Winter 2021-2022

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 hours ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Can that continue to work in this warming climate? How long can we go to that well until it doesn’t work like it did?

Long after we are gone....I would argue that the additional warmth has actually increased baroclinicity thus far, as the warmth along with John's expanding Hadley Cell has pressed north. Catch 22 bc with the increased gradient comes more velocity saturation, so it's a give and take....but when you can neutralize said propensity for velocity saturation....BOOM. All we are left with is augmented baro and matches being lit.

Higher stakes today.

[40/70 Benchmark]

7 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Long after we are gone....I would argue that the additional warmth has actually increased baroclinicity thus far, as the warmth along with John's expanding Hadley Cell has pressed north. Catch 22 bc with the increased gradient comes more velocity saturation, so it's a give and take....but when you can neutralize said propensity for velocity saturation....BOOM. All we are left with is augmented baro and matches being lit.

Higher stakes today.

Just remember that mother nature is very skilled at keeping the ledger balanced...ie engineering a counter to negate all of these changes as best she can. IE With all of this increased baro from global warming, why don't we get a blizzard of '78 every season?! Velocity saturation. Why isn't all of the baro gone due to global warming!? Thermal gradient tightening. In the end, it means a change in distribution via less middling events and more big dogs.

[moneypitmike]

Jumping into the snow-rates conversation a bit late.  While I'm sure it pales in comparison to many of the examples here, the post-Thanksgiving even 2 (??) years ago was ripping pretty good.

[Typhoon Tip]

I'm not sure we can say "long after we are gone..." in the fairest of spirit, when the effects of this shit are already observable. 

It's been fu    ing up the winters for 10 years man.   It might be be time to start owning it, heh

[40/70 Benchmark]

35 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I'm not sure we can say "long after we are gone..." in the fairest of spirit, when the effects of this shit are already observable. 

It's been fu    ing up the winters for 10 years man.   It might be be time to start owning it, heh

False in terms of snowfall, which is what I am referring to.

Warmer? More Velocity saturation issues?

Sure, however, snowfall has not and is not suffering and I have explained why I believe that to be the case. As far as whether snowfall begins to decline in our lifetime is anyone's guess, but I do not believe so.

 

[Typhoon Tip]

2 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

False in terms of snowfall, which is what I am referring to.

Warmer? More Velocity saturation issues?

Sure, however, snowfall has not and is not suffering and I have explained why I believe that to be the case. As far as whether snowfall begins to decline in our lifetime is anyone's guess, but I do not believe so.

 

I am not privy to your causal ideas, so.. with all due respect, they may be entirely correct. 

But, I have heard the 'still more snow' narrative ... just out among the scuttlebutt of Internetium in deference to the warming world. It may just be a race in a sense.   Obviously, (warmING + water) arithmetic cannot interminably payout dividends - at some point 'more' will will likely be rain.   The discussion is really boiled down to the million dollar question of, 'when' does that threshold happen? 

Yeah...I don't know.  I don't know if it waits out our lives... It certainly could. There are offsets, like the solar stuff.  But also, if some completely unanticipated random thing, like a volcano ...whatever.  Beyond those,  I do know enough not to count on assumptions. 

Further musing: During all these 'yeah but, it's meant more snow' ...drop the mike, walk away moments, has anyone been considering rain?  Have those occurrences, both frequencies and amounts, also increased relative to climate?  My hunch is ..both snow , AND rain have increased.. I'll explain below. 

Firstly, I have observed several winters in that 10 years that likely resulted personal lowest 10 snow totals in my life; and that includes being existential to the sorest butt of all 10 years: the dreaded ass-machining 1980s.   

My point, lost in that crass vulgarity ..., is that it seems "extremes" really more fairly describes the real portrait of the last 10 years.  But the snowstorms contained, ... there's also a known physical-climatology for that, having to do with PWAT richness in a warming atmosphere. 

When it snows ( ...or rains) it is doing so heavier, everywhere - regardless of season and phenomenality.  

