February 2026 Medium/ Long Range Discussion: 150K Salary Needed to Post

[midatlanticweather]

@psuhoffmanyou have great info.. You write so much about this.. I would tell ya to gather that info, put it in a blog with sections and just point to it.. You have to be sick of saying the same things. Additionally, warming has happened. I am west of Rt15 by a good bit and now at almost 500 feet, this seems to be the rain/snow line many times or just west to the Blue Ridge. It is the sad reality for snow lovers. We will not get into arguments why.. It is observable and has/is happening 

And we should note, we are super sensitive here in the Mid Atlantic to just a degree or 2 of temperatures. So it matters more than maybe many other places.. 

[bncho]

8 minutes ago, SnowenOutThere said:

It really isn’t. It’s just math. The math equation states there are three factors which influence earths surface temperature. 1. Solar forcing (sunspots vary it by .001% so sure .001% of our warming is natural best case) 2. Albedo 3. Atmospheric absorption. Now, only molecules which undergo a vibrational transformation when impacted with solar radiation of a certain wavelength are greenhouse gasses (hence why nitrogen or oxygen in their own don’t increase heat). Can you guess those molecules? CO2, methane, cfcs, h20, etc. now what molecules do we pump into the atmosphere? It’s not political. 

It started with CO2 emissions. By itself it warmed the environment (a little bit) but more importantly it kickstarted a positive feedback loop with water vapor, which is also a pretty potent greenhouse gas (albeit not to the extent of CO2 when comparing it molecule by molecule). Warmer temps can hold more water vapor, so the water vapor traps more heat, and the even warmer air can hold even more water vapor, so the additional water vapor traps even more heat, etc., etc., there's your positive feedback loop (also ice melting = less radiational energy reflected = warmer temps, another positive feedback loop). So with the increasing amount of CO2 emissions every year this loop only increases in rate over time.

I don't know too much about methane and CFCS so i didn't mention them. It would be much appreciated to tell me more about those greenhouse gases.

[paulythegun]

I don't know too much about methane and CFCS so i didn't mention them. It would be much appreciated to tell me more about those greenhouse gases.

For this, I recommend the Nutty Professor remake, along with the Klumps sequels

[VBweather]

36 minutes ago, bncho said:

It started with CO2 emissions. By itself it warmed the environment (a little bit) but more importantly it kickstarted a positive feedback loop with water vapor, which is also a pretty potent greenhouse gas (albeit not to the extent of CO2 when comparing it molecule by molecule). Warmer temps can hold more water vapor, so the water vapor traps more heat, and the even warmer air can hold even more water vapor, so the additional water vapor traps even more heat, etc., etc., there's your positive feedback loop (also ice melting = less radiational energy reflected = warmer temps, another positive feedback loop). So with the increasing amount of CO2 emissions every year this loop only increases in rate over time.

I don't know too much about methane and CFCS so i didn't mention them. It would be much appreciated to tell me more about those greenhouse gases.

What percent of the atmosphere is composed of carbon dioxide? Mic drop. 

[bncho]

1 minute ago, VBweather said:

What percent of the atmosphere is composed of carbon dioxide? Mic drop. 

CO2 levels around 1800 were approximately 280ppm. That number has raised to 420ppm, an increase of 50%! It's not about the small percentage that's in the atmosphere. It's more about the drastic increase!

Without CO2 (assuming plants weren't affected), Earth would probably be WAY too cold for the current multicellular organisms to survive save for a few species. Despite how little CO2 makes up the atmosphere it leaves a big impact! 

[snowmagnet]

I think I’m in the wrong forum. I take a few days off and everyone is talking  radiation, mountain peaks, and math. I just need some pretty pink (or green) snow maps. I have a ton of meetings the week of the 24th, so maybe it will happen. 
 

I also keep wondering about  the promised warm-up. I mean, it’s not 21 degrees anymore, but the torch hasn’t happened yet. It’s been a cold winter. 

[SnowenOutThere]

42 minutes ago, bncho said:

It started with CO2 emissions. By itself it warmed the environment (a little bit) but more importantly it kickstarted a positive feedback loop with water vapor, which is also a pretty potent greenhouse gas (albeit not to the extent of CO2 when comparing it molecule by molecule). Warmer temps can hold more water vapor, so the water vapor traps more heat, and the even warmer air can hold even more water vapor, so the additional water vapor traps even more heat, etc., etc., there's your positive feedback loop (also ice melting = less radiational energy reflected = warmer temps, another positive feedback loop). So with the increasing amount of CO2 emissions every year this loop only increases in rate over time.

