PottercountyWXobserver Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 "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. It is true, storms are just cold enough to produce these major snowstorms. We are seeing thermal gradients in the winter time like nothing before. Either caused by the record warm SSTs off the Atlantic, or record SE temperatures meeting up with arctic outbreaks caused by record arctic blocking displacing the colder air, meanwhile the Arctic torches. That is why we are seeing a noticable increase in thundersnow events because the convection with these storms since the 1993 superstorm is incredible. Yes there were thundersnows before, but I guarantee if someone did a case study, I bet they would find a correlation between AGW and thundersnow events increasing. We are seeing snowstorms increasing with snowfall rates than we have before, setting new 24hr daily snowfall totals. Even the convective nature of Lake Effect snow is increasing with the lake temperatures warmer than before. Heck even instability as a whole is increasing in the winter months, places are seeing severe thunderstorms that never have in the north in January! Places south of Buffalo, NY had CG thunderstorms in January, unheard of. Weather events are related to AGW more than what people think, as Friv has said it has to, the more energy a working system has to work with there has to be some kind of long term implications in our weather events. Yes weather is cyclical and weather patterns show a distribution pattern, but these distribution patterns are becoming more amplified than before due to the increase in extreme weather events. Yes eventually with a warming world, there will be a threshold crossed where major snowstorms will just be major rainstorms as just cold enough air to feed these massive snowstorms becomes increasing difficult to obtain, thus is why you are seeing an overall trend of lower seasonal snowfall totals at the majority of observation locations, BUT and increase of extreme weather events ie 1-2 day totals. But even in a more advanced warming world, extreme cold air out breaks can still happen, and when they do if hooked up with an advanced wetter world, there will be even greater storms in the future than what we are seeing. Eventually yes if AGW isn't addressed and we see continuous warming, I fully expect even extreme weather events to eventually cross a threshold to the point where the thermal gradients will no longer be enough to drive the extreme type storms. Even with the decline of extreme weather events eventually, there will still be the potential for very very extreme weather events mainly focused during the winter timeframe mainly because cold air will still always be present near the poles during the normal low solar insolation time frame. So if I were to make a prediction now, places that normally don't see 2-4" QPF storms in the winter time period, I fully expect Quebec and Ontario to shatter records in the future for snow events, as places south torch under the WAA ie Northeast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 It's all the creation of Al Gore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 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? There have been more 10" snowstorms for NYC recently...The decade breaksowns... 1870's...5 1880's...1 1890's...5 1900's...4 1910's...5 1920's...5 1930's...3 1940's...4 1950's...3 1960's...6 1970's...3 1980's...1 1990's...5 2000's...7 2010's...5 The 1960's had the most until the 2000's...the 2010's have five so far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailstoned Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 It's all the creation of Al Gore. Neither original, nor funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchel Volk Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Many extremes this winter, There were at lease three storms that went under 930MB. The 925 in the Atlantic and two in the Pacific. In addition I notice many that went under 950MB, yes the weather is getting more extreme. You could only look at the last blizzard the QP was extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisy Posted February 11, 2013 Author Share Posted February 11, 2013 There have been more 10" snowstorms for NYC recently...The decade breaksowns... 