2025-2026 ENSO

[bluewave]

2 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

 

 

 

We were referring to NE coastal areas when the 7 year comment was made.

Like I have said previously, modern snowdfall is undermeasured more often today than you imply due to mixed precipitation events and many observers not utilizing the 6 hour swipe method.

When I mentioned to Philly to Boston I was highlighting coastal areas closer to the I-95 corridor. These areas are naturally seeing a decline in snowfall first. Higher elevations in the interior Northeast have more leeway since they can still do well with a warmer more northward shifted storm track. 
 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

16 minutes ago, bluewave said:

When I mentioned to Philly to Boston I was highlighting coastal areas closer to the I-95 corridor. These areas are naturally seeing a decline in snowfall first. Higher elevations in the interior Northeast have more leeway since they can still do well with a warmer more northward shifted storm track. 
 

 

I thik the jury is still out for the NE interior coastal plane, which is where I am.

[PhiEaglesfan712]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

When I mentioned to Philly to Boston I was highlighting coastal areas closer to the I-95 corridor. These areas are naturally seeing a decline in snowfall first. Higher elevations in the interior Northeast have more leeway since they can still do well with a warmer more northward shifted storm track. 
 

 

The further south, it is more noticeable earlier. For example, Charlotte hasn't seen a 10-inch snow season since 2003-04, or even an above average snow season since 2013-14.

[Spartman]

On 5/14/2025 at 12:44 PM, LibertyBell said:

these weird stuck ULL are also responsible for our rainy spring, I'm completely done with them.

Feels like we've been cheated out a Spring this year. Too many cutoff lows this month, for sure. September 2011 had something similar when two cutoff lows, combined, dominated over half the days of the month resulting in a record wet September.

Looks like it may very continue into next month.

The end of the 00z Euro run:

Also, the MJO's been stuck in the Circle of Death phase all month. 

According to JB, the last time MJO's stuck in the Circle of Death the entire month of May was back in May 2012, though that was followed by a very hot summer.
https://x.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1922477577555366262

[Spartman]

9 hours ago, so_whats_happening said:

Since this thread turned into a semi Climate thread warmer oceans and atmosphere allow for more water vapor leading to hefty rain events. Feast or famine seems to be the name of the game as of now with weather patterns.

Just hope we have not turned on the faucet like we did in summer of 2018.

We may have already turned on the faucet. Same thing happened in 2011. Several wet months that year, especially the Spring and Fall. One of the wettest years ever for many, followed by the dreaded Winter 2011-12.

[LibertyBell]

37 minutes ago, Spartman said:

We may have already turned on the faucet. Same thing happened in 2011. Several wet months that year, especially the Spring and Fall. One of the wettest years ever for many, followed by the dreaded Winter 2011-12.

Nothing worse than rain and high humidity.

The forecast busted here today it's been drier less humidity and mostly sunny FINALLY.

 

[mitchnick]

1 hour ago, Spartman said:

Feels like we've been cheated out a Spring this year. Too many cutoff lows this month, for sure. September 2011 had something similar when two cutoff lows, combined, dominated over half the days of the month resulting in a record wet September.

Looks like it may very continue into next month.

The end of the 00z Euro run:

Also, the MJO's been stuck in the Circle of Death phase all month. 

According to JB, the last time MJO's stuck in the Circle of Death the entire month of May was back in May 2012, though that was followed by a very hot summer.
https://x.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1922477577555366262

I just assumed this was due to lingering effects of the  SSW. It was impressive with an extended -AO. But who knows.

[michsnowfreak]

8 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

 

 

 

We were referring to NE coastal areas when the 7 year comment was made.

Like I have said previously, modern snowdfall is undermeasured more often today than you imply due to mixed precipitation events and many observers not utilizing the 6 hour swipe method.

Im also getting tired of this "we measured snow differently before the 1990s". For the millionth time, snowfall at most first order stations (which is the only place you will get a non-stop climate record dating to the 1800s) has been measured this way since 1950 or so. I know a meteorologist who worked for the NWS in the 1970s. It was standard procedure the same as it is now. Furthermore, snow was measured pre-1950s by meteorologists/employees at the weather bureau office, likely very precisely. Look at old weather record books (your local NWS office has them) and you will see what I mean about the detail and precision and care they took with records back then. They monitored the weather hourly with snow and rain, whether they swiped or not. You think todays observers monitor every snowfall hourly? I think not. And lastly, its laughable to assume measurements since the 1990s are so good when we have seen FAA/Airport take over and the NWS at times struggle to get good observers, and in more cases than not, snow is not measured by NWS employees.