Think of it this way ( just writing this for the average reader here - ),  ever heard of a "transparent cumulonimbus"?   I've seen these. They typically happen on very hot summer afternoons... where there is are large dew point depressions, but ..still having enough marginal theta-e/CAPE to sustain adiabatic build.  You end up with cloud turrets you can see the blue on the other side, straight through. They often don't produce any rain, but there may be a wind associated, because there's -CAPE restoration/outflow.  

The mechanics of the atmosphere that ultimately produce precipitation will carry on with different masses of condense-able water;  in the same vein, it will over produce when the machinery carries about in the presence of an abundance.   It all depends on PV= NRT's constituent variable values and what is being restored across the "=" sign in order to balance.   A:(PV= T) interacting B:(PV=T) ( of the form which negates condense-able heat storing WV), also caries on in the atmosphere.  The physics of the mass part effects the other variables, and vice-versa. Marvelously proficient migraine induction begins there lol.

So ...  this is the gist of why weathering events are precipitating harder.  Simple terms, more water at the disposal of atmospheric processes.  

I probably should have mentioned 20 originally because statistically, with temperature and precipitation as major climate metrics, 2000 or so is about when the inflection took place the increases along CC accelerated; it just became more noticeable in the last 10.   I bold the former statement, because when any system is accelerating, any 'linear' assumption becomes logically false. The term "acceleration" is the gremlin in all f-ups.

It doesn't mean a forecast based on linearity will be wrong - but if right, it is likely right for 'getting lucky'

I see the last 20 years as being almost spot on predicted by some of the earlier climate impact studies done/printed way back in the 1990s, btw.  Not sure if anyone remembers the older mantra but it was about 'extremes'   That larger variances cause bigger short term impact results, where the base-line may move more slowly. 

That is precisely what the world is suffering,... with 'synergistic' enhanced heat waves, the acme of which seem beyond the input terms, like the Pac NW...  Or intercontinental air/land relative velocity speed records sending LGA to Hethrow in 3.5 hours because the high level balanced geostrophic velocity rich environment is already moving at almost 1/3 the speed of sound...  We keep getting gradient patterns/ and looks ... regardless of ENSOs, which the greater ambit of the field spectrum ranging climatology and operational weather forecasting ... appears to be supplanting the effectiveness of ENSO, anD even MJO'S, from evincing as much forcing.   I've personally proposed that HC expansion is subsuming the trigger gradient latitudes to the point where they can't integrate as much ... we'll see where that goes.  

 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

18 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I am not privy to your causal ideas, so.. with all due respect, they may be entirely correct. 

But, I have heard the 'still more snow' narrative ... just out among the scuttlebutt of Internetium in deference to the warming world. It may just be a race in a sense.   Obviously, (warmING + water) arithmetic cannot interminably payout dividends - at some point 'more' will will likely be rain.   The discussion is really boiled down to the million dollar question of, 'when' does that threshold happen? 

Yeah...I don't know.  I don't know if it waits out our lives... It certainly could. There are offsets, like the solar stuff.  But also, if some completely unanticipated random thing, like a volcano ...whatever.  Beyond those,  I do know enough not to count on assumptions. 

Further musing: During all these 'yeah but, it's meant more snow' ...drop the mike, walk away moments, has anyone been considering rain?  Have those occurrences, both frequencies and amounts, also increased relative to climate?  My hunch is ..both snow , AND rain have increased.. I'll explain below. 

Firstly, I have observed several winters in that 10 years that likely resulted personal lowest 10 snow totals in my life; and that includes being existential to the sorest butt of all 10 years: the dreaded ass-machining 1980s.   

My point, lost in that crass vulgarity ..., is that it seems "extremes" really more fairly describes the real portrait of the last 10 years.  But the snowstorms contained, ... there's also a known physical-climatology for that, having to do with PWAT richness in a warming atmosphere. 

When it snows ( ...or rains) it is doing so heavier, everywhere - regardless of season and phenomenality.  