1870's...5 1880's...1 1890's...5 1900's...4 1910's...5 1920's...5 1930's...3 1940's...4 1950's...3 1960's...6 1970's...3 1980's...1 1990's...5 2000's...7 2010's...5 The 1960's had the most until the 2000's...the 2010's have five so far... It just seems this way. I'm only 26 so really have no clue....I mean 1996 was the "storm of the century" for philadelphia yet we got close to those snowfall totals twice in 2 years. Idk...just seems every winter some place from the south to NE gets a record breaking snowfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 It is true, storms are just cold enough to produce these major snowstorms. We are seeing thermal gradients in the winter time like nothing before. Either caused by the record warm SSTs off the Atlantic, or record SE temperatures meeting up with arctic outbreaks caused by record arctic blocking displacing the colder air, meanwhile the Arctic torches. That is why we are seeing a noticable increase in thundersnow events because the convection with these storms since the 1993 superstorm is incredible. Yes there were thundersnows before, but I guarantee if someone did a case study, I bet they would find a correlation between AGW and thundersnow events increasing. We are seeing snowstorms increasing with snowfall rates than we have before, setting new 24hr daily snowfall totals. Even the convective nature of Lake Effect snow is increasing with the lake temperatures warmer than before. Heck even instability as a whole is increasing in the winter months, places are seeing severe thunderstorms that never have in the north in January! Places south of Buffalo, NY had CG thunderstorms in January, unheard of. Weather events are related to AGW more than what people think, as Friv has said it has to, the more energy a working system has to work with there has to be some kind of long term implications in our weather events. Yes weather is cyclical and weather patterns show a distribution pattern, but these distribution patterns are more amplified than before due to the increase in extreme weather events. Yes eventually with a warming world, there will be a threshold crossed where major snowstorms will just be major rainstorms as just cold enough air to feed these massive snowstorms becomes increasing difficult to obtain, thus is why you are seeing an overall trend of lower seasonal snowfall totals at the majority of observation locations, BUT and increase of extreme weather events ie 1-2 day totals. But even in a more advanced warming world, extreme cold air out breaks can still happen, and when they do if hooked up with a more wetter world, there will be even greater storms in the future than what we are seeing. Eventually yes if AGW isn't addressed and we seeing continuous warming, I fully expect even extreme weather events to eventually cross a thresshold to the point where the thermal gradients will no longer be enough to drive the extreme type storms. But even in the decline of extreme weather events eventually, there will still be the potential for very very extreme weather events mainly focused during the winter timeframe mainly because cold air will still always be present near the globes during the normal low solar insolation time frame. So if I were to make a prediction now, places that normally don't see 2-4" QPF storms in the winter time period, I expect Quebec and Ontario to shatter records in the future for snowevents, as places south torch under the WAA ie Northeast. I'm sure the advent of the internet has far more to do with "reports of thundersnow" that 0.8 degrees of warming over 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I'm sure the advent of the internet has far more to do with "reports of thundersnow" that 0.8 degrees of warming over 100 years. I don't think so, the science is supportive with the convective increase with winter storms. Hourly snowfall rates have increased along with the chance of thunderstorm activity associated with winter storms than ever before. Even without the internet, people still reported the weather, you would think a phenomena such as thundersnow would have been reported. There are reports of thundersnow in the past, but such occurances are happening much more frequently. I mean thundersnow doesn't even seem special anymore, it seems to happen with every major winter storm now regardless of location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I'm sure the advent of the internet has far more to do with "reports of thundersnow" that 0.8 degrees of warming over 100 years. You have shown over and over that spatial/temporal distribution of the warming is completely lost on you. You have said this dozens of times. And have been shown over and over and over and over how it's a complete straw-man argument. While this is just February. It's a potential snow month for all of these cities. I would say they show quite a bit more than 0.8C of warming. Just because you choose to believe it doesn't mean large changes haven't happened and will continue to happen. February Temperature Minneapolis-St.Paul, MN February 1895 - 2012 Average = 17.19 degF February 1895 - 2012 Trend = 0.69 degF / Decade February Temperature Blue Hill, MA February 1895 - 2012 Average = 27.01 degF February 1895 - 2012 Trend = 0.42 degF / Decade February Temperature New York, NY February 1895 - 2012 Average = 32.06 degF February 1895 - 2012 Trend = 0.67 degF / Decade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I'm sure the advent of the internet has far more to do with "reports