[TheClimateChanger]

9 hours ago, bluewave said:

When I mentioned to Philly to Boston I was highlighting coastal areas closer to the I-95 corridor. These areas are naturally seeing a decline in snowfall first. Higher elevations in the interior Northeast have more leeway since they can still do well with a warmer more northward shifted storm track. 
 

 

This jives with my recollections. It was much snowier as a child. Just look at the data for Cleveland. Snowfall has been in a free fall since 2014. This winter was considered a harsh winter, but just two decades ago, it would have been heralded as a very mild winter. I would expect that trend to increase with time.

[TheClimateChanger]

5 hours ago, Spartman said:

Feels like we've been cheated out a Spring this year. Too many cutoff lows this month, for sure. September 2011 had something similar when two cutoff lows, combined, dominated over half the days of the month resulting in a record wet September.

Looks like it may very continue into next month.

The end of the 00z Euro run:

Also, the MJO's been stuck in the Circle of Death phase all month. 

According to JB, the last time MJO's stuck in the Circle of Death the entire month of May was back in May 2012, though that was followed by a very hot summer.
https://x.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1922477577555366262

This has been a fine spring for Dayton, Ohio. A little on the wet side, but almost no snow and warm temperatures. In fact, if the month ended yesterday, this would go in the books as the 7th warmest spring at the Dayton International Airport (since 1936, excludes threaded records). And this doesn't even include today's torch.

People like to act as though it's supposed to be in the 90s all summer long, but that's just not how the climate works. There have been entire years where the hottest temperature observed at Dayton was only a handful of degrees above today's warmth. So I would urge everyone to enjoy the next couple of days, instead of fretting over whether it's going to be in the 60s and rainy next week. As JB says, "enjoy the weather, it's the only weather you've got."

 

[TheClimateChanger]

2 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

This has been a fine spring for Dayton, Ohio. A little on the wet side, but almost no snow and warm temperatures. In fact, if the month ended yesterday, this would go in the books as the 7th warmest spring at the Dayton International Airport (since 1936, excludes threaded records). And this doesn't even include today's torch.

People like to act as though it's supposed to be in the 90s all summer long, but that's just not how the climate works. There have been entire years where the hottest temperature observed at Dayton was only a handful of degrees above today's warmth. So I would urge everyone to enjoy the next couple of days, instead of fretting over whether it's going to be in the 60s and rainy next week. As JB says, "enjoy the weather, it's the only weather you've got."

 

Just look at Morgantown, West Virginia, it was 86F today. In 1882, the hottest temperature observed all year was 85F. I think some would greatly benefit by recognizing that not every summer is going to have 25-30 days of 90F. That's not typical at all.

[michsnowfreak]

44 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

This jives with my recollections. It was much snowier as a child. Just look at the data for Cleveland. Snowfall has been in a free fall since 2014. This winter was considered a harsh winter, but just two decades ago, it would have been heralded as a very mild winter. I would expect that trend to increase with time.

And it's completely different from my recollections. It was less much less snowy during my childhood/teen years in the 1990s than during the 2000s-2010s. Cleveland, which is nowhere near the coastal I95 cities, was an aberration in the lower Lakes, as most of the region saw snowier winters in the 2000s and 2010s than the 1990s, especially synoptically. Cleveland is much more prone to the hits and misses of lake effect bands.

[bluewave]

16 hours ago, michsnowfreak said:

Im also getting tired of this "we measured snow differently before the 1990s". For the millionth time, snowfall at most first order stations (which is the only place you will get a non-stop climate record dating to the 1800s) has been measured this way since 1950 or so. I know a meteorologist who worked for the NWS in the 1970s. It was standard procedure the same as it is now. Furthermore, snow was measured pre-1950s by meteorologists/employees at the weather bureau office, likely very precisely. Look at old weather record books (your local NWS office has them) and you will see what I mean about the detail and precision and care they took with records back then. They monitored the weather hourly with snow and rain, whether they swiped or not. You think today’s observers monitor every snowfall hourly? I think not. And lastly, its laughable to assume measurements since the 1990s are so good when we have seen FAA/Airport take over and the NWS at times struggle to get good observers, and in more cases than not, snow is not measured by NWS employees.

