Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,514
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    CHSVol
    Newest Member
    CHSVol
    Joined

January 2024 -- Discussion


moneypitmike
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, George001 said:

Yeah, I would think CC warming would screw us on the coastal plain since we already battle temps more to begin with. Areas that would have gotten say half a foot of 34 degree paste years ago could easily rain in that same setup now, where as areas farther west may go from like 22 to 24 degrees. You have competing factors here, it’s getting both warmer (negative factor) and wetter (positive factor). There is a point where the increased precip no longer outweighs the warmer temps for snow potential, and us on the coastal plain are closer to that tipping point. Some areas farther south like DC are already seeing a decline in average snowfall, while say Bostons average snowfall over the past 2 decades has not declined at all (if anything I’m pretty sure it increased a bit). Whether or not the tipping point has been reached yet is unclear. However, I suspect that given how rapidly CC is accelerating, if we aren’t already there in Boston, it’s close. That said, even if this bad stretch is the start of a real decline in average snowfall, that doesn’t mean we can’t get great winters. Where I would guess we will “lose” most of our snow would be in average and below average winters with lots of marginal events, not in those 3+ BN epic winters.

it's impossible to actually have any sort of debate on this because there isn't enough data yet, and people mainly just use anecdotes and a lot of confirmation bias. i'm sure that there have been snow events that climate change helped out or made more prolific than they would normally be

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Go Kart Mozart said:

Do you use a different source?  According to this map there is nothing unusual in the Gulf of Maine.

cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1 (1).png

Not speaking for Scott here but ... SSTs and "heat content" are too different aspects.

SSTs can be affected pretty fast by small time-scaled wind stressing patterns.  

Heat content more typically refers to the deeper depth/thermalcline integral.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Go Kart Mozart said:

Do you use a different source?  According to this map there is nothing unusual in the Gulf of Maine.

cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1 (1).png

I’m going by the actual buoy temp which are a little above normal. But the fact that it’s taken a while to cool, tells me that the warmth penetrates deeper down into the depths of the ocean. Which is also what I read about the gulf of Maine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

I’m going by the actual buoy temp which are a little above normal. But the fact that it’s taken a while to cool, tells me that the warmth penetrates deeper down into the depths of the ocean. Which is also what I read about the gulf of Maine.

GOM had a massive heat content increase years ago due to a weakening of the Labrador current. I remember reading about this in papers back like 10-15 years ago and it’s still ongoing. They had a similar thing happen in the 1940s I think where they then spiked really warm for about a decade period circa late 40s into mid 50s before reversing again. (Check out some of the warmth back then for MA/NH/ME)
 

CC affecting the ocean currents is still obviously somewhat of a frontier in the literature but I suspect if CC helps in weakening the Labrador current, then you wouldn’t see the same reversal again. Of course, we could go all “Day After Tomorrow” and the whole North Atlantic gets less salty and we all abruptly freeze when the thermohaline circulation weakens. :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

GOM had a massive heat content increase years ago due to a weakening of the Labrador current. I remember reading about this in papers back like 10-15 years ago and it’s still ongoing. They had a similar thing happen in the 1940s I think where they then spiked really warm for about a decade period circa late 40s into mid 50s before reversing again. (Check out some of the warmth back then for MA/NH/ME)
 

CC affecting the ocean currents is still obviously somewhat of a frontier in the literature but I suspect if CC helps in weakening the Labrador current, then you wouldn’t see the same reversal again. Of course, we could go all “Day After Tomorrow” and the whole North Atlantic gets less salty and we all abruptly freeze when the thermohaline circulation weakens. :lol:

Bring it!   Seriously though there have been articles in the past week or 2 of weakening of the circulation due to reduced salinity from a large amount of melting of the Greenland glacial shield

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Will's right... the L-current's been weakening and the GOM isn't adjusted in historical climate records accordingly because the weakening has been happening at a faster rate.