of thundersnow" that 0.8 degrees of warming over 100 years. You have shown over and over that spatial/temporal distribution of the warming is completely lost on you. You have said this dozens of times. And have been shown over and over and over and over how it's a complete straw-man argument. While this is just February. It's a potential snow month for all of these cities. I would say they show quite a bit more than 0.8C of warming. Just because you choose to believe it doesn't mean large changes haven't happened and will continue to happen. February TemperatureMinneapolis-St.Paul, MN February 1895 - 2012 Average = 17.19 degFFebruary 1895 - 2012 Trend = 0.69 degF / Decade February TemperatureBlue Hill, MA February 1895 - 2012 Average = 27.01 degFFebruary 1895 - 2012 Trend = 0.42 degF / Decade February TemperatureNew York, NY February 1895 - 2012 Average = 32.06 degFFebruary 1895 - 2012 Trend = 0.67 degF / Decade I could find equal amounts of places with no upward trend at all. Nice cherry picking large cities.... You really think NY city is a reasonable example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I could find equal amounts of places with no upward trend at all. Nice cherry picking large cities.... You really think NY city is a reasonable example? No you could not. Mid-latitude winter has warmed, on average, more than .8C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I could find equal amounts of places with no upward trend at all. Nice cherry picking large cities.... You really think NY city is a reasonable example? No you could not. Mid-latitude winter has warmed, on average, more than .8C. Missouri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I'm sure the advent of the internet has far more to do with "reports of thundersnow" that 0.8 degrees of warming over 100 years. I don't think so, the science is supportive with the convective increase with winter storms. Hourly snowfall rates have increased along with the chance of thunderstorm activity associated with winter storms than ever before. Even without the internet, people still reported the weather, you would think a phenomena such as thundersnow would have been reported. There are reports of thundersnow in the past, but such occurances are happening much more frequently. I mean thundersnow doesn't even seem special anymore, it seems to happen with every major winter storm now regardless of location. Do this for me... Anyone. How many trained observers are there today versus 25 years ago. I bet there are at least 100 times as many. How did the average person have any contact with the NWS 25 years ago? Weather radio.... Point made... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 snowfall is on the rise for NYC on average...NYC has seen more frequent snowy periods also...These are the top snowiest 30 day periods for the city... 30" in 30 days...The short list...02/24-03/24, 1896.....32.0"02/06-03/07, 1914.....35.2"12/26-01/24, 1948.....43.4"01/15-02/13, 1961.....34.1"01/16-02/14, 1978.....37.2"02/02-03/03, 1994.....30.8"12/14-01/12, 1996.....35.2"01/28-02/26, 2010.....38.2"01/07-02/05, 2011.....37.6" I lived through six of these periods going back to 1961 when I was 12...before that there were only three such periods... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Do this for me... Anyone. How many trained observers are there today versus 25 years ago. I bet there are at least 100 times as many. How did the average person have any contact with the NWS 25 years ago? Weather radio.... Point made... I dunno, you ever heard of the newspaper. The newspaper was like todays internet, it was gosip city, and if there was anything noteworthy it was in the paper. You would think as big of an event like thundersnow, and people would be scared by it, they would have mentioned it in the papers. If not papers, there were radios, telephones, telegraphs, journals, books. You act like the population of America was so scarce and technological incapable to report such a phenomena. They might not have been able to directly contact the NWS, but word would have gotten out if the situations were worth mentioning. Gossip was huge back then and still is today. Maybe there weren't as many as trained observers as there are today, but hearing thunder when it is snowing isn't rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 snowfall is on the rise for NYC on average...NYC has seen more frequent snowy periods also...These are the top snowiest 30 day periods for the city... 30" in 30 days... The short list... 02/24-03/24, 1896.....32.0" 02/06-03/07, 1914.....35.2" 12/26-01/24, 1948.....43.4" 01/15-02/13, 1961.....34.1" 01/16-02/14, 1978.....37.2" 02/02-03/03, 1994.....30.8" 12/14-01/12, 1996.....35.2" 01/28-02/26, 2010.....38.2" 01/07-02/05, 2011.....37.6" I lived through six of these periods going back to 1961 when I was 12...before that there were only three such periods... Agreed! and since the 1990s the pace has increased. It all seems to have started with the 1993 super storm. NYC has seen 5 storms already greater than 10"+ for the 2010 decade and it is only 2013!! not to mention the possibility of another 10" storm in a few days! This decade will be another record for extreme snowfall events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 There have been more 10" snowstorms for NYC recently...The decade breaksowns... 