts as thunder rumbled overhead in temperatures 25°F above average. What planet was this? The heavy rains of 1.60" that fell in 26 hours at the nearby Flint airport made this month our wettest January in recorded history, with 3.66" of precipitation.

Jeff Masters

 

 

 

What I have noticed is more southerly flow events with heavier winter precipitation which bring heavier winter rains...not snow. I don't see the connections between more blizzards and climate change. You need

COLD air and a lot of it to produce the kind of contrast you need for a blizzard. Trenberth made a comment about it being too cold for snow in the past. There were many blizzards/snowstorms with temps in the single digits and teens in the past around here. This is a false statement. I do agree we have seen more warm moist southerly flow "cold season" events though which bring

record moisture north...but in the form of rain. A stronger subtropical ridge off the east coast is one culprit...could be related to the negative PDO though which favors "La-Nina-ish" conditions which in turn favors stronger subtropical ridges.  Basically it beefs up the walker circulation.  Of course some warming on top of this natural variation is probably why we are breaking some of these precip records.  

[blizzard1024]

"A very moist air mass was entrained into the atmosphere ahead of the frontal passage with extreme QPF’s (precipitable values) that exceeded any previously observed in January over the upper Midwest and Northeast. Caribou, Maine for instance reached a value of 1.21” at 7 a.m. on January 30th, tying their record for atmospheric moisture content last set on Jan. 14, 2005. Record January QPF’s were observed also in Detroit, Michigan: 1.21" old record: 1.20" on Jan. 11, 1975 and Lincoln, IL: 1.46" old Record: 1.35" Jan. 12, 1960. 

Widespread rainfalls of 1-3” occurred in Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and New England. Houghton Lake, Michigan recorded its wettest January day on record when 1.21” fell eclipsing their previous record of 1.08” set in 1938. The Memphis, Tennessee WFO (Weather Forecast Office) picked up 4.41” of rain on Jan. 29-30. Madison, Wisconsin recorded 1.62” of precipitation on Jan. 29th, its wettest January day since Jan. 1, 1892.

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/archive.html?year=2013&month=01

 

Record moisture and rains

 

Accompanying the exceptional January warmth yesterday were record levels of January moisture, as a flow of unusually moist air rode northwards from the Gulf of Mexico, where water temperatures were about 0.5°F above average. Meteorologists use a term called "precipitable water" to discuss how much water vapor is in the atmosphere. Precipitable water is defined as how much rain would fall on the ground if one took a vertical slice of the atmosphere above a given location and condensed all the water vapor into rain. Precipitable water levels tend to be highest in the summer, since warm air holds more waver vapor, and can exceed two inches in the Midwest U.S. In winter, though, it is rare to see precipitable water values higher than one inch. However, Tuesday night, precipitable water was well over an inch well into Canada, and two upper air stations--Detroit, MI and Lincoln IL--set all-time records for January moisture. From the 00Z Wednesday January 30 upper air balloon soundings taken at the 73 radiosonde stations in the contiguous U.S., we observed these precipitable water values for January:

Detroit, MI: New Record: 1.21" Old record: 1.20" 1/11/75

Lincoln, IL: New record: 1.46" Old Record: 1.35" 1/12/60

Alpena, MI: 2nd place, 0.99". First place: 1.01", 1/5/97

Buffalo, NY: 2nd place, 1.21". First place: 1.34", 1/15/95

Green Bay (4th), Shreveport (6th), and Little Rock (3rd) all had top-ten January precipitable water values. Radiosonde data goes back to 1948...."

 

 

 

 

He is using radiosondes for measuring water vapor??? I thought they were not accurate especially in the upper troposphere? They can't use

these. Paltridge (2009) was torn apart because of this. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Which is it? Are radiosondes accurate enough

to measure water vapor?? If so this, this validates Paltridge (2009) which shows upper tropospheric water vapor declining.....that is not true according

to Desser. It is also not true according to the GCMs. 