This wasn’t the case for many first order sites such as NYC. So recent snowfall measurements are inflated relative to the way snowfall was measured prior to the 1990s around NYC and to before 1950 in other locations. So boost pre-1950 snowfall totals by 15-20% and the majority of first order sites in the U.S. will show a steady decline since the late 1800s. Several stations already show a long term snowfall decline. So imagine how much steeper a decline we would have if the snowfall was measured as frequently as it is today. Plus places like NYC would use melted down gauge snow equivalents and not actual measurements like in the blizzard of 1888 using a simple 10:1 ratio which is very inaccurate when the 1800s were so cold with much higher ratios.

https://news.ucar.edu/14009/snowfall-measurement-flaky-history

As a hydrometeorological instructor in UCAR’s COMET program and a weather observer for the National Weather Service, I am keenly interested in weather trends. In this case, climate change is an important factor to explore, since we know that the heaviest precipitation events have intensified in many parts of the world (see related story: Torrents and droughts and twisters - oh my!).

But when we turn to snowstorms in the Northeast, or elsewhere in the U.S., there is an additional factor at work when comparing modern numbers with historical ones. Quite simply, our measuring techniques have changed, and we are not necessarily comparing apples to apples. In fact, the apparent trend toward bigger snowfalls is at least partially the result of new—and more accurate—ways of measuring snowfall totals. Climate studies carefully select a subset of stations with consistent snow records, or avoid the snowfall variable altogether.

Official measurement of snowfall these days uses a flat, usually white, surface called a snowboard (which pre-dates the popular winter sport equipment of the same name). The snowboard depth measurement is done ideally every 6 hours, but not more frequently, and the snow is cleared after each measurement. At the end of the snowfall, all of the measurements are added up for the storm total. 

NOAA’s cooperative climate observers and thousands of volunteers with the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow (CoCoRaHS), a nationwide observer network, are trained in this method. This practice first became standard at airports starting in the 1950s, but later at other official climate reporting sites, such as Manhattan’s Central Park, where 6-hourly measurements did not become routine until the 1990s.

Earlier in our weather history, the standard practice was to record snowfall amounts less frequently, such as every 12 or 24 hours, or even to take just one measurement of depth on the ground at the end of the storm.

You might think that one or two measurements per day should add up to pretty much the same as measurements taken every 6 hours during the storm. It’s a logical assumption, but you would be mistaken. Snow on the ground gets compacted as additional snow falls. Therefore, multiple measurements during a storm typically result in a higher total than if snowfall is derived from just one or two measurements per day.

That can make quite a significant difference. It turns out that it’s not uncommon for the snow on the ground at the end of a storm to be 15 to 20 percent less than the total that would be derived from multiple snowboard measurements.  As the cooperative climate observer for Boulder, Colorado, I examined the 15 biggest snowfalls of the last two decades, all measured at the NOAA campus in Boulder. The sum of the snowboard measurements averaged 17 percent greater than the maximum depth on the ground at the end of the storm. For a 20-inch snowfall, that would be a boost of 3.4 inches—enough to dethrone many close rivals on the top-10 snowstorm list that were not necessarily lesser storms!

Another common practice at the cooperative observing stations prior to 1950 did not involve measuring snow at all, but instead took the liquid derived from the snow and applied a 10:1 ratio (every inch of liquid equals ten inches of snow). This is no longer the official practice and has become increasingly less common since 1950. But it too introduces a potential low bias in historic snowfalls because in most parts of the country (and in the recent blizzard in the Northeast) one inch of liquid produces more than 10 inches of snow.

This means that many of the storms from the 1980s or earlier would probably appear in the record as bigger storms if the observers had used the currently accepted methodology. Now, for those of you northeasterners with aching backs from shoveling, I am not saying that your recent storm wasn’t big in places like Boston, Portland, or Long Island. But I am saying that some of the past greats—the February Blizzard of 1978, the Knickerbocker storm of January 1922, and the great Blizzard of March 1888—are probably underestimated.