1870's...5 1880's...1 1890's...5 1900's...4 1910's...5 1920's...5 1930's...3 1940's...4 1950's...3 1960's...6 1970's...3 1980's...1 1990's...5 2000's...7 2010's...5 The 1960's had the most until the 2000's...the 2010's have five so far... Bump for truth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I could find equal amounts of places with no upward trend at all. Nice cherry picking large cities.... You really think NY city is a reasonable example? lol, I bet you can which means what? I didn't cherry pick, I gave examples of places during February that have warmed a lot in the 100yr 0.8C reference you gave as a straw-man argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Question for you uncle W. Since your memory is quite strong since 1961, would you say in NYC at least that the occurance of thundersnow has increased? Do you remember any thundersnow events in the 1960-1980s? and if so, how would you compared it to recent years from 1990 to present? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I'd like to know if the claims of "increased thundersnow" and "increased hourly snowfall rates" have any backing? Links? Jonger's point does not apply if the studies are done scientifically using a consistent method, or adjustments to correct for methodology change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I'd like to know if the claims of "increased thundersnow" and "increased hourly snowfall rates" have any backing? Links? Jonger's point does not apply if the studies are done scientifically using a consistent method, or adjustments to correct for methodology change. I can't find any papers on my claims, I can barely find research on those two topics. But I guarentee if someone were to do a study, I would bet my mothers house they would find a positive correlation of increased thundersnow events and increased snowfall rates. It isn't all the uncommon to have LE events push 7-8"hr anymore and heck we just saw 5-6"/hr rates with this latest Nor Easter. I would bet we have never seen those kind of rates before in a Nor Easter before 1980. You can say well what about the great snowstorm of 1800s, but I'm willing to bet those snowfall totals were reached because of the longer duration of the storm and not because of hight 5-6"/hr rates. Heck even Toronto saw thundersnow in January, that is unfreakin heard of! I have never heard of Canada seeing a thunderstorm in January before. Convective storms in the winter time frame are on the increase, and they are the main cause for greater chances of thundersnow events and greater intensity ie snowfall rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Do this for me... Anyone. How many trained observers are there today versus 25 years ago. I bet there are at least 100 times as many. How did the average person have any contact with the NWS 25 years ago? Weather radio.... Point made... I dunno, you ever heard of the newspaper. The newspaper was like todays internet, it was gosip city, and if there was anything noteworthy it was in the paper. You would think as big of an event like thundersnow, and people would be scared by it, they would have mentioned it in the papers. If not papers, there were radios, telephones, telegraphs, journals, books. You act like the population of America was so scarce and technological incapable to report such a phenomena. They might not have been able to directly contact the NWS, but word would have gotten out if the situations were worth mentioning. Gossip was huge back then and still is today. Maybe there weren't as many as trained observers as there are today, but hearing thunder when it is snowing isn't rocket science. Gossip pages? Um.. no. The general public was never treated to thundersnow gossip in the newspapers. Reports are increasing due to the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 No you could not. Mid-latitude winter has warmed, on average, more than .8C. NYC decade winter averages... ten yr. ave... decade...........ave temp..winter min... 1870's.............31.5......................... 1880's.............30.8..........