[bluewave]

What I have noticed is more southerly flow events with heavier winter precipitation which bring heavier winter rains...not snow. I don't see the connections between more blizzards and climate change. You need

COLD air and a lot of it to produce the kind of contrast you need for a blizzard. Trenberth made a comment about it being too cold for snow in the past. There were many blizzards/snowstorms with temps in the single digits and teens in the past around here. This is a false statement. I do agree we have seen more warm moist southerly flow "cold season" events though which bring

record moisture north...but in the form of rain. A stronger subtropical ridge off the east coast is one culprit...could be related to the negative PDO though which favors "La-Nina-ish" conditions which in turn favors stronger subtropical ridges.  Basically it beefs up the walker circulation.  Of course some warming on top of this natural variation is probably why we are breaking some of these precip records.  

 

Blizzards as well as heavy rainfall events have more moisture to work with in a warming climate so it's increasing the odds

of extreme precipitation events. 

[bluewave]

He is using radiosondes for measuring water vapor??? I thought they were not accurate especially in the upper troposphere? They can't use

these. Paltridge (2009) was torn apart because of this. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Which is it? Are radiosondes accurate enough

to measure water vapor?? If so this, this validates Paltridge (2009) which shows upper tropospheric water vapor declining.....that is not true according

to Desser. It is also not true according to the GCMs. 

 

If you doubt that data, just look at the increasing pattern of record breaking precipitation events which is consistent

with higher PW's.

[FPizz]

I wonder what they used to blame past storms on?

[blizzard1024]

Blizzards as well as heavy rainfall events have more moisture to work with in a warming climate so it's increasing the odds

of extreme precipitation events. 

 

But the premise that a baroclinic wave which needs a strong horizontal temperature contrast will become

more frequent is what I disagree with.  It takes dynamics to develop such storms that rely on the vertical

wind shear and other dynamical processes including low-level cold air that make such storms. With less

of a temperature contrast from global warming, I see less of these types of storms. I do see more southerly

moisture advection events which is indeed leading to the data of more cold season rainfall as is pointed out. 

With a warmer climate, like I said above (2-3C warmer), we would see less of these blizzards.  It is not

as simple as people think. Just like higher SSTs don't necessarily mean more or intense hurricanes.

There is changing wind shear issues among other details. 

 

But I also tend to believe the increasing PW from the radiosondes. But most of this increase has been in

the lower troposphere with a slight decrease in the upper troposphere as per Paltridge (2009). Like I said

Paltridge was torn to shreds by the climate science community. But I think his work actually makes sense.

Warmer surface temperatures lead to more evaporation, but then you get

more precipitation which is a sink of the primary GHG, water vapor. You also get slight drying in the

upper troposphere to compensate for the more vigorous upward motion which is needed to support

heavier precipitation. You can't have net increasing vertical motion or the whole atmosphere will advect

upward away from us! Now we know this wouldn't happen. So there is stronger subsidence when

you have stronger vertical motions. The only way to have heavier precipitation is from stronger vertical

motions. With heavier precipitation you get more latent heating which increases the diabatic heating term

which leads to increased vertical motions. This is basic "omega" equation. Thus there must be more

subsidence too. And the net result from more extreme precipitation events is drying. It is a self regulating

process. 

 

But if you discount radiosonde water vapor data then you can't use this PW data and the "records"

being broken are suspect in the long term.  The radiosonde data is part of the reanalysis system

which has been touted as not a good indicator of long term climate trends. However I see it

used all the time supporting warmer lower atmosphere temperatures. bad climate science IMO.

 

[blizzard1024]

I wonder what they used to blame past storms on?

In the 1970s it was the coming next ice age.....

[The_Global_Warmer]

So increased warming has no factor on water vapor?

Those above normal ssts, record ohc doesnt increase moisture availability?

bringing up past storms is strawman and not good comparitive logic.

And more strawman is arguing about induvidual systems and we cant prove it.

so what.

Saying:

1. This snow storm was as intense as it was because of AGW.

2. AGW warming will increase available and potential moisture in the atmosphere for systems to use.

The Earth is at record warmth and record OHC. How can it not have an effect always.