Think of it this way ( just writing this for the average reader here - ),  ever heard of a "transparent cumulonimbus"?   I've seen these. They typically happen on very hot summer afternoons... where there is are large dew point depressions, but ..still having enough marginal theta-e/CAPE to sustain adiabatic build.  You end up with cloud turrets you can see the blue on the other side, straight through. They often don't produce any rain, but there may be a wind associated, because there's -CAPE restoration/outflow.  

The mechanics of the atmosphere that ultimately produce precipitation will carry on with different masses of condense-able water;  in the same vein, it will over produce when the machinery carries about in the presence of an abundance.   It all depends on PV= NRT's constituent variable values and what is being restored across the "=" sign in order to balance.   PV= T, which negates condense-able heat storing mass, also caries on in the atmosphere.  The physics of the mass part effects the other variables, and vice-versa. Marvelously proficient migraine induction begins there lol.

So ...  this is the gist of why weathering events are precipitating harder.  Simple terms, more water at the disposal of atmospheric processes.  

I probably should have mentioned 20 originally because statistically, with temperature and precipitation as major climate metrics, 2000 or so is about when the inflection took place the increases along CC accelerated; it just became more noticeable in the last 10.   I bold the former statement, because when any system is accelerating, any 'linear' assumption is logically false. The term "acceleration" is the gremlin in all f-ups.

It doesn't mean a forecast based on linearity will be wrong - but if right, it is likely right for 'getting lucky'

I see the last 20 years as being almost spot on predicted by some of the earlier climate impact studies done/printed way back in the 1990s, btw.  Not sure if anyone remembers the older mantra but it was about 'extremes'   That larger variances cause bigger short term impact results, where the base-line may move more slowly. 

hat is precisely what the world is suffering,... with synergistic' enhanced heat waves the acme beyond the input terms, like the Pac NW...  Or intercontinental air/land relative velocity speed records sending LGA to Hethrow in 3.5 hours because the high level balanced geostrophic velocity rich environment is already moving at almost 1/3 the speed of sound...  We keep getting gradient patterns/ and looks ... regardless of ENSOs, which the greater ambit of the field spectrum ranging climatology and operational weather forecasting ... appears to be supplanting the effectiveness of ENSO, anD even MJO'S, from evincing as much forcing.   I've personally proposed that HC expansion is subsuming the trigger gradient latitudes to the point where they can't integrate as much ... we'll see where that goes.    

 

 

Well, I agree with all of that. I did not mean to imply that global warming means a greater percentage of the precipitation is snowfall. Absolutely there is more precipitation, ie more rain and snowfall. I also agree RE extremes, and said is much a few posts ago in this very thread.

As far as the question of whether or not snowfall suffers during our lives...no one knows for sure, but what I will say is that the vast majority of the warming, at least in this region, has manifested in night time lows more than daytime highs....which I think tends to minimize the mitigating impact on snowfall. IE we are now radiating to 16, as opposed to maybe 14-15 degrees 50 years ago. I would venture to say that this would have less of an impact on snowfall than if the positive anomalies were being observed more with respect to daytime highs. This past January was wonderful illustration of this in that the month finished with positive departures, despite going weeks on end not breaking 40....the positive departures were achieved while we slept. 

[Typhoon Tip]

25 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Well, I agree with all of that. I did not mean to imply that global warming means a greater percentage of the precipitation is snowfall. Absolutely there is more precipitation, ie more rain and snowfall. I also agree RE extremes, and said is much a few posts ago in this very thread.

As far as the question of whether or not snowfall suffers during our lives...no one knows for sure, but what I will say is that the vast majority of the warming, at least in this region, has manifested in night time lows more than daytime highs....which I think tends to minimize the mitigating impact on snowfall. IE we are now radiating to 16, as opposed to maybe 14-15 degrees 50 years ago. I would venture to say that this would have less of an impact on snowfall than if the positive anomalies were being observed more with respect to daytime highs. This past January was wonderful illustration of this in that the month finished with positive departures, despite going weeks on end not breaking 40....the positive departures were achieved while we slept. 

Yup!

This was/...is being covered extensively in the IPCC special publications for anyone else that's interested...