So keep in mind when viewing those lists of snowy greats: the older ones are not directly comparable with those in recent decades. It’s not as bad as comparing apples to oranges, but it may be like comparing apples to crabapples.

Going forward, we can look for increasingly accurate snow totals. Researchers at NCAR and other organizations are studying new approaches for measuring snow more accurately (see related story: Snowfall, inch by inch).  

But we can’t apply those techniques to the past. For now, all we can say is that snowfall measurements taken more than about 20 or 30 years ago may be unsuitable for detecting trends – and perhaps snowfall records from the past should not be melting away quite as quickly as it appears.

Update • January 29, 2015 | Thanks to thoughtful feedback by several colleagues, this article has been updated. Paragraph 3 now includes a description of how climate studies handle the data inconsistencies. Paragraph 9 was added to describe the pre-1950s practice, no longer in wide use, of recording liquid water content only, and not snow depth.

Matt Kelsch is a hydrometeorologist in UCAR's COMET Program. He specializes in weather and climate events involving water, such as floods, droughts, rain, hail, or snow. Kelsch develops and delivers educational materials designed for both domestic and international groups including National Weather Service forecasters, the military, the World Meteorological Organization, university students and faculty, government agencies, and private industry.

 

 

 

[michsnowfreak]

12 hours ago, michsnowfreak said:

And it's completely different from my recollections. It was less much less snowy during my childhood/teen years in the 1990s than during the 2000s-2010s. Cleveland, which is nowhere near the coastal I95 cities, was an aberration in the lower Lakes, as most of the region saw snowier winters in the 2000s and 2010s than the 1990s, especially synoptically. Cleveland is much more prone to the hits and misses of lake effect bands.

As expected, Cleveland was an extreme cherry pick by TCC, and does not match the overall trend of snowfall in the lower Great Lakes region. For most big metros, snowfall hit a dip (in some cases, a big dip) in the 1990s before rebounding dramatically in the 2000s. I assumed TCC grew up in PA where he lives now, but mustve been Cleveland, as Pittsburgh joins other areas in a much snowier 2010s. 

Considering the snowfall at Cleveland Hopkins airport averaged in the upper 40s thru low 50s in the 1940s-1960s, then suddenly jumped into the 60s in the 1980s-90s, then 70s in the 2000s before falling back into the low 50s in the 2010s (a match to the same location in the 1950s, and still snowier than the 1940s or 1960s) makes me wonder if there have been site changes in where snow is measured. You are typically allowed a good 5-mile radius with which to measure snow around a first order site, but in an area where snake-like lake effect bands can blast one area and leave another a few miles away untouched, this would make a huge difference whereas in a non lake belt region a move of a few miles would be negligible.

Avg snowfall

DETROIT
1980s- 45.2”
1990s- 37.9”
2000s- 45.3”
2010s- 49.9”

FLINT
1980s- 43.6”
1990s- 42.5”
2000s- 55.5”
2010s- 57.4”

CHICAGO
1980s- 38.1”
1990s- 32.2”
2000s- 38.5”
2010s- 42.7”

FORT WAYNE
1980s- 37.7”
1990s- 29.3”
2000s- 33.5”
2010s- 36.4”

PITTSBURGH
1980s- 37.8”
1990s- 40.9”
2000s- 41.0”
2010s- 49.4”

CLEVELAND
1980s- 64.9”
1990s- 61.2”
2000s- 76.9”
2010s- 53.1”
 

[michsnowfreak]

43 minutes ago, bluewave said:

This wasn’t the case for many first order sites such as NYC. So recent snowfall measurements are inflated relative to the way snowfall was measured prior to the 1990s around NYC and to before 1950 in other locations. So boost pre-1950 snowfall totals by 15-20% and the majority of first order sites in the U.S. will show a steady decline since the late 1800s. Several stations already show a long term snowfall decline. So imagine how much steeper a decline we would have if the snowfall was measured as frequently as it is today. Plus places like NYC would use melted down gauge snow equivalents and not actual measurements like in the blizzard of 1888 using a simple 10:1 ratio which is very inaccurate when the 1800s were so cold with much higher ratios.

https://news.ucar.edu/14009/snowfall-measurement-flaky-history

As a hydrometeorological instructor in UCAR’s COMET program and a weather observer for the National Weather Service, I am keenly interested in weather trends. In this case, climate change is an important factor to explore, since we know that the heaviest precipitation events have intensified in many parts of the world (see related story: Torrents and droughts and twisters - oh my!).