I don't know too much about methane and CFCS so i didn't mention them. It would be much appreciated to tell me more about those greenhouse gases.

Eh technically the h20 vapor feedback is less important than you’d think. When I was younger I thought the same thing but it turns out the lifetime of water vapor is so low it prevents this buildup. Ofc, it’s still significant to our warming but not doomsday feedback look. Methane and permafrost release is more concerning but we also have some negative feedback loops for now. 

[bncho]

Just now, SnowenOutThere said:

Eh technically the h20 vapor feedback is less important than you’d think. When I was younger I thought the same thing but it turns out the lifetime of water vapor is so low it prevents this buildup. Ofc, it’s still significant to our warming but not doomsday feedback look. Methane and permafrost release is more concerning but we also have some negative feedback loops for now. 

I think I actually remembered this from some sorta movie, but it just occured to me that a lot of methane is contained within our ice caps. When they melt they are released. But thank you for clarification about water vapor feedback.

[midatlanticweather]

You guys are going to argue until the cows fart all the way home. There is a main forum thread for this. We have warming. Let's just leave that here. Go argue why over in the other thread 

[SnowenOutThere]

16 minutes ago, midatlanticweather said:

You guys are going to argue until the cows fart all the way home. There is a main forum thread for this. We have warming. Let's just leave that here. Go argue why over in the other thread 

We are an atmospheric science board so why is it suddenly controversial to discus a whole field of it? Seriously it’s like saying we couldn’t discuss 500mb height maps or vort maps because they’re “political”. They both directly impact our storms and climate zones. It is what it is

[mitchnick]

6 minutes ago, SnowenOutThere said:

We are an atmospheric science board so why is it suddenly controversial to discus a whole field of it? Seriously it’s like saying we couldn’t discuss 500mb height maps or vort maps because they’re “political”. They both directly impact our storms and climate zones. It is what it is

Because this board/thread is for upcoming threats per title and there is a separate forum for it. So just like we don't go into the climate change forum to discuss storm threats in the coming weeks, we don't come into this forum to argue over climate change issues. Plus, it inevitably leads to unnecessary arguments. 

[psuhoffman]

1 hour ago, SnowenOutThere said:

It really isn’t. It’s just math. The math equation states there are three factors which influence earths surface temperature. 1. Solar forcing (sunspots vary it by .001% so sure .001% of our warming is natural best case) 2. Albedo 3. Atmospheric absorption. Now, only molecules which undergo a vibrational transformation when impacted with solar radiation of a certain wavelength are greenhouse gasses (hence why nitrogen or oxygen in their own don’t increase heat). Can you guess those molecules? CO2, methane, cfcs, h20, etc. now what molecules do we pump into the atmosphere? It’s not political. 

I don’t agree with the argument but some argue C02 concentration are cyclical. Look I’m on your side I just don’t want to muddy the snow argument because what’s causing the warming doesn’t matter to the is the warming hurting our snowfall argument. Those 2 debates can be severed. 

[psuhoffman]

1 hour ago, SnowenOutThere said:

Quick question for you but are the models getting the high peaks of our mountains correct and if so why aren’t they snowing? Hypothetically they should be 6-8 degrees cooler than surrounding valleys and snow but they don’t seem to show that 

The high resolution models can pick up on them but the issue here is the higher mountains in our area are southwest and in this case south of the thermal boundary that sets up. The high resolution do show more snow on Catoctin and parrs ridge in Maryland. 

[WEATHER53]

I have wondered that if the Gulf Stream has indeed weakened, could that be less attractive now to potential low pressures to move along Atlantic coastline miller A style?

[psuhoffman]

Just now, WEATHER53 said:

I have wondered that if the Gulf Stream has indeed weakened, could that be less attractive now to potential low pressures to move along Atlantic coastline miller A style?

This storm is taking a perfect track. It’s just too warm for DC 

[SnowenOutThere]

4 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

The high resolution models can pick up on them but the issue here is the higher mountains in our area are southwest and in this case south of the thermal boundary that sets up. The high resolution do show more snow on Catoctin and parrs ridge in Maryland. 

I assume by thermal boundary you mean more upper air 925-850mb level?

[psuhoffman]

20 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

Because this board/thread is for upcoming threats per title and there is a separate forum for it. So just like we don't go into the climate change forum to discuss storm threats in the coming weeks, we don't come into this forum to argue over climate change issues. Plus, it inevitably leads to unnecessary arguments. 