No sense in me posting a bunch of links as one can easily load Duck Duck Go or Google, ... or whatever search engine it is you use that allows the NSA - corporate oligarchical arch to spy on your colon, ... and just type IPCC special reports and be creative and they're all right there. 

[Great Snow 1717]

3 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I'm not sure we can say "long after we are gone..." in the fairest of spirit, when the effects of this shit are already observable. 

It's been fu    ing up the winters for 10 years man.   It might be be time to start owning it, heh

Agree, it can  no longer  be said "long after we are gone" The effects are observed in every season.  And certainly over the next few decades the impacts will grow greater.

[ORH_wxman]

2 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Well, I agree with all of that. I did not mean to imply that global warming means a greater percentage of the precipitation is snowfall. Absolutely there is more precipitation, ie more rain and snowfall. I also agree RE extremes, and said is much a few posts ago in this very thread.

As far as the question of whether or not snowfall suffers during our lives...no one knows for sure, but what I will say is that the vast majority of the warming, at least in this region, has manifested in night time lows more than daytime highs....which I think tends to minimize the mitigating impact on snowfall. IE we are now radiating to 16, as opposed to maybe 14-15 degrees 50 years ago. I would venture to say that this would have less of an impact on snowfall than if the positive anomalies were being observed more with respect to daytime highs. This past January was wonderful illustration of this in that the month finished with positive departures, despite going weeks on end not breaking 40....the positive departures were achieved while we slept. 

It's an interesting conversation that we have had before. I think I mentioned further back sometime last year or the year before how our geography is also a mitigating factor on seeing a huge dropoff in snowfall.

 

Some areas have suffered more due to the slight poleward migration of the PJ....mostly areas on the very southern fringe of a winter snowfall climo zone such as the southern Mid-Atlantic or southern plains. For New England, we are unique in that we sit comfortably north of a natural baroclinic zone (the gulf stream well south of ACK and the frigid combo of Labrador current to the north and the Cp airmasses coming off of Quebec/New England landmasses) while simultaneously sticking out into the ocean like a chin. So this causes storms to want to still track south of New England as a path of least resistance and also a place for rapid cyclogenisis to occur...and we all know that being in the spot where the storm intensifies the fastest is where you want to be for heavy snow. The biggest difference is that maybe we're getting -6C 850s on one of those tracks instead of -7C 850s in 1970...but the overall sensible wx effect is pretty minimal. Nobody is going to tell the difference between a 21F blizzard or a 23F blizzard.

In addition, New England has a severe CAD-effect on the airmasses coming in from the west or southwest. So if you're getting these subtropical warm sectors trying to bully in from the south more often than 50 years ago, it's going to only enhance the baroclinicity seen near New England as the arctic/polar airmasses put up a massively stubborn fight against potential warm sectors. This would actually enhance WAA snowfalls.

 

So we lose the occasional veyr marginal event to rain or rain/snow mix vs 50 years ago, but we gain more back from enhanced baroclinicity/heavier snowfall events.

 

[CoastalWx]

7 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

It's an interesting conversation that we have had before. I think I mentioned further back sometime last year or the year before how our geography is also a mitigating factor on seeing a huge dropoff in snowfall.

 

Some areas have suffered more due to the slight poleward migration of the PJ....mostly areas on the very southern fringe of a winter snowfall climo zone such as the southern Mid-Atlantic or southern plains. For New England, we are unique in that we sit comfortably north of a natural baroclinic zone (the gulf stream well south of ACK and the frigid combo of Labrador current to the north and the Cp airmasses coming off of Quebec/New England landmasses) while simultaneously sticking out into the ocean like a chin. So this causes storms to want to still track south of New England as a path of least resistance and also a place for rapid cyclogenisis to occur...and we all know that being in the spot where the storm intensifies the fastest is where you want to be for heavy snow. The biggest difference is that maybe we're getting -6C 850s on one of those tracks instead of -7C 850s in 1970...but the overall sensible wx effect is pretty minimal. Nobody is going to tell the difference between a 21F blizzard or a 23F blizzard.