But when we turn to snowstorms in the Northeast, or elsewhere in the U.S., there is an additional factor at work when comparing modern numbers with historical ones. Quite simply, our measuring techniques have changed, and we are not necessarily comparing apples to apples. In fact, the apparent trend toward bigger snowfalls is at least partially the result of new—and more accurate—ways of measuring snowfall totals. Climate studies carefully select a subset of stations with consistent snow records, or avoid the snowfall variable altogether.

Official measurement of snowfall these days uses a flat, usually white, surface called a snowboard (which pre-dates the popular winter sport equipment of the same name). The snowboard depth measurement is done ideally every 6 hours, but not more frequently, and the snow is cleared after each measurement. At the end of the snowfall, all of the measurements are added up for the storm total. 

NOAA’s cooperative climate observers and thousands of volunteers with the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow (CoCoRaHS), a nationwide observer network, are trained in this method. This practice first became standard at airports starting in the 1950s, but later at other official climate reporting sites, such as Manhattan’s Central Park, where 6-hourly measurements did not become routine until the 1990s.

Earlier in our weather history, the standard practice was to record snowfall amounts less frequently, such as every 12 or 24 hours, or even to take just one measurement of depth on the ground at the end of the storm.

You might think that one or two measurements per day should add up to pretty much the same as measurements taken every 6 hours during the storm. It’s a logical assumption, but you would be mistaken. Snow on the ground gets compacted as additional snow falls. Therefore, multiple measurements during a storm typically result in a higher total than if snowfall is derived from just one or two measurements per day.

That can make quite a significant difference. It turns out that it’s not uncommon for the snow on the ground at the end of a storm to be 15 to 20 percent less than the total that would be derived from multiple snowboard measurements.  As the cooperative climate observer for Boulder, Colorado, I examined the 15 biggest snowfalls of the last two decades, all measured at the NOAA campus in Boulder. The sum of the snowboard measurements averaged 17 percent greater than the maximum depth on the ground at the end of the storm. For a 20-inch snowfall, that would be a boost of 3.4 inches—enough to dethrone many close rivals on the top-10 snowstorm list that were not necessarily lesser storms!

Another common practice at the cooperative observing stations prior to 1950 did not involve measuring snow at all, but instead took the liquid derived from the snow and applied a 10:1 ratio (every inch of liquid equals ten inches of snow). This is no longer the official practice and has become increasingly less common since 1950. But it too introduces a potential low bias in historic snowfalls because in most parts of the country (and in the recent blizzard in the Northeast) one inch of liquid produces more than 10 inches of snow.

This means that many of the storms from the 1980s or earlier would probably appear in the record as bigger storms if the observers had used the currently accepted methodology. Now, for those of you northeasterners with aching backs from shoveling, I am not saying that your recent storm wasn’t big in places like Boston, Portland, or Long Island. But I am saying that some of the past greats—the February Blizzard of 1978, the Knickerbocker storm of January 1922, and the great Blizzard of March 1888—are probably underestimated.

So keep in mind when viewing those lists of snowy greats: the older ones are not directly comparable with those in recent decades. It’s not as bad as comparing apples to oranges, but it may be like comparing apples to crabapples.

Going forward, we can look for increasingly accurate snow totals. Researchers at NCAR and other organizations are studying new approaches for measuring snow more accurately (see related story: Snowfall, inch by inch).  

But we can’t apply those techniques to the past. For now, all we can say is that snowfall measurements taken more than about 20 or 30 years ago may be unsuitable for detecting trends – and perhaps snowfall records from the past should not be melting away quite as quickly as it appears.

