Winter Banter & General Discussion/Observations

[CoastalWx]

CC is good because it's increase snow averages to the south and east. 

[Damage In Tolland]

Why are we talking about Cape Cod, Ma?

[ORH_wxman]

59 minutes ago, psv88 said:

But you are saying that an extreme event, aka a 4"+ rainfall, is indicative of climate change...so you are using extreme events as part of your data set, albeit to indicate the increased frequency of said events, but still using the events nonetheless, so one extreme event forms the part of a trend, therefore the individual extreme events naturally, must be, still indicative of climate change...

No. You need more than one and it needs to be over a long enough sample. One alone or two alone or even 5 isn't "because of climate change". They still occurred without it. That's the problem these ignorant MSM headlines don't understand. An event or even multiple events over a short span (as in less than a decade) doesn't have the statistical confidence to make that type of attribution. That's just the way mathematics and statistics work. We've seen erroneous claims already get smacked back in their face...remember when climate change caused huge -NAO blocks because of the trend between the late 1990s and 2009-2010? Don't hear much about that anymore now that we can't buy huge -NAO blocks. Remember when they claimed hurricanes would run rampant after 2004 and especially 2005? Well, that looks pretty dumb now...especially in light of Landsea's literature a few years later, nevermind the utter lack of hurricanes since those seasons. 

The headlines should really say something like "climate change has made the 4"+ rain events more likely than previously." Not that climate change caused the event...especially if said events happened before climate change existed. (Which in this case, they did)

 

 

[Hoth]

Can't say the relative strength of the sun on my face over the course of years is the sort of thing I'd bother to commit to long term memory, but to each his own. 

[eekuasepinniW]

2 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

No. You need more than one and it needs to be over a long enough sample. One alone or two alone or even 5 isn't "because of climate change". They still occurred without it. That's the problem these ignorant MSM headlines don't understand. An event or even multiple events over a short span (as in less than a decade) doesn't have the statistical confidence to make that type of attribution. That's just the way mathematics and statistics work. We've seen erroneous claims already get smacked back in their face...remember when climate change caused huge -NAO blocks because of the trend between the late 1990s and 2009-2010? Don't hear much about that anymore now that we can't buy huge -NAO blocks. Remember when they claimed hurricanes would run rampant after 2004 and especially 2005? Well, that looks pretty dumb now...especially in light of Landsea's literature a few years later, nevermind the utter lack of hurricanes since those

 

It was on the move today.

[ORH_wxman]

Just now, Hoth said:

Can't say the relative strength of the sun on my face over the course of years is the sort of thing I'd bother to commit to long term memory, but to each his own. 

The sun is actually slightly weaker than it was during the 1980s and 1990s solar cycles. 

[ORH_wxman]

2 minutes ago, eekuasepinniW said:

 

It was on the move today.

Nice. That's what I was looking for. 

[Hoth]

1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said:

The sun is actually slightly weaker than it was during the 1980s and 1990s solar cycles. 

Interesting. Does that correlate with the lack of sunspot activity recently?

[powderfreak]

1 hour ago, Ginx snewx said:

apparently being investigated as a new state record, they have so many sensors in the Sierras and many were gusting 180 plus at the same time so probably close

Yeah the more I look into it, it seems as though multiple spots were gusting high 100's for wind speed.  That's gnarly.  I mean, that's true high end stuff.  Like being in the 300mb jet streak.

[ORH_wxman]

12 minutes ago, Hoth said:

Interesting. Does that correlate with the lack of sunspot activity recently?

Yeah our minimums have been quieter and our maximums not as robust. 

[powderfreak]

40 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

CC is good because it's increase snow averages to the south and east. 

God dammit!  Seems to be decreasing north and west. 

 

I always think that climate change should increase snowfall everywhere with increased moisture (in the sense that warmer temperatures can hold more water) but then hits a certain point where it would decrease sharply.  Sort of like a gradual increase in snowfall until the whole system becomes overwhelmed and that mean temperature rises above freezing and snowfall just drops off a cliff.

But it makes  sense that it would increase snowfall in places that get the bulk of their average annual snow from fewer events that tend to be larger in nature.  A place that gets its annual average of 30-50" in like 6 snow events over 4 months seems like it would increase as storms get bigger with increased baroclinicity and higher moisture levels, while the places that need like 20-30 different events to reach their annual snowfall might struggle if a few more of those tend to be rainers.  Definitely in a lower snow climo area a trend towards less frequent but bigger events would seem to be a plus relative to annual averages. 

 

[Lava Rock]

Ugh 48 f.

[HIPPYVALLEY]

3 hours ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

Not for nothing, but there is, I believe, a whole chunk of this forum dedicated to climate change...

I don't really care if you folks discuss it here, but just sayin' 

pack still intact here, but way down...I am surprised I still have snow on the roof of my house

You and I and the banned poster from W Chesterfield, will have snow longer than most in SNE.  I'll take pics in the morning but 70% of the yard (and neighborhood) is still packed with several inches of dense.

37/35 off a high of 62F

[Damage In Tolland]

Just now, HIPPYVALLEY said:

You and I and the banned poster from W Chesterfield, will have snow longer than most in SNE.  I'll take pics in the morning but 70% of the yard (and neighborhood) is still packed with several inches of dense.