In addition, New England has a severe CAD-effect on the airmasses coming in from the west or southwest. So if you're getting these subtropical warm sectors trying to bully in from the south more often than 50 years ago, it's going to only enhance the baroclinicity seen near New England as the arctic/polar airmasses put up a massively stubborn fight against potential warm sectors. This would actually enhance WAA snowfalls.

 

So we lose the occasional veyr marginal event to rain or rain/snow mix vs 50 years ago, but we gain more back from enhanced baroclinicity/heavier snowfall events.

 

Imagine Feb 2 2021 only in 1770. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

52 minutes ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

Agree, it can  no longer  be said "long after we are gone" The effects are observed in every season.  And certainly over the next few decades the impacts will grow greater.

When our mean snowfall begins to decline, let me know.

[40/70 Benchmark]

26 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

It's an interesting conversation that we have had before. I think I mentioned further back sometime last year or the year before how our geography is also a mitigating factor on seeing a huge dropoff in snowfall.

 

Some areas have suffered more due to the slight poleward migration of the PJ....mostly areas on the very southern fringe of a winter snowfall climo zone such as the southern Mid-Atlantic or southern plains. For New England, we are unique in that we sit comfortably north of a natural baroclinic zone (the gulf stream well south of ACK and the frigid combo of Labrador current to the north and the Cp airmasses coming off of Quebec/New England landmasses) while simultaneously sticking out into the ocean like a chin. So this causes storms to want to still track south of New England as a path of least resistance and also a place for rapid cyclogenisis to occur...and we all know that being in the spot where the storm intensifies the fastest is where you want to be for heavy snow. The biggest difference is that maybe we're getting -6C 850s on one of those tracks instead of -7C 850s in 1970...but the overall sensible wx effect is pretty minimal. Nobody is going to tell the difference between a 21F blizzard or a 23F blizzard.

In addition, New England has a severe CAD-effect on the airmasses coming in from the west or southwest. So if you're getting these subtropical warm sectors trying to bully in from the south more often than 50 years ago, it's going to only enhance the baroclinicity seen near New England as the arctic/polar airmasses put up a massively stubborn fight against potential warm sectors. This would actually enhance WAA snowfalls.

 

So we lose the occasional veyr marginal event to rain or rain/snow mix vs 50 years ago, but we gain more back from enhanced baroclinicity/heavier snowfall events.

 

Exactly.

Great post.

[40/70 Benchmark]

There is also a theory that since the polar region is warming fastest by far, that we may be more prone to high latitude blocking, but that is more nebulous. I know that Will had an interesting counter to that theory a few years back, but I can't remember what it was.

The rest of the support for snowfall not decreasing much around here anytime soon is really isn't debatable.

[George001]

5 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I'm not sure we can say "long after we are gone..." in the fairest of spirit, when the effects of this shit are already observable. 

It's been fu    ing up the winters for 10 years man.   It might be be time to start owning it, heh

I agree, the acceleration of climate change is making our winters warmer. I never saw 70s and even 80s in Feb and March until a few years ago. Snow wise we haven’t started declining yet, but the mid Atlantic has and as the average temperature continues to increase, in my opinion our snow average will decrease as well. There comes a point where the increased upside due to the clashing of a cold airmass with climate change induced warm ocean temps isn’t enough to make up for all the marginal events that would have been snow 20 years ago being rain today. Even in the last 10 years it feels like it’s harder to maintain a snowpack than it was then, even in our above average winters like 2018.

[40/70 Benchmark]

10 minutes ago, George001 said:

I agree, the acceleration of climate change is making our winters warmer. I never saw 70s and even 80s in Feb and March until a few years ago. Snow wise we haven’t started declining yet, but the mid Atlantic has and as the average temperature continues to increase, in my opinion our snow average will decrease as well. There comes a point where the increased upside due to the clashing of a cold airmass with climate change induced warm ocean temps isn’t enough to make up for all the marginal events that would have been snow 20 years ago being rain today. Even in the last 10 years it feels like it’s harder to maintain a snowpack than it was then, even in our above average winters like 2018.