True BUT this topic never comes up in a vacuum. It’s not like someone comes in here and just says now let’s talk about climate change. What happens is we get a synoptic situation that is being impacted by climate change. It’s impossible not to note that this storm we are tracking right now is being impacted by it being warmer. You’d be under an advisory if not a warning right now of it was 1970 and 2f colder with this same exact synoptic setup.  That discussion is muddy because it bridges both topics. And I don’t think the people that shit it down do so because it’s the wrong thread they do so because they are uncomfortable with the topic. Either because they are in denial about what it’s doing to our snowfall or because they are in denial because it’s inconvenient to their preferred ideology. 
 

I have no patience or fucks to give about either of those reasons. 

[psuhoffman]

3 minutes ago, SnowenOutThere said:

I assume by thermal boundary you mean more upper air 925-850mb level?

Will most of the column from h85 down is nearly isothermal so they all start warming together in this case. Slightly. But the equation gets a lot harder the further southwest you go right now. 

[Maestrobjwa]

4 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

This storm is taking a perfect track. It’s just too warm for DC 

So 2F warmer...did the effects somehow accelerate after 2016? Because I'm sure 2014 or 15 had setups like this that worked, didn't they?

[SnowenOutThere]

2 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

So 2F warmer...did the effects somehow accelerate after 2016? Because I'm sure 2014 or 15 had setups like this that worked, didn't they?

I think PSU would agree with my take on this but its never quite that easy. Its background presence has been increasing. Some setups might still be cold enough, some setups wont be. Over time our marginal setups will only become more likely to fall on the not cold enough side. So its not like some year will mark the end of our marginal setups forever, instead its a slow decline. Ofc to not make this political this phenomenon is unique to only snowstorms and has no broader causes, effects or solutions.

[Maestrobjwa]

1 minute ago, SnowenOutThere said:

I think PSU would agree with my take on this but its never quite that easy. Its background presence has been increasing. Some setups might still be cold enough, some setups wont be. Over time our marginal setups will only become more likely to fall on the not cold enough side. So its not like some year will mark the end of our marginal setups forever, instead its a slow decline. Ofc to not make this political this phenomenon is unique to only snowstorms and has no broader causes, effects or solutions.

This here...that's what I had assumed the changed would be. But I don't remember this stuff happening before 2016 or us having discussions about perfect track rainstorms in February. In fact I distinctly remember a snowfall in 2015 where it was 50⁰+ the day before and we were are thermostat watching...and the next day we got several inches! It all just feels sudden to me.

[SnowenOutThere]

Just now, Maestrobjwa said:

This here...that's what I had assumed the changed would be. But I don't remember this stuff happening before 2016 or us having discussions about perfect track rainstorms in February. In fact I distinctly remember a snowfall in 2015 where it was 50⁰+ the day before and we were are thermostat watching...and the next day we got several inches! It all just feels sudden to me.

I mean PSU can answer this better than me (after all I was too young to remember a time before perfect rainstorm tracking) but what I assume is that before the significant warming events of the 2012 and 2016 ninos which some may argue set new climate baselines the ability for us to get those setups was easier. Though, I'm sure you were already losing some of those setups on the margins but no one quite cared as it still was snowing enough. Now its flipped where more often than not they fail... so it all seems sudden. Fortunately I never got to experience that pre climate hell baseline so I'll never know what we've lost. Though, even last winter that January storm we just missed a real snowstorm by a factor of a couple degrees. Additionally, you got knock on effects of thermal boundaries, storm track, jet stream, etc shifting around. 

[Paleocene]

Just now, SnowenOutThere said:

I mean PSU can answer this better than me (after all I was too young to remember a time before perfect rainstorm tracking) but what I assume is that before the significant warming events of the 2012 and 2016 ninos which some may argue set new climate baselines the ability for us to get those setups was easier. Though, I'm sure you were already losing some of those setups on the margins but no one quite cared as it still was snowing enough. Now its flipped where more often than not they fail... so it all seems sudden. Fortunately I never got to experience that pre climate hell baseline so I'll never know what we've lost. Though, even last winter that January storm we just missed a real snowstorm by a factor of a couple degrees. Additionally, you got knock on effects of thermal boundaries, storm track, jet stream, etc shifting around. 

 

Trust me, we used to fail. I had a few disappointing winters in the 90s as a kid (and some great ones), and I lived further north. Now we are more likely to fail! 

