Winter 2011-2012

[ORH_wxman]

Weren't the 90s also a period of extreme solar activity, Will? I remember this being mentioned in the early 90s when we had some extremely warm years.

The 1990s had a big solar max in 1990-1991....but then Pinatubo erupted and we had big global cooling from 1992 to 1994.

[ORH_wxman]

Yes, but one can never know when that neat little cycle will end.

What do you mean? That is, with respect to climate change and our winters?

I have seen very little evidence that climate change does anything to us for now. In the late 1990s when we TORCHED from 1997-2000, everyone claimed it was global warming that was destroying our snowy winters that we had grown to love....but now its different. Since 2000-2001, we've had very snowy winters and since 2007, our winters have been pretty cold and generally snowy. Anytime climate change gets blames for a weather event or a set of weather events (like our warm 1997-2000 winters), it gets proven wrong. Its ridiculous to try and make assumptions based on huge variance.

We had a string of HORRENDOUSLY warm and snowless winters in the 1930s and early 1940s. Its simply too difficult to attribute climate change to our winter snowfall right now. It certainly might be a factor...but that factor is unknown and is probably very very weak in the face of ocean cycles and other parameters.

[40/70 Benchmark]

What do you mean? That is, with respect to climate change and our winters?

I have seen very little evidence that climate change does anything to us for now. In the late 1990s when we TORCHED from 1997-2000, everyone claimed it was global warming that was destroying our snowy winters that we had grown to love....but now its different. Since 2000-2001, we've had very snowy winters and since 2007, our winters have been pretty cold and generally snowy. Anytime climate change gets blames for a weather event or a set of weather events (like our warm 1997-2000 winters), it gets proven wrong. Its ridiculous to try and make assumptions based on huge variance.

We had a string of HORRENDOUSLY warm and snowless winters in the 1930s and early 1940s. Its simply too difficult to attribute climate change to our winter snowfall right now. It certainly might be a factor...but that factor is unknown and is probably very very weak in the face of ocean cycles and other parameters.

I understand and agree with that....this has always been just me expressing my opinion, but it isn't fact.

At some point, the globe will change more drastically, though.....it has in the past and your neat little 140 year period is too small of a sample to account for that.

As far as we know, though...you are 100% right and you raise a very good point RE contemporary measuring techniques being incompatible with those of our grandweenies....that probably accounts for some of the apparent snowfall increase.

[A-L-E-X]

The 1990s had a big solar max in 1990-1991....but then Pinatubo erupted and we had big global cooling from 1992 to 1994.

Hmmm that second part made me think a bit and wonder how much Pinatubo might have had to do with our extremely cold and snowy winter in 1993-94 despite an extremely positive NAO.

[ORH_wxman]

I understand and agree with that....this has always been just me expressing my opinion, but it isn't fact.

At some point, the globe will change more drastically, though.....it has in the past and your neat little 140 year period is too small of a sample to account for that.

Yes, we will eventually see an ice age too. We might see winters like DC before that. Who knows. But right now, its so much smaller than that so we have no idea how that stuff is affecting us. What we do know is that our snowfall has risen during periods of -NAO and it has been putrid during periods of high +NAO. Those are things we can grasp right now.

[40/70 Benchmark]

Hmmm that second part made me think a bit and wonder how much Pinatubo might have had to do with our extremely cold and snowy winter in 1993-94 despite an extremely positive NAO.

The monster -EPO ridge certainly helped out.

[ORH_wxman]

Hmmm that second part made me think a bit and wonder how much Pinatubo might have had to do with our extremely cold and snowy winter in 1993-94 despite an extremely positive NAO.

I am convinced that it had a lot to do with it, but I really don't know exactly how. We saw some terrible 5H patterns at times but had tremendous cold available anyway. Who knows exactly how much it affected us, but you can be damn sure that an event like Pinatubo definitely affected it. I will say that it probably helped a decent amount in making 1993-1994 the coldest winter on record for a few areas.(mostly west of our area)

[A-L-E-X]

The monster -EPO ridge certainly helped out.

Yeah the Pac was definitely in our favor also lol.... and it's funny how that volcano is in the Pacific too.