 

16 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

GOM had a massive heat content increase years ago due to a weakening of the Labrador current. I remember reading about this in papers back like 10-15 years ago and it’s still ongoing. They had a similar thing happen in the 1940s I think where they then spiked really warm for about a decade period circa late 40s into mid 50s before reversing again. (Check out some of the warmth back then for MA/NH/ME)
 

CC affecting the ocean currents is still obviously somewhat of a frontier in the literature but I suspect if CC helps in weakening the Labrador current, then you wouldn’t see the same reversal again. Of course, we could go all “Day After Tomorrow” and the whole North Atlantic gets less salty and we all abruptly freeze when the thermohaline circulation weakens. :lol:

We’ve also had years of warm summers and falls helping as well. Whether it’s from CC or not, it’s slowed the cooling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to current affairs.  Euro is a bit more enthused with next Sunday/Monday threat..  Gfs was a bit too far south.. Not a bad spot to be 7.5 days out.. Looks like a thread the needle as cold air will be an issue..

Also guidance has trended a bit too far east with the eastern trough for the Jan 30/31 threat.  Let's see if that can move back west with time.. 

 

image.thumb.png.dc7a6085e142cfe32dbb844d78234fec.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Euro repeated the 28th/29th thingy.   Fast moving NJ model low of minoring consequence.

It seems what's going on with all the operational runs is that they are attempting a transition into a strong +d(PNA) - however transient, notwithstanding - and having nothing happen as a result. Because it's not abundantly clear any system on the 28th is really tied to the former large scale changes, and after that ...there's nothing but an 18 hour cold snap. 

I guess that's possible too

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

I dunno…it’s anecdotal to me to say “we’re mostly getting 17F south shore Coke line storms” with CC. 
 

Id honestly say the opposite, but that’s the beauty of anecdotes….we basically just tell our own story of obs. The truth would require doing an independent tally of these storms and the temps. Those frigid coke line storms happened with so much frequency years ago from the 1990s into early 2000s. Recently, that area has been taken the woodshed…really since the 2015 snowgasm. 
 

But trying to parse out CC attribution on SNE snowstorm jackpots over a 6 year period is probably between impossible and harder than impossible. 

 

Don't forget January 2022...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damage In Tolland said:

You peeking out thru the closed shades?

Lol of course always especially after being told by some guy in a white robe here I was an idiot for thinking we snow Tuesday and then again next week. One day of spring?? Winter over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I think where Ray was focusing his comment though, was in the facet of needing 'direct cold source'/feed mechanics as an increasing sort prerequisite  ...  "marginal" events are rarefying.   I too have surmised as much in the past. I used to whimsy refer to that as our "flop direction" used to be on the cold side of fence events. Our region seemed to sneak cross a threshold over the last 15 years, an innocuous one, where now we're more cat paws and liquid.  etc etc. 

But from his perspective, if there is a direct cold feed taking place, it tends to be a hygroscopic sink - and he ends up with a moisture deficit that by circumstance happens to consumes fall-rates more so over SE NH into NE MA.  

That makes just as much plausible sense to me as what you are suggesting - which yeah...I could see warm modulation from the E on average tending to move west, too.  But then we'd have to look at CF versus less obvious CF events, versus the former.  It'd be complex and nuanced; there could concurrency going on, too.

Fascinating discussion....sorry to be so IMBY centric, but I think the discussion point translates to others, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Not speaking for Scott here but ... SSTs and "heat content" are too different aspects.

SSTs can be affected pretty fast by small time-scaled wind stressing patterns.  

Heat content more typically refers to the deeper depth/thermalcline integral.  

My pet peeve is when people post Sea SURFACE anomaly charts within the context of tropical discussions.......repeat after me.....Tropical Cyclone Heat Potential.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

My pet peeve is when people post Sea SURFACE anomaly charts within the context of tropical discussions.......repeat after me.....Tropical Cyclone Heat Potential.

100%, though SSTA can be helpful early and late season in identifying marginal development windows IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...