Update • January 29, 2015 | Thanks to thoughtful feedback by several colleagues, this article has been updated. Paragraph 3 now includes a description of how climate studies handle the data inconsistencies. Paragraph 9 was added to describe the pre-1950s practice, no longer in wide use, of recording liquid water content only, and not snow depth.

Matt Kelsch is a hydrometeorologist in UCAR's COMET Program. He specializes in weather and climate events involving water, such as floods, droughts, rain, hail, or snow. Kelsch develops and delivers educational materials designed for both domestic and international groups including National Weather Service forecasters, the military, the World Meteorological Organization, university students and faculty, government agencies, and private industry.

 

 

 

Ive seen that link many times in the 10 years since it was written/published someone who does not work at the NWS. Most first order sites are airports, so it would be extremely odd if NYC didnt follow that practice like all others did. Are there any mets here who work for OKX NWS that can confirm this alleged information?

Even if it is true in the isolated case of NYC, I have heard many posters from your region complain about the snow measurements at Central Park. As I said earlier in this thread, if you look at the old weather books, the precision with which weather data was kept was astounding and far superior to today. They measured the snowfall every hour, even if the board or surface with which they measured wasnt swiped. They also noted snowfall and depth, which often varied somewhat, which leads me to wonder IF there were errant practices going on at the biggest city of them all, NYC, whereas other areas were more accurate, thats a big wtf.

[40/70 Benchmark]

11 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

Ive seen that link many times in the 10 years since it was written/published someone who does not work at the NWS. Most first order sites are airports, so it would be extremely odd if NYC didnt follow that practice like all others did. Are there any mets here who work for OKX NWS that can confirm this alleged information?

Even if it is true in the isolated case of NYC, I have heard many posters from your region complain about the snow measurements at Central Park. As I said earlier in this thread, if you look at the old weather books, the precision with which weather data was kept was astounding and far superior to today. They measured the snowfall every hour, even if the board or surface with which they measured wasnt swiped. They also noted snowfall and depth, which often varied somewhat, which leads me to wonder IF there were errant practices going on at the biggest city of them all, NYC, whereas other areas were more accurate, thats a big wtf.

I have had measurements derived from 6 hour clears tossed by the NWS in larger events, so he is incorrect, whether or not he chooses to acknowledge it or not. Others have also cited instances in which it was apparent that Central Park significantly under reported snowfall in mixed events.

Its like we can sit here and see that the sky is blue, but I'm sure Chris or anyone else can scour the internet for a peer reviewed arcitcle that argues that isn't blue...not going to change my mind, sorry.

[40/70 Benchmark]

I think a reasonable compromise is that maybe amounts are inflated by like 10% on average today because I don't think anyone used the clear method 100 years ago...I am even willing to concede that, but this obstinant insistance that its 15-20% is frustrating becaues its not as clear cut as he portrays it. I'm sure the array of reports wasn't as dense as it is today, either, so maybe snowfall back then was also a bit under represented if some higher amounts were missed. I don't reject that entire concept, but just feel its overstated.

[michsnowfreak]

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I think a reasonable comromise is that maybe amounts are inflated by like 10% on average today because I don't think anyone used the clear method 100 years ago...I am even willing to concede that, but this obstinant insistance that its 15-20% is frustrating becaues its not as clear cut as he portrays it. I'm sure the array of reports wasn't as dense as it is today, either, so maybe snowfall back then was also a bit under represented if some higher amounts were missed. I don't reject that entire concept, but just feel its overstated.

Agree, nothing is clear cut. Snowfall is and always has been subject to human error to begin with. But on top of this, some make these broad assumptions about past data as if they were there at the exact spot when it was measured, which obviously is not the case. I too agree there wasn't a swipe method 100+ years ago (again, that dates back about 75 years) but back then you had humans, not a machine, observing the weather every hour. Now an observer only goes out at a scheduled time.

Lastly on this discussion, I have seen the argument that NYC is more feast or famine than it used to be, and that in the old days they had more 2-4/3-5 type snowfalls. Well if that's the case, that's even less to worry about wrt past snow data. I have been measuring snowfall for 30 years in a climate that gets lots of small to moderate snowfalls and the occasional big storm. I can tell you for a fact that the settling of your average ratio synoptic snow is a lot less in the smaller/moderate snowfalls than the large ones.