[Roger Smith]

The logic of this theory suggests that SUV sales must have peaked in 1888. Or 25,000 B.C.

[weathafella]

Is there AGW? IMHO yes.

Is this storm attributable? Not IMO

A mid latitude cyclone of this magnitude has occurred in a frequency that hasn't changed over the long term. The area hit was in a dry spell. Climo stepped in to change things and that includes snow climo for the big cities effected. While it may be convenient, this event cannot be blamed on AGW. The clImate records are full of them at regular intervals back hundreds of years.

[bluewave]

Is there AGW? IMHO yes.

Is this storm attributable? Not IMO

A mid latitude cyclone of this magnitude has occurred in a frequency that hasn't changed over the long term. The area hit was in a dry spell. Climo stepped in to change things and that includes snow climo for the big cities effected. While it may be convenient, this event cannot be blamed on AGW. The clImate records are full of them at regular intervals back hundreds of years.

 

You can look at it another way though. A warming climate will increase the odds that storms that do come along have more

moisture and energy to work with. So while you probably can't point to any one storm without a detailed series of studies,

we know that storms of this type fit the pattern of record snowfalls and rainfalls that we have been experiencing as the

climate has been warming.

[bluewave]

So increased warming has no factor on water vapor?

Those above normal ssts, record ohc doesnt increase moisture availability?

bringing up past storms is strawman and not good comparitive logic.

And more strawman is arguing about induvidual systems and we cant prove it.

so what.

Saying:

1. This snow storm was as intense as it was because of AGW.

2. AGW warming will increase available and potential moisture in the atmosphere for systems to use.

The Earth is at record warmth and record OHC. How can it not have an effect always.

 

The interesting thing about this storm was the early phase between the northern and southern streams that occurred.

Normally, these type of split flow phases near the Northeast coastline are a little too far east to dump the record 

amount of snowfall further west that this one did. The record SST's that have been present off the coast recently

have been in tandem with more blocking than normal in the region. Every little bit of extra blocking helps out in 

phasing situations between the jets. The blocking held on near the Canadian Maritimes as the vorts phased

near the Northeast Coastline. Certainly an unusual blizzard pattern for this region which normally has

a 50/50 low in that position. You can see the very warm sst's have also held on in that region.

 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/2012/SciSpot/SS1209/

 

During the first six months of 2012, sea surface temperatures in the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem were the highest ever recorded, according to the latest Ecosystem Advisory issued by NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). Above-average temperatures were found in all parts of the ecosystem, from the ocean bottom to the sea surface and across the region, and the above average temperatures extended beyond the shelf break front to the Gulf Stream.

 

 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

Both sides seem to be skirting the main issue.

 

Extreme rain events are predicted to increase and have been observed to do so. But have extreme snowfall events? 

 

The evidence presented by bluewave suggests to me the answer is "yes". 

 

Unless there is some reason to doubt these results, I would be forced to conclude that AGW is increasing the frequency of extreme snowfall. 

 

 

Both sides in this thread need to further address this point. Has extreme snowfall increased, or has it not. Yes or no. Should be an easy answer.

 

Go.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

Both sides seem to be skirting the main issue.

 

Extreme rain events are predicted to increase and have been observed to do so. But have extreme snowfall events? 

 

The evidence presented by bluewave suggests to me the answer is "yes". 

 

Unless there is some reason to doubt these results, I would be forced to conclude that AGW is increasing the frequency of extreme snowfall. 

 

 

Both sides in this thread need to further address this point. Has extreme snowfall increased, or has it not. Yes or no. Should be an easy answer.

 

Go.

 

The scientific side already knows the answer to this question, its the other side that continues to obfuscate the debate. The answer is yes, all extreme precipitation weather events are increasing. It isn't normal to have 5 or more storms of 24"+ of snow in the same NE general region over the last 5-10 years. But of course over time these extreme snow events will become just extreme rain events as the cold air becomes increasing difficult to manufacture a snowstorm. Not the mention it is becoming more and more likely to see convective like snowstorms producing thundersnow than before. I can see thundersnow as becoming much more prevelant in the future with intense winter storms. AGW is natural cyclical weather's steriods.  