[A-L-E-X]

I am convinced that it had a lot to do with it, but I really don't know exactly how. We saw some terrible 5H patterns at times but had tremendous cold available anyway. Who knows exactly how much it affected us, but you can be damn sure that an event like Pinatubo definitely affected it. I will say that it probably helped a decent amount in making 1993-1994 the coldest winter on record for a few areas.(mostly west of our area)

It was like a throwback to the early mid 80s when El Chichon erupted and we had a couple of extremely cold Januaries (although 1993-94 was much stormier.... can the frequent twice a week storminess also be attributed to the volcano or was that due more to the arctic air in a massive tug of war with the SE ridge due to the positive NAO?) If we had a neg NAO that winter it would have probably ended up like those cold and dry early and mid 80s winters.

Cold, dry and suppressed.... my worst nightmare lol.

[ORH_wxman]

Yeah the Pac was definitely in our favor also lol.... and it's funny how that volcano is in the Pacific too.

The PAC side was nice in '93-94 but the extremity of the PV was just insane those years. Including '92-'93...I think the strengthening of the PV and the arctic circulation was enhanced by Pinatubo....it allowed an insane buildup of arctic air. Add on the sun-dimming from the ash, and you have a perfect recipe for an absolute frigid winter.

[A-L-E-X]

Dont know how much of an effect Mt. St. Helens might have had on the climate, but that plus El Chichon definitely made the early 80s volcanically active.

[ORH_wxman]

Dont know how much of an effect Mt. St. Helens might have had on the climate, but that plus El Chichon definitely made the early 80s volcanically active.

They both affected it a bit, but nothing like Pinatubo. We did see some cooling globally from those early 80s volcanoes but they generally lasted only a few months and it wasn't all that extreme. Pinatubo changed the whole climate system for about 2-3 years.

[A-L-E-X]

The PAC side was nice in '93-94 but the extremity of the PV was just insane those years. Including '92-'93...I think the strengthening of the PV and the arctic circulation was enhanced by Pinatubo....it allowed an insane buildup of arctic air. Add on the sun-dimming from the ash, and you have a perfect recipe for an absolute frigid winter.

Yes, I remember how ridiculously bad our computer modeling was in both winters (aside from March 1993 which was predicted about a week in advance).... but for the other storms in both winters, they almost always ended up being wetter and colder than expected and we had a bunch of busted forecasts (Feb 1993, Jan 1994, Feb 1994, March 1994) where storms were forecasted to change over to rain rather early and all they did was mix. We also had two separate shots of subzero air in January 1994, something not seen since the 1940s.

The funny thing was, before that winter, it was almost a universal truth that when the forecasts erred they almost always erred on the side of being too snowy.... that was the first winter I remember that the exact opposite was true-- every time there was any precip in the forecast you almost always felt it was going to be snowier than the forecast, which was a first experience for me. Before 1993-94 I had never even seen a winter with 30" of snow much less 50"....

[A-L-E-X]

They both affected it a bit, but nothing like Pinatubo. We did see some cooling globally from those early 80s volcanoes but they generally lasted only a few months and it wasn't all that extreme. Pinatubo changed the whole climate system for about 2-3 years.

Pinatubo brought the closest thing to a year without a summer we have had since the actual one I think.... the summer of 1992 was crazy cool and wet, I remember when I was in the Poconos we had temps in the 40s there in the middle of June. It actually felt like it could snow there lol. Crazy that it was sandwiched between 1991 and 1993, which were two of the hottest summers on record here.

What makes the interactions of factors that affect weather and climate so interesting is that, despite the volcano we still had an amazingly hot summer in 1993 before we really went into the tank for the following winter. The funny thing was, even when we were in the middle of that super hot summer, you got the feeling that the following winter would be special..... there is some connection here between super hot summers and snowy winters, when ENSO isn't at either extreme.

[ORH_wxman]

Yes, I remember how ridiculously bad our computer modeling was in both winters (aside from March 1993 which was predicted about a week in advance).... but for the other storms in both winters, they almost always ended up being wetter and colder than expected and we had a bunch of busted forecasts (Feb 1993, Jan 1994, Feb 1994, March 1994) where storms were forecasted to change over to rain rather early and all they did was mix. We also had two separate shots of subzero air in January 1994, something not seen since the 1940s.

The PV parked itself over Hudson Bay for the most part in '93-'94 (well really 1994 after New Years)...and its cold was constantly underestimated just like it would be in our current modeling...but probably even more so back then. If we had that type of setup now, the models would still be too warm.

Its a tough period to compare though. That setup was perfect for low level cold which is what that winter was all about. Boston getting 96", NYC getting 53", and PHL getting 21" is a pretty obscene gradient. It will probably be awhile until we see another winter like that again. The brutal cold that went with it too.