[Maestrobjwa]

3 minutes ago, Paleocene said:

Trust me, we used to fail. I had a few disappointing winters in the 90s as a kid (and some great ones), and I lived further north. Now we are more likely to fail! 

As a fellow 90s kid I remember some of those fails, lol But I do remember more moderate snows of 6-8" as opposed to what we get now...

[Cobalt]

1 hour ago, VBweather said:

What percent of the atmosphere is composed of carbon dioxide? Mic drop. 

Damn so in following that logic, it's okay to drive while drunk because my blood is only composed of 0.09% alcohol?

[psuhoffman]

18 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

So 2F warmer...did the effects somehow accelerate after 2016? Because I'm sure 2014 or 15 had setups like this that worked, didn't they?

Not globally but the rate of increase does continue to accelerate.  What’s happened that caused the sudden post 2016 decline in snowfall was a pattern change to a hostile pacific much of the time which has made the 2f matter more because we’re stuck in a warm regime most of the time where even when we do get snow threats we need Them to work with marginal temps and those marginal temps are now warmer. 
 

Some of this will get better when a better long term cycle emerges. But make no mistake we’re bleeding snow even in those. For example the last time we timed up a favorable Atlantic and pacific in the 2000s Baltimore only averaged 21” during that period. Better yea but only slightly above what the 30 year mean was anyways. At the same time NYC and Boston were averaging 150-175% of normal!  That should have been us!  And in the 1960s when a similar pattern happened it was us.  But it’s warming so the core of the snowfall shifted north. And we got scraps on the southern edge of the max snowfall anomalies despite a perfect pattern cycle.  That’s going to keep happening and get worse. 
 

we will continue to see short term cycles of less and more snow but over top of that is the long term decline. Each up will be less up and each down will be more down and eventually Baltimore will have a winter climate similar to what Raleigh used to have where snowfall is an extreme anomaly and not something you expect in any given winter. 

[stormy]

13 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

This here...that's what I had assumed the changed would be. But I don't remember this stuff happening before 2016 or us having discussions about perfect track rainstorms in February. In fact I distinctly remember a snowfall in 2015 where it was 50⁰+ the day before and we were are thermostat watching...and the next day we got several inches! It all just feels sudden to me.

On Oct. 9, 1979 in Staunton it was 70 degrees.      From 2 am that night until noon on the 10th, it snowed 9 inches.  

[bncho]

7 minutes ago, Cobalt said:

Damn so in following that logic, it's okay to drive while drunk because my blood is only composed of 0.09% alcohol?

Extremely well said!

[psuhoffman]

3 minutes ago, stormy said:

On Oct. 9, 1979 in Staunton it was 70 degrees.      From 2 am that night until noon on the 10th, it snowed 9 inches.  

Except you didn’t provide the relevant data. How warm it was the day before doesn’t matter. How warm was it while it snowed?  Did the temp drop to 27?  If so 2f wouldn’t have mattered and that’s still a snowstorm now. But if it was 32 during the snow, I got bad news for you regarding what math says the +2f would mean 

 

[midatlanticweather]

46 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

True BUT this topic never comes up in a vacuum. It’s not like someone comes in here and just says now let’s talk about climate change. What happens is we get a synoptic situation that is being impacted by climate change. It’s impossible not to note that this storm we are tracking right now is being impacted by it being warmer. You’d be under an advisory if not a warning right now of it was 1970 and 2f colder with this same exact synoptic setup.  That discussion is muddy because it bridges both topics. And I don’t think the people that shit it down do so because it’s the wrong thread they do so because they are uncomfortable with the topic. Either because they are in denial about what it’s doing to our snowfall or because they are in denial because it’s inconvenient to their preferred ideology. 
 

I have no patience or fucks to give about either of those reasons. 

I shut it down because the bias of the individual will overshadow science way too often. That is a given. You see things a way very many times based on what you expect. Sadly, this is the reality of many studies now, even when trying to be honest the bias will impact the outcome more than pure science and that.. That becomes contentious very quickly.. But there are plenty of studies now that clearly show the bias impacting the outcome.. Or the money doing the same. And that.. That is what muddies the waters causes debates.. Warming is clear, though even the extent has been questionable due to noted adjustments that people have done. I will not get into seeing people fired and reassigned after hoaxes were exposed to secure money all the way back to the ozone scare era.. I was working as an intern and saw it.. And it makes me sad because real scientific studies have been so corrupted. OK.. And that is the stuff that has no room in thia forum.. Sorry.. Just a hot topic due to money, power greed, and corruption that has f'd up scientific reliability in this polarized and and angry world