I would characterize 2010-2011, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015 as pretty good retention winters over the course of the past decade....even 2017-2018 in March. I think achieving a snowpack of near 3' in eastern Mass twice in a decade is at least average frequency, and probably above.

[Great Snow 1717]

13 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

When our mean snowfall begins to decline, let me know.

..but it isn't all about snowfall....

[Great Snow 1717]

5 minutes ago, George001 said:

I agree, the acceleration of climate change is making our winters warmer. I never saw 70s and even 80s in Feb and March until a few years ago. Snow wise we haven’t started declining yet, but the mid Atlantic has and as the average temperature continues to increase, in my opinion our snow average will decrease as well. There comes a point where the increased upside due to the clashing of a cold airmass with climate change induced warm ocean temps isn’t enough to make up for all the marginal events that would have been snow 20 years ago being rain today. Even in the last 10 years it feels like it’s harder to maintain a snowpack than it was then, even in our above average winters like 2018.

I agree. Certainly more difficult than in the 60's and 70's. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

Just now, Great Snow 1717 said:

..but it isn't all about snowfall....

That was my original contention in the post that John replied to. What are you referring to then?

[Great Snow 1717]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

That was my original contention in the post that John replied to. What are you referring to then?

Are you familiar with the Playstead in Lawrence?

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 minutes ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

Are you familiar with the Playstead in Lawrence?

No. Looks like it is a park?

[40/70 Benchmark]

Given that the vast majority of warming, at least locally, is being observed with respect to nighttime lows, I would venture to guess that any decrease in snow cover days is more at the bookends of the season...in December and March. I would actually strongly favor December given seasonal lag and increased propensity for blocking patterns during the spring.

In short, I would guess December is seeing the lion's share of a decease in snowcover days (sorry rev) over the course of the past 30+ years.

[Great Snow 1717]

26 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

No. Looks like it is a park?

It is a large "built" in park in Lawrence.  The park is surrounded by concrete walls. For decades the city of Lawrence would flood the Playstead in late November to turn it into a large outdoor  ice skating rink.  The winters were  cold enough for  the skating to last until late March or early April. If Lawrence did that now the park would be a quagmire in most years.  It would not stay frozen.  And keep in mind the Playstead has room for 2 softball fields and 2 baseball fields.  Back then it was rare for the ice to not stay frozen. 

When I was playing football in the 70's the fields were usually frozen by late November.  There were few years when the fields were not frozen by mid December. Now it is common. My yard takes longer and longer to freeze. 

The leaf drop now extends well into November. 

The growing season is longer. 

Growing up my friends and I would go sledding at the Reservoir in Lawrence. The sledding usually lasted from December to late March. Now there are many years when there may be only a few weeks of good sledding. 

Talk to anyone who has lived in the area for many years and he/she will tell you that winters have changed 

Falls and winters have warmed.  Snow retention has decreased in the Merrimack Valley area. 

Most of the daily records that are being broken in the fall and winter are on the "warmth" side. 

As I mentioned it isn't all about snowfall. there are numerous signs that the climate has warmed and is continuing to warm. 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

15 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Given that the vast majority of warming, at least locally, is being observed with respect to nighttime lows, I would venture to guess that any decrease in snow cover days is more at the bookends of the season...in December and March. I would actually strongly favor December given seasonal lag and increased propensity for blocking patterns during the spring.

In short, I would guess December is seeing the lion's share of a decease in snowcover days (sorry rev) over the course of the past 30+ years.

 

1 minute ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

It is a large "built" in park in Lawrence.  The park is surrounded by concrete walls. For decades the city of Lawrence would flood the Playstead in late November to turn it into a large outdoor  ice skating rink.  The winter was  cold enough for  the skating to last until late March or early April. If Lawrence did that now the park would be a quagmire in most years.  It would not stay frozen.  And keep in mind the Playstead has room for 2 softball fields and 2 baseball fields.  Back then it was rare for the ice to not stay frozen. 

When I was playing football in the 70's the fields were usually frozen by late November.  There were few years when the fields were not frozen by mid December. Now it is common. My yard takes longer and longer to freeze. 

The leaf drop now extends well into November. 

The growing season is longer. 