[skierinvermont]

The scientific side already knows the answer to this question, its the other side that continues to obfuscate the debate. The answer is yes, all extreme precipitation weather events are increasing. It isn't normal to have 5 or more storms of 24"+ of snow in the same NE general region over the last 5-10 years. But of course over time these extreme snow events will become just extreme rain events as the cold air becomes increasing difficult to manufacture a snowstorm. Not the mention it is becoming more and more likely to see convective like snowstorms producing thundersnow than before. I can see thundersnow as becoming much more prevelant in the future with intense winter storms. AGW is natural cyclical weather's steriods.  

 

Actually upon closer look, the evidence by bluewave is "1 -day winter precip extreme" which would include rainfall (would almost exclusively be rainfall if we are talking about QPF since few snow storms bring the same QPF as extreme winter rain storms). 

 

So again, if there is evidence of increasing extreme snowfall events, I'd like to see it. 

 

As far as I know, the data at DCA, BWI, PHL, NYC, and BOS don't show a lot of trend over 110+ years of data. Overall snowfall has declined at DCA and BWI. Don't know about extreme snowfall.

[ORH_wxman]

Actually upon closer look, the evidence by bluewave is "1 -day winter precip extreme" which would include rainfall (would almost exclusively be rainfall if we are talking about QPF since few snow storms bring the same QPF as extreme winter rain storms). 

 

So again, if there is evidence of increasing extreme snowfall events, I'd like to see it. 

 

As far as I know, the data at DCA, BWI, PHL, NYC, and BOS don't show a lot of trend over 110+ years of data. Overall snowfall has declined at DCA and BWI. Don't know about extreme snowfall.

 

 

I'll try and plot >18" snowfalls for New England major climo stations by decade at some point over the next day or two. I could do 20" or 24" but the sample size becomes pretty low doing that. Even 18" is iffy. We also run into a problem with homogenius measuring techniques though going back far enough where 6 hourly totals were not used which biases the measurements low early on in the record. Usually this won't affect seasonal climo very much, but it does affect the very large storms where compaction is a significant issue.

[ORH_wxman]

what is the rationale for asserting New England is a location to prove or disprove the speculation that global warming is or is not resulting in etreme weather events?

 

 

The title of this thread was New England blizzard related to climate change. I would think looking at New England large snowstorms would be pretty relevant to this thread to see if there has in fact been a pattern or trend in them.

[ORH_wxman]

based on the links I provided, climate change is revolving on NE*?

*I am a born and raised New Englander.

 

 

None of those links you provided show any evidence climate change is increasing or causing blizzards. I just watched a video that compares global warming to steroids that makes no mention of snowstorms. I read a transcript where Jeff Masters talks about floods, droughts, summer heat, and tornado outbreaks (the latter of which also has no evdience of increasing due to climate change). The beginning of the transcript mentioned the snowstorms of 2011 but then never mentioned them again and never explained how they were a product of climate change. The IPCC has no evidence of increased blizzards.

 

Do you have any peer reviewed evidence that links blizzards to climate change? Blizzards are extreme weather, but just because other extremes like heat waves are increasing, doesn't mean they should be lumped in together unless there is sufficient evidence.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Every weather event, every moment is effected by AGW as long as there has been any change in the Earth's energy budget.

 

If you do not understand this, well I can't help you.

 

If you want to use flawed logic like the "setup" is yada yada yada go ahead, that is not the point.

 

 

I don't think anyone is saying AGW actually caused the blizzard at this point.

 

 

I think everyone pretty much grasps how AGW effects all weather all the time.

 

 

The only debate should be how and how much.

 

From the OP's article.

 

 

 

Michael Mann, a climatologist who directs the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, compared a major storm like Nemo -- or Hurricane Irene or Superstorm Sandy, for that matter -- to a basketball slam-dunk with a lower net."If you take the basketball court and raise it a foot, you're going to see more slam-dunks," Mann said. "Not every dunk is due to raising the floor, but you'll start seeing them happen more often then they ought to."