37/35 off a high of 62F

53.1/ 51 currently 

[HIPPYVALLEY]

2 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

53.1/ 51 currently 

Jeezus!   Elevation ftw and ftl sometimes.  Don't forget, I am in an radiator delight spot but I sacrifice any chance of exciting wind.

[HoarfrostHubb]

48.1/47 attm. 63.7 was the high.  Saw 68 in ORH.  

[HIPPYVALLEY]

14 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

48.1/47 attm. 63.7 was the high.  Saw 68 in ORH.  

Digital and mercury at 37F with clear skies atm so we"ll see if I can somehow tickle below freezing tonight but doubtful.

[psv88]

3 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

No. You need more than one and it needs to be over a long enough sample. One alone or two alone or even 5 isn't "because of climate change". They still occurred without it. That's the problem these ignorant MSM headlines don't understand. An event or even multiple events over a short span (as in less than a decade) doesn't have the statistical confidence to make that type of attribution. That's just the way mathematics and statistics work. We've seen erroneous claims already get smacked back in their face...remember when climate change caused huge -NAO blocks because of the trend between the late 1990s and 2009-2010? Don't hear much about that anymore now that we can't buy huge -NAO blocks. Remember when they claimed hurricanes would run rampant after 2004 and especially 2005? Well, that looks pretty dumb now...especially in light of Landsea's literature a few years later, nevermind the utter lack of hurricanes since those seasons. 

The headlines should really say something like "climate change has made the 4"+ rain events more likely than previously." Not that climate change caused the event...especially if said events happened before climate change existed. (Which in this case, they did)

 

 

Read what I wrote again. 

[weathafella]

1 hour ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

You and I and the banned poster from W Chesterfield, will have snow longer than most in SNE.  I'll take pics in the morning but 70% of the yard (and neighborhood) is still packed with several inches of dense.

37/35 off a high of 62F

Even after today the shady side of the street here has full cover.

[DavisStraight]

11 minutes ago, weathafella said:

Even after today the shady side of the street here has full cover.

My street still has pretty solid cover too, I thought it would be gone by now except for my snowblowed pile.

[OceanStWx]

4 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

No. You need more than one and it needs to be over a long enough sample. One alone or two alone or even 5 isn't "because of climate change". They still occurred without it. That's the problem these ignorant MSM headlines don't understand. An event or even multiple events over a short span (as in less than a decade) doesn't have the statistical confidence to make that type of attribution. That's just the way mathematics and statistics work. We've seen erroneous claims already get smacked back in their face...remember when climate change caused huge -NAO blocks because of the trend between the late 1990s and 2009-2010? Don't hear much about that anymore now that we can't buy huge -NAO blocks. Remember when they claimed hurricanes would run rampant after 2004 and especially 2005? Well, that looks pretty dumb now...especially in light of Landsea's literature a few years later, nevermind the utter lack of hurricanes since those seasons. 

The headlines should really say something like "climate change has made the 4"+ rain events more likely than previously." Not that climate change caused the event...especially if said events happened before climate change existed. (Which in this case, they did)

But that's no fun. Nobody clicks on the link if you say extreme rainfall events are more likely or record highs are more likely than record lows. Likewise, it breeds inaction with lawmakers when you talk probabilities and not specific outcomes (just ask Kevin about probabilities). 

Locally I think those two things (extreme precip and high temp records) are most noticeable. You need a -4 SD air mass to pull Feb 2015, but only +2 to do what we did today.

[CT Valley Snowman]

Pretty much gone here with the exception of piles and the heavy shaded areas.  Sucks.

[40/70 Benchmark]

Topped out at 68 here.

50.2/47.0...

[Damage In Tolland]

Most of the hi res stuff has 68-73 today for places like BOS, BDL, much of NE Mass. 

Today will furnace..Take em up

 

It's very possible this becomes the hottest Feb day ever at select locations. Low 70's would do it.Sick stuff

[CapturedNature]

I'd say my yard has about 40% solid coverage.  I have the best yard the "neighborhood"  but there are places that retain better than I do. 

Yesterday's 66° broke my daily record set back in 1996, but not my monthly record of 68° from 1997.

[codfishsnowman]

31 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Most of the hi res stuff has 68-73 today for places like BOS, BDL, much of NE Mass. 

Today will furnace..Take em up

 

It's very possible this becomes the hottest Feb day ever at select locations. Low 70's would do it.Sick stuff

sounds like a sales pitch

[Damage In Tolland]

1 minute ago, codfishsnowman said:

sounds like a sales pitch

Sold to the cranky fisherman

[Googlymoogly]

Does this weather warrant any actual concern? Just feels wrong. I don't know how to explain it but it bothers me and lots of others. 

Please don't call me a weenie. I'm being serious!! 

[CoastalWx]

Torch today. Everyone in speedos 

[CoastalWx]

1 minute ago, Googlymoogly said:

Does this weather warrant any actual concern? Just feels wrong. I don't know how to explain it but it bothers me and lots of others. 

Please don't call me a weenie. I'm being serious!! 

1985 had the same deal too. Similar in 1990, 1996, 1997 etc. very anomalous though.