Growing up my friends and I would go sledding at the Reservoir in Lawrence. The sledding usually lasted from December to late March. Now there are many years when there may be only a few weeks of good sledding. 

Talk to anyone who has lived in the area for many years and he/she will tell you that winters have changed 

Falls and winters have warmed.  Snow retention has decreased in the Merrimack Valley area. 

Most of the daily records that are being broken in the fall and winter are on the "warmth" side. 

As I mentioned it isn't all about snowfall. there are numerous signs that the climate has warmed and is continuing to warm. 

 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

I could def. see the freezing of ponds being delayed as a result of global warming...that makes sense. I was just speaking strictly in terms of seasonal snowfall locally when I disputed the impact of global warming.

[Great Snow 1717]

13 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I could def. see the freezing of ponds being delayed as a result of global warming...that makes sense.

The pond on Milk St in Methuen takes longer to freeze than it once did. And some years the pond barely has a skim layer of ice on it. And some years it has not frozen over. 

Back then people  did not  have  Koi Ponds in their yards because the fish would not have survived the winters. No sense having one of those  unless someone was fond of having a pile of dead fish.  Now Koi ponds are popular.

The Brooks School has several ponds on  campus. Some years the ponds do not freeze over at all.  At one time those ponds were popular destinations for outdoor hockey. 

 

 

[Typhoon Tip]

Will's right there -

I mean ..when I was musing at length between Ray, I was dancing with that notion in mind - perhaps could have put a quick turn of phrase in there.  Like, " not including local studies"  lol.  That would certainly account for notwithstanding uniqueness.  But it can't last forever of course.

But it is true, we can offset the climate migration.   It's almost  like the line sags E of greens and hesitates while the inevitability of it's migration continues N.  Such that ... ( purely hypothetically: ) if it took 30 years to get to ALB, it might take 38 years to clear ORH.    ..something like that. 

I think it is interesting to note ( also ..) that our "flop direction" appears to be on the warm side in marginal modeling.  It used to be that I - personally - could count on correcting a +1 C at 850 early March blue to -1... Now it seems that can't be assumed.   ..separate sort of behavioral observation I've been making. 

[CoastalWx]

Yeah snowfall retention and days of pond ice probably are decreasing over a long term (The 70s were a very cold decade though). I bet off the top of my head those warmer years in the 30s and 40s probably had lower pond ice days and retention...but agree the long term trend is there. To Ray's point, we haven't seen the scale tip (and won't for awhile) to where snowfall starts being significantly impacted by GW. Maybe the more marginal ones are uglier....but in the grand scheme of things...most of New England outside of the coast typically has a cold antecedent airmass prior to snowfall that is well below 32F. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

3 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Will's right there -

I mean ..when I was musing at length between Ray, I was dancing with that notion in mind - perhaps could have put a quick turn of phrase in there.  Like, " not including local studies"  lol.  That would certainly account for notwithstanding uniqueness.  But it can't last forever of course.

But it is true, we can offset the climate migration.   It's almost  like the line sags E of greens and hesitates while the inevitability of it's migration continues N.  Such that ... ( purely hypothetically: ) if it took 30 years to get to ALB, it might take 38 years to clear ORH.    ..something like that. 

I think it is interesting to note ( also ..) that our "flop direction" appears to be on the warm side in marginal modeling.  It used to be that I - personally - could count on correcting a +1 C at 850 early March blue to -1... Now it seems that can't be assumed.   ..separate sort of behavioral observation I've been making. 

Just as it does in typical warm air advection.

[Typhoon Tip]

6 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Just as it does in typical warm air advection.

Bingo really ...

I mean, add up all those occurrence of lag, it makes the climate "line" ( I'm calling it that but's amorphous in reality ...)

reflect,  (lagged events) /N-terms.

But it's not just that ... I mean he's right about our damming thing. That forces/intensifies the b-c gradients, and with the cold sides getting a topographic feed-back helping to keep barrier jets going, ..it's kinda more than just WAA/ isentropic lift over a cold domes. It turns WAA sceanrios into CCB ones some times.