 

 

That statement isn't supported by a lot of evidence at this point.  It may only be that precipitation event's are heavier. 

[ORH_wxman]

Every weather event, every moment is effected by AGW as long as there has been any change in the Earth's energy budget.

 

If you do not understand this, well I can't help you.

 

If you want to use flawed logic like the "setup" is yada yada yada go ahead, that is not the point.

 

 

I don't think anyone is saying AGW actually caused the blizzard at this point.

 

 

I think everyone pretty much grasps how AGW effects all weather all the time.

 

 

The only debate should be how and how much.

 

From the OP's article.

 

 

 

 

 

That statement isn't supported by a lot of evidence at this point.  It may only be that precipitation event's are heavier. 

 

 

That isn't what is being debated...the butterfly analogy is always there.

 

 

Heavy precip events (specifically the flooding rains) are not equivalent to heavy snowstorms. Someone will have to produce some legit peer reviewed evidence to say that blizzards like the recent one are becoming more likely with climate change.

[skierinvermont]

Every weather event, every moment is effected by AGW as long as there has been any change in the Earth's energy budget.

 

If you do not understand this, well I can't help you.

 

If you want to use flawed logic like the "setup" is yada yada yada go ahead, that is not the point.

 

 

I don't think anyone is saying AGW actually caused the blizzard at this point.

 

 

I think everyone pretty much grasps how AGW effects all weather all the time.

 

 

The only debate should be how and how much.

 

From the OP's article.

 

 

 

 

 

That statement isn't supported by a lot of evidence at this point.  It may only be that precipitation event's are heavier. 

 

That's not the point Friv. The point is HOW is AGW effecting blizzards. More or less common or no change. 

 

I want numbers. None in this thread yet.

 

 

 

IMO it would probably hinge mostly on how AGW effects blocking and amplification of the jet stream. 

 

 

The "more moisture = more blizzards" argument doesn't hold water IMO (pun intended) because the climate zones just shift northwards. Major snow storms occur in a climate zone of a particular constant temperature which simply shifts northward with warming. 

 

The climate zone for blizzards could probably be defined as something like locations with an average January high between 10-45F. Below that, not enough moisture, above that not cold enough for snow.

 

As the world warms, this zone doesn't warm. It simply shifts northwards. If the temperature is constant, moisture content is also likely fairly unchanged. 

[blizzard1024]

Gonna have to take a break from these great discussions. Thanks to all...

even those who I don't see eye to eye with. I respect your opinions. I really

do. I have so much work to do in the next few weeks with my real job that

I just have to shed this for a while.

[bluewave]

Both sides seem to be skirting the main issue.

 

Extreme rain events are predicted to increase and have been observed to do so. But have extreme snowfall events? 

 

The evidence presented by bluewave suggests to me the answer is "yes". 

 

Unless there is some reason to doubt these results, I would be forced to conclude that AGW is increasing the frequency of extreme snowfall. 

 

 

Both sides in this thread need to further address this point. Has extreme snowfall increased, or has it not. Yes or no. Should be an easy answer.

 

Go.

 

NYC has seen 6 of its top 10 heaviest snowfalls since 1996. We have also recently set the record snowiest

January, February, and October. You'll also notice those January and February records

were set by a very wide margin. There were 2  top 3 seasonal snowfalls since 1996.

 

 

Biggest Snowstorms 

One Foot or more Central Park 1869 to Present

(through Jul 9 2011)

 

Amount

Year & Date(s)

 

26.9 inches

February 11-12, 2006

 

26.4 inches

December 26-27, 1947

 

21.0 inches

March 12-14, 1888

 

20.9 inches

February 25-26, 2010

 

20.2 inches

January 7-8, 1996

 

20.0 inches

December 26-27, 2010

 

19.8 inches

February 16-17, 2003

 

19.0 inches

January 26-27, 2011

 

18.1 inches

March 7-8, 1941

 

18.0 inches

December 26, 1872

 

 

 