[bluewave]

On 5/15/2025 at 12:27 PM, PhiEaglesfan712 said:

The further south, it is more noticeable earlier. For example, Charlotte hasn't seen a 10-inch snow season since 2003-04, or even an above average snow season since 2013-14.

Yeah, areas further south will naturally see the declines in snowfall first since they were always more marginal to begin with. The further north lake effect zones and higher elevations of the Northeast will still do well since warmer storm tracks for the coast are good for snowfall in those areas. While we can’t completely rule out some major volcanic event which could temporarily cool the climate, those type of events have been pretty rare and aren’t easily predictable.

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, michsnowfreak said:

Agree, nothing is clear cut. Snowfall is and always has been subject to human error to begin with. But on top of this, some make these broad assumptions about past data as if they were there at the exact spot when it was measured, which obviously is not the case. I too agree there wasn't a swipe method 100+ years ago (again, that dates back about 75 years) but back then you had humans, not a machine, observing the weather every hour. Now an observer only goes out at a scheduled time.

Lastly on this discussion, I have seen the argument that NYC is more feast or famine than it used to be, and that in the old days they had more 2-4/3-5 type snowfalls. Well if that's the case, that's even less to worry about wrt past snow data. I have been measuring snowfall for 30 years in a climate that gets lots of small to moderate snowfalls and the occasional big storm. I can tell you for a fact that the settling of your average ratio synoptic snow is a lot less in the smaller/moderate snowfalls than the large ones.

Chef's kiss-mic drop....I had never even thought of that. A larger number of smaller events means less error....its the "all" events that are riddled with greater inconsistency and when there is mixed precipitation, some of those are UNDERmeasured...undoubtedly.

[michsnowfreak]

2 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Chef's kiss-mic drop....I had never even thought of that. A larger number of smaller events means less error....its the "all" events that are riddled with greater inconsistency and when there is mixed precipitation, some of those are UNDERmeasured...undoubtedly.

Thanks, and yes thats exactly right. Obviously it is preferred that observers at first order stations take these factors into account, and measure right away if it switches to rain OR as soon as the snow ends. But their requirement is to give a measurement at the 6-hour obs time. Pre-1950s, observers would log "snow began at 7:42, ended at 1:13, total fall 3.6 inches, melted 0.33 inch" or something  like that. There would not be any misses for mixed precip or a lag after snowfall ended.

[TheClimateChanger]

6 hours ago, michsnowfreak said:

As expected, Cleveland was an extreme cherry pick by TCC, and does not match the overall trend of snowfall in the lower Great Lakes region. For most big metros, snowfall hit a dip (in some cases, a big dip) in the 1990s before rebounding dramatically in the 2000s. I assumed TCC grew up in PA where he lives now, but mustve been Cleveland, as Pittsburgh joins other areas in a much snowier 2010s. 

Considering the snowfall at Cleveland Hopkins airport averaged in the upper 40s thru low 50s in the 1940s-1960s, then suddenly jumped into the 60s in the 1980s-90s, then 70s in the 2000s before falling back into the low 50s in the 2010s (a match to the same location in the 1950s, and still snowier than the 1940s or 1960s) makes me wonder if there have been site changes in where snow is measured. You are typically allowed a good 5-mile radius with which to measure snow around a first order site, but in an area where snake-like lake effect bands can blast one area and leave another a few miles away untouched, this would make a huge difference whereas in a non lake belt region a move of a few miles would be negligible.

Avg snowfall

DETROIT
1980s- 45.2”
1990s- 37.9”
2000s- 45.3”
2010s- 49.9”

FLINT
1980s- 43.6”
1990s- 42.5”
2000s- 55.5”
2010s- 57.4”

CHICAGO
1980s- 38.1”
1990s- 32.2”
2000s- 38.5”
2010s- 42.7”

FORT WAYNE
1980s- 37.7”
1990s- 29.3”
2000s- 33.5”
2010s- 36.4”

PITTSBURGH
1980s- 37.8”
1990s- 40.9”
2000s- 41.0”
2010s- 49.4”

CLEVELAND
1980s- 64.9”
1990s- 61.2”
2000s- 76.9”
2010s- 53.1”
 

Cherrypicked? Please. Linear regressions from 1990 to the present show decreased snowfall at all of the closest stations. Say what you want about it being too short of a period, but the data clearly shows snowfall has decreased in my lifetime in the region.

