bluewave

UHI was already well established in NYC as early as 1896. LGA and JFK UHI began to increase with the Queens urbanization and population growth expansion in the 1920s. Notice the more than +10° low temperature difference between Central Park and more rural areas in August 1895. Data for August 9, 1896 through August 9, 1896 Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending. NY NY CITY CENTRAL PARK WBAN 82 NJ NEWARK LIBERTY INTL AP WBAN 76 NY WORLD TRADE CENTER WBAN 75 NJ PATERSON COOP 75 NY BRONX COOP 75 NJ PLAINFIELD COOP 73 NJ ELIZABETH COOP 73 NY PORT JERVIS COOP 72 NY SETAUKET STRONG COOP 72 CT MIDDLETOWN 4 W COOP 72 NY WEST POINT COOP 71 CT BRIDGEPORT COOP 71 NY BRENTWOOD COOP 70 CT COLCHESTER 2 W COOP 70 CT NORWALK COOP 69 CT WATERBURY ANACONDA COOP 69 CT NEW LONDON COOP 69 NJ CHARLOTTEBURG RESERVOIR COOP 67 Data for August 10, 1896 through August 10, 1896 Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending. NY NY CITY CENTRAL PARK WBAN 80 NJ NEWARK LIBERTY INTL AP WBAN 78 NY WORLD TRADE CENTER WBAN 77 NY BRONX COOP 77 CT BRIDGEPORT COOP 76 NJ PATERSON COOP 75 NY WEST POINT COOP 75 NY SETAUKET STRONG COOP 75 NJ PLAINFIELD COOP 74 NJ ELIZABETH COOP 74 CT NORWALK COOP 74 CT WATERBURY ANACONDA COOP 74 CT NEW LONDON COOP 73 CT COLCHESTER 2 W COOP 73 NY BRENTWOOD COOP 72 CT MIDDLETOWN 4 W COOP 72 NY PORT JERVIS COOP 71 NJ CHARLOTTEBURG RESERVOIR COOP 69 Data for August 11, 1896 through August 11, 1896 Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending. NY NY CITY CENTRAL PARK WBAN 81 NJ NEWARK LIBERTY INTL AP WBAN 78 NY BRONX COOP 78 NY WORLD TRADE CENTER WBAN 76 CT NEW LONDON COOP 75 NJ PATERSON COOP 74 NJ PLAINFIELD COOP 73 NJ ELIZABETH COOP 73 CT BRIDGEPORT COOP 73 NY SETAUKET STRONG COOP 73 CT WATERBURY ANACONDA COOP 72 NY PORT JERVIS COOP 71 NY WEST POINT COOP 71 CT MIDDLETOWN 4 W COOP 71 CT COLCHESTER 2 W COOP 71 NY BRENTWOOD COOP 70 CT NORWALK COOP 69 NJ CHARLOTTEBURG RESERVOIR COOP 67

The NYC UHI intensity hasn’t changed much since the 1980s on clear and calm nights when we get radiational cooling in the surrounding areas.

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

The greater issue is the rapid subsurface warming across the Western Pacific mid-latitudes. This resembles more of a shift rather than a function of the old PDO cycles that we have become familiar with in the past. The new subsurface and H300 PDO index does a better job reflecting the magnitude of the shift. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.pdf

This has nothing to do with the SAI. The most recent 30 year data reflecting the warmer climate leaves no doubt as to the relationship. Back in the colder climate era the relationship was much weaker than it has become. Part of this is due to weather patterns becoming more repetitive in a warmer climate probably owing to local tropical SSTs resulting in non-linear convective temperature forcing thresholds being crossed. I understand that the most extreme warming has only occurred over the last 15 to 30 years. So we have a new emergent climate state that is different from the previous colder era. We don’t have the luxury anymore of a relatively stable global temperature regime as was the case from 1880 through 1982. So you had a much longer period where there was only a small increase in temperatures. It gave us a 100 years of correlations to work out and use. I understand that you may have some hesitancy in using the newer correlations derived over the shorter period. But I have been using numerous relationships from this new and warmer period that have been serving me well. But it’s not a 100 year data set to draw from like we had back in the older and colder climate era.

What you call an agenda is simply the recognition of how much warmer our climate has become. We have had over 50 top 10 warmest months since 2010 with only 1 top 10 coldest. So our colder periods like December 1 through December 16th this month have been few and far between. The link below shows just how much of a novelty this cold period has been compared to all the warm months in the 2020s so far. But I get it that you are a bit of a joker which is fine. I also come from a practical joker background and I can be a bit of a stand up comedian in person. We would probably have a fun time if we ever met at forum conference. Many of my friends from Long Beach which were in the aviation industry also had great sense of humor which I appreciated. One of the wildest times post flight at the local airport bars occurred after encountering some surprise 60 KT winds which weren’t forecast very well on landing at JFK back in the late 80s. My friends roommate was one of the best pilots at the time and he said it was his bumpiest landing he ever had at JFK. The whole flight crew ran straight for the bar after that flight.