SNOWIEST MONTHS

October2.9     20110.8     19250.5     19520.5     1876

November19.0    189814.0    188212.8    1938 6.3    18924.7    2012 5.0    1896 4.7    1989 3.7    1945 3.5    1872        3.2    1967 & 1936 2.9    1995

December 29.6    194727.0    187225.3    194822.5    188321.6    190420.1    201019.8    200318.6    196015.8    195915.6    194514.9    1933

January 36.0    201127.4    192526.1    199624.5    192323.6    193520.5    187720.3    197818.4    190517.5    1882       17.3    2004 & 187916.7    196116.0    1893

                                February 36.9    201027.9    193426.9    200626.4    1994           26.3    1926                  26.1    2003              25.3    1920 & 189923.6    196723.0    197821.8    190721.5    1983       

                                March30.5    189625.5    191622.3    188821.5    191421.1    195619.2    194118.5    196017.4    196717.0    189015.9    1958

April   13.5    187510.2    1915 9.6    1982 8.5    1924        6.5    1944 & 1917 6.4    1938 5.8    1907 5.0    1887 4.2    1956 4.0    2003

        May     Trace   1977 & 194

10 Top Snowiest Months                         36.9    Feb 201036.0    Jan 201130.5    Mar 189629.6    Dec 194727.9    Feb 193427.4    Jan 192527.0    Dec 187226.9    Feb 200626.4    Feb 199426.3    Feb 1926           26.1    Feb 2003 & Jan 199625.5    Mar 1916

 

 

Snowiest Seasons  75.6    1995-96              63.2    1947-48                61.9    2010-11         

[Kelathos]

Just a FYI, as you're all quite convinced of the impact of OHC. I'm in no place to deny it, but would rather show some hisotical context.

 

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mkx/?n=biggestsnowstorms-us

 

I would ask that if poles warm the fastest, wouldn't the lesser temperatutre difference mean fewer storms?

[FloridaJohn]

Just a FYI, as you're all quite convinced of the impact of OHC. I'm in no place to deny it, but would rather show some hisotical context.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mkx/?n=biggestsnowstorms-us

I would ask that if poles warm the fastest, wouldn't the lesser temperatutre difference mean fewer storms?

From this list, I count:

Before 1950: 2

1950s: 3

1960s: 2

1970s: 3

1980s: 2

1990s: 3

2000s: 5

2010s: 2 so far

From that data, I see an argument that there is an increasing severity of snowstorms.

I don't have any data on the total number of storms each year,however, it is reasonable that there may be an overall decrease in the total number of storms each year, but the severity of those storms may increase. I don't see anything incompatible in that statement, although I will say that there probably isn't enough data yet for that to be a definitive statement.

[ohleary]

"The two key ingredients in a big snow: just cold-enough temperatures and a lot of moisture. Combine the chilled air converging on the East with the massive moisture coming from the Gulf of Mexico region and you've got the "perfect setup for a big storm," Kevin Trenberth, of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, told The Huffington Post in an email."

 

 

When they actually say "cold" they have to qualify it as "just cold-enough"!  Wouldn't want the doomsday folks to think there is "cold" air still around.  And then it's "chilled" air with "massive" moisture!  Awesome.

 

"As Trenberth explained, the ideal temperature for a blizzard is just below freezing -- just cold enough to crystalize water into snow. Below that, the atmosphere's ability to hold moisture to create those snowflakes drops by 4 percent for every one degree Fahrenheit fall in temperature."

 

This paragraph is rife with facepalm. There is no such thing as the "atmosphere's ability to hold moisture".  And they make it sound like it only decreases below freezing.  And just below freezing is the best temperature for crystalizing water to snow.  Wrong!  The best temperature for a blizzard is just below freezing?  At what level?  The surface?  250 mb?  Stupid statement!

 

"In the past, temperatures at this time of year would have been a lot below freezing," Trenberth said. In other words, it's been too cold to snow heavily. But that may become less of an obstacle for snow in the Northeast."

 

In the past temperatures would have been a lot below freezing?  All the time huh?  Every Feb. 9th?  Okay, riiiiight.  And it's been too cold in the past to snow heavily? 

 

 

That article is Twister in written form.