-0.5 1890's.............32.8...........2.3 1900's.............32.0...........3.7 1910's.............32.0...........1.4 1920's.............33.3...........3.8 1930's.............34.0...........4.9 1940's.............33.5...........4.7 1950's.............35.1...........6.0 1960's.............32.6...........4.1 1970's.............33.7...........5.4 1980's.............34.9...........4.1 1990's.............36.4...........6.7 2000's.............35.2...........9.7 2010's.............36.6...........9.5 1870 to 2009 ave.........33.4...........4.3 1980 to 2009 ave.........35.5...........6.8 winter minimums are on the rise along with the average over the last 35 years or so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Gossip pages? Um.. no. The general public was never treated to thundersnow gossip in the newspapers. Reports are increasing due to the internet. the first thunder snow I ever saw was March 16th 1956 when I was seven living in Brooklyn...I remember it scared me at the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Bump for truth! With a record as variable as that, it's possible to call any division of the record "cherry picking", but it squeaks past the Fisher test as a significant increase (at p < 0.05) if you score 1870-2000 vs the past 13 years. (1990-present yields a stronger result, but that WOULD be cherry picking, with the 1980s at 1.........) This is perfectly consistent with a significant rise in winter minimum temps, seeing as those temps are still well below freezing. Any consistent decrease in snowfall due to AGW will probably only come when the temp rise significantly reduces the proportion of days in the year with a mean temp below freezing, no? I'd expect the number of days with 50% snow cover to be a much more sensitive variable with respect to AGW than the number of major snowfalls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 snowfall is on the rise for NYC on average...NYC has seen more frequent snowy periods also...These are the top snowiest 30 day periods for the city... 30" in 30 days... The short list... 02/24-03/24, 1896.....32.0" 02/06-03/07, 1914.....35.2" 12/26-01/24, 1948.....43.4" 01/15-02/13, 1961.....34.1" 01/16-02/14, 1978.....37.2" 02/02-03/03, 1994.....30.8" 12/14-01/12, 1996.....35.2" 01/28-02/26, 2010.....38.2" 01/07-02/05, 2011.....37.6" I lived through six of these periods going back to 1961 when I was 12...before that there were only three such periods... Doesn't February '69 qualify? I lived in Westchester then, and the Lindsay storm alone brought us 27 inches - I'll never forget that - I was 12. I know the NYC area missed out on the New England storm later that month, but we got something........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Gossip pages? Um.. no. The general public was never treated to thundersnow gossip in the newspapers. Reports are increasing due to the internet. the first thunder snow I ever saw was March 16th 1956 when I was seven living in Brooklyn...I remember it scared me at the time... Whether thundersnow is on the increase or not, we don't know. We have such a short term reporting network like today... What a ridiculous claim made by Potter. I actually chucked at the idea that thundersnow reports were even remotely comparable even 10 years ago. The vast majority of trained spotters have been conscripted through the spotter training link on the NWS homepage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Doesn't February '69 qualify? I lived in Westchester then, and the Lindsay storm alone brought us 27 inches - I'll never forget that - I was 12. I know the NYC area missed out on the New England storm later that month, but we got something........ NYC had 22.2" from 2/9-3/09... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 lol, I bet you can which means what? I didn't cherry pick, I gave examples of places during February that have warmed a lot in the 100yr 0.8C reference you gave as a straw-man argument. Winter CONUS temps have warmed 0.91C since 1895. February has seen an increase of 1.8C, but January has seen a much more modest increase of 0.58C and December of 0.78C. The warming for the CONUS winter as a whole in the past 90 years is only about 0.45C or about half the warming of 1895-present. Not sure why only February would be cherry picked...probably because it had the greatest warming trend. I'm not sure what the numbers are for other mid-latitude regions. None of this proves that winter storms are getting worse however. Snowfall measuring techniques are different now than further back which makes it much easier to produce a top 10 total in large storms. Compaction of snow becomes a major issue in events over a foot. So we are not comparing apples to apples in a lot of these storms from further back to storms in the present. Its certainly possible that the warming is helping out with cold season cyclone enhancement, but we'd need better evidence than what we currently have. If anything, the warmer arctic would reduce the temp gradients we see to fuel these storms speaking strictly from a synoptic and thermodynamic standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/increasing-great-lake-effect-snowfall-during-twentieth-century-regional-response-global-warming/# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.