Since 1995-1996 we have had 15 La Niña winters as defined by the RONI index. 14 out of 15 of those winters followed a repeating pattern which has been common the last 30 years. EWR, NYC, and LGA December snowfall pattern repeated throughout the entire winter. The Decembers with under 4” of snowfall at those stations went on to below average seasonal snowfall. With the Decembers over 4” or snow featuring average to naive average snowfall. You might ask how can this work out over 90% of the time? My guess is that La Ninas tend to show what they are capable of early on in the season. Plus as our climate has warmed it has lead to more repeating and persistent patterns. So I view this December to winter snowfall relationship more as a marker of a deeper underlying shared pattern rather than something that is directly causing the outcome. What is misleading about showing the long term snowfall trend in NYC since the regular observations began in the late 1800s? As the long term climate has warmed, the snowfall has gone down. There have been shorter term up trends like from the 80s to 10s against the long term decline. Plus snowfall measurements prior to the 1980s would be higher if measurements were taken as frequently as we do today.They also substituted melted down snow gauge measurements at times like in 1888 blizzard which undercounted the higher ratios back in the much colder era. So the actual downward trend line is steeper if we correct for the different way we measure snow now.

Exactly which part of the historic snowfall record do you disagree with?

In a warming climate we can get larger snowstorms which is what happened during 2010 to 2018. The main caveat was that we needed the dominant storm track to be colder to our southeast in order to realize the higher snowfall potential. With the northwest and warmer shift to the storm tracks since 2018-2019, we have resumed the long term downward trend in the snowfall setting all-time 7 year record lows for snowfall.

Over 90% success rate for 14 out of the last 15 La Ninas spanning 30 years.

That standing wave is why I have been pointing out the warmer risks to the EPS extended forecasts after December 16th. Notice how the long range EPS missed the forcing there back in November. This is has been a regular EPS forecast error beyond 10 days in recent years due to the record marine heatwaves near the Maritime Continent. New run shows current MJO 4-6 standing wave Old run missed the current standing wave

We just have to be grateful for any snow we can get when the Pacific Jet is this extreme.

This is similar to what happened last year at this time with the models. Last December started with the extended guidance locking in the -EPO for the whole month. But as we approached the December 10th, the models caught onto how much stronger the Pacific Jet would be and the warmer +EPO pattern. Now the Pacific Jet is forecast to be much stronger mid-December than was indicated last week. Notice how much deeper the +EPO vortex is forecast to be now even with a near record -WPO 500 mb block. In the old days we would usually have the Pacific Jet weaken and we get more of a -WPO -EPO block. So we are on track for our annual warm up from December 17th to 25th. The +EPO is now forecast to becomes more dominant for our sensible weather than the -WPO as the Pacific Jet overpowers the pattern again. New run Old run

With how hostile the Pacific has been, even a T to 2 would be a big win to avoid a shutout.

The most measurable snowfall in NYC in the post Boxing Day Blizzard era since 2011 has been between the December 11-20th. Time Series Summary for NY CITY CENTRAL PARK, NY 12-01 to 12-10 snowfall Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending. 2024-12-10 T 0 2023-12-10 T 0 2022-12-10 0.0 0 2021-12-10 T 0 2020-12-10 T 0 2019-12-10 1.6 0 2018-12-10 0.0 0 2017-12-10 4.6 0 2016-12-10 0.0 0 2015-12-10 0.0 0 2014-12-10 1.0 0 2013-12-10 2.1 0 2012-12-10 0.0 0 2011-12-10 0.0 0 Time Series Summary for NY CITY CENTRAL PARK, NY 12-11 to 12-20 snowfall Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending. 2024-12-20 T 0 2023-12-20 0.0 0 2022-12-20 T 0 2021-12-20 0.0 0 2020-12-20 10.5 0 2019-12-20 0.9 0 2018-12-20 T 0 2017-12-20 2.4 0 2016-12-20 3.2 0 2015-12-20 0.0 0 2014-12-20 T 0 2013-12-20 6.5 0 2012-12-20 0.0 0 2011-12-20 0.0 0 Time Series Summary for NY CITY CENTRAL PARK, NY 12-21 to 12-31 snowfall Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending. 2024-12-31 2.8 0 2023-12-31 0.0 0 2022-12-31 T 0 2021-12-31 0.2 0 2020-12-31 0.0 0 2019-12-31 T 0 2018-12-31 T 0 2017-12-31 0.7 0 2016-12-31 T 0 2015-12-31 T 0 2014-12-31 T 0 2013-12-31 T 0 2012-12-31 0.4 0 2011-12-31 0.0 0