Regression of last 36 years (1989-1990 to 2024-2025), showing starting predicted value and ending predicted value.

Toledo 39.0 -> 29.7 [excludes 1997/98 where only limited data is available; also, several years are missing altogether and there is other missing data, particularly 2003-2004, with no snow report prior to 1/1/04].

Erie, PA 109.9 -> 84.7

Mansfield, OH 53.6 -> 36.3 [excluding partial data in 97-98]

Akron/Canton, OH 48.6 -> 41.3 [no data for 96-97]

Pittsburgh, PA 44.2 -> 39.6

Even Buffalo, NY shows a negative trend over that period: 98.8 -> 90.1

Columbus, OH 29.0 -> 22.3

Dayton, OH 24.9 -> 23.4

Fort Wayne, IN 34.2 -> 28.7

Rochester, NY: 113.7 -> 80.4

Syracuse, NY: 151.1 -> 92.2

Cleveland, OH: 76.8 -> 44.0

Elkins, WV: 88.5 -> 45.4

Charleston, WV: 36.9 -> 18.6

[TheClimateChanger]

4 hours ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, areas further south will naturally see the declines in snowfall first since they were always more marginal to begin with. The further north lake effect zones and higher elevations of the Northeast will still do well since warmer storm tracks for the coast are good for snowfall in those areas. While we can’t completely rule out some major volcanic event which could temporarily cool the climate, those type of events have been pretty rare and aren’t easily predictable.

Is there a mechanism by which snowfall can increase? I just don't understand what magical change is going to take place that we "cycle" into a snowier period. Makes zero sense in a rapidly warming world. Laughably stupid.

Sure, there can still be snowier and colder winters from time to time, but I just don't see the current trend reversing? But maybe I am missing something?

[TheClimateChanger]

9 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Is there a mechanism by which snowfall can increase? I just don't understand what magical change is going to take place that we "cycle" into a snowier period. Makes zero sense in a rapidly warming world. Laughably stupid.

Sure, there can still be snowier and colder winters from time to time, but I just don't see the current trend reversing? But maybe I am missing something?

Recent winters have been rather mild, although the most recent winter was colder. But in +1.5C world, they might actually be fairly ordinary winters. For all we know, last winter is as good as it gets in a +1.5C world. A warm winter in that world might bring even milder conditions. We just don't have enough data to say what a typical winter looks like in a +1.5C world, since we've only been at those levels for a couple of years.

I mean the last glacial maximum was only ~6C colder, and that had mountains of ice burying many of these cities. Summer temperatures would have been hardpressed to get much above freezing for any extended periods of time, and snowfall would have been probable in every month of the calendar year. These days summers are warm and humid, with highs regularly in the 80s, and occasionally in the 90s. So, I don't think it should be controversial to say an increase of about 1/4 of the difference between pre-industrial average and glacial maximum is capable of causing a decrease in winter snowfall?

[mitchnick]

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Recent winters have been rather mild, although the most recent winter was colder. But in +1.5C world, they might actually be fairly ordinary winters. For all we know, last winter is as good as it gets in a +1.5C world. A warm winter in that world might bring even milder conditions. We just don't have enough data to say what a typical winter looks like in a +1.5C world, since we've only been at those levels for a couple of years.

I mean the last glacial maximum was only ~6C colder, and that had mountains of ice burying many of these cities. Summer temperatures would have been hardpressed to get much above freezing for any extended periods of time, and snowfall would have been probable in every month of the calendar year. These days summers are warm and humid, with highs regularly in the 80s, and occasionally in the 90s. So, I don't think it should be controversial to say an increase of about 1/4 of the difference between pre-industrial average and glacial maximum is capable of causing a decrease in winter snowfall?

Can't you talk to yourself in the Climate Change forum? You know, the forum for this drivel. Thanks.

[TheClimateChanger]

27 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

Can't you talk to yourself in the Climate Change forum? You know, the forum for this drivel. Thanks.

I didn’t start the discussion. Why don’t you instead call out the person or persons who did?