[A-L-E-X]

I don't know if it's a coincidence or some feedback response mechanism is at play but about a year after El Chichon erupted we also had an extremely hot summer (1983) which was somewhat like what happened in 1993.

[A-L-E-X]

The PV parked itself over Hudson Bay for the most part in '93-'94 (well really 1994 after New Years)...and its cold was constantly underestimated just like it would be in our current modeling...but probably even more so back then. If we had that type of setup now, the models would still be too warm.

Its a tough period to compare though. That setup was perfect for low level cold which is what that winter was all about. Boston getting 96", NYC getting 53", and PHL getting 21" is a pretty obscene gradient. It will probably be awhile until we see another winter like that again. The brutal cold that went with it too.

I remember the words CAA and CAD were used a great deal that winter. The early Jan icestorm and the Feb back to back snowstorms were the best examples of how much that cold air mucked up the forecasts..... the first one was originally forecast to be an initial period of snow to sleet to rain but it just stayed freezing rain all night long for the biggest ice storm I can remember here. The first of the back to back Feb storms was supposed to change to rain too but we had daytime thundersnow like I still havent seen before and we got like 8 inches in 3 hours lol. The second storm literally came out of nowhere, it was supposed to go to our south and just kept coming further and further north on the models.

I'm just glad that the really tight gradient was south of here.... NYC got 53" and JFK measured 46" so the difference wasn't that much here, although I feel the airport measured more accurately back then That was the first winter I kept snowfall records diligently, and I measured 47".

[mitchnick]

I remember the words CAA and CAD were used a great deal that winter. The early Jan icestorm and the Feb back to back snowstorms were the best examples of how much that cold air mucked up the forecasts..... the first one was originally forecast to be an initial period of snow to sleet to rain but it just stayed freezing rain all night long for the biggest ice storm I can remember here. The first of the back to back Feb storms was supposed to change to rain too but we had daytime thundersnow like I still havent seen before and we got like 8 inches in 3 hours lol. The second storm literally came out of nowhere, it was supposed to go to our south and just kept coming further and further north on the models.

I'm just glad that the really tight gradient was south of here.... NYC got 53" and JFK measured 46" so the difference wasn't that much here, although I feel the airport measured more accurately back then That was the first winter I kept snowfall records diligently, and I measured 47".

meh, 17.3" at BWI and I am confident in saying at least half that was measured was sleet

cold-yes, snowy-not, just ice

terribly disappointing winter on the whole down here

If I have to rely on volcanoes for my winters, I'll take my chances with volcanoes in Iceland

[CoastalWx]

I understand and agree with that....this has always been just me expressing my opinion, but it isn't fact.

At some point, the globe will change more drastically, though.....it has in the past and your neat little 140 year period is too small of a sample to account for that.

As far as we know, though...you are 100% right and you raise a very good point RE contemporary measuring techniques being incompatible with those of our grandweenies....that probably accounts for some of the apparent snowfall increase.

Imagine the blizzard of '78 measured every 6 hrs. I've heard some people say how we get 12" storms frequently now, but they also used to do the "one and done" technique of measuring snow back in the day. I don't report it, but I try to measure every 6 hrs when I'm home, and then measure how much fell from the storm when it's done. During windy storms, there can be a 2-3" difference even with a 12 or 13" storm.

[H2Otown_WX]

Imagine the blizzard of '78 measured every 6 hrs. I've heard some people say how we get 12" storms frequently now, but they also used to do the "one and done" technique of measuring snow back in the day. I don't report it, but I try to measure every 6 hrs when I'm home, and then measure how much fell from the storm when it's done. During windy storms, there can be a 2-3" difference even with a 12 or 13" storm.

I've been using that faulty technique for 11 years, screwing myself over I guess I'm thinking of changing to the official method though; this winter see if that boosts my totals.

[CoastalWx]

I've been using that faulty technique for 11 years, screwing myself over I guess I'm thinking of changing to the official method though; this winter see if that boosts my totals.

I can understand the old time thinking of measuring after the last flake falls, and the total is what it is. The nice thing about the 6 hr technique is that it helps reduce the problem of compaction, but is spaced out long enough to not inflate totals.

It's tough to do every 6 hrs for a lot of the public. People work, sleep, etc...so it can be difficult. I try to, but if I'm not home until after the storm ends...so be it.

[ORH_wxman]

I can understand the old time thinking of measuring after the last flake falls, and the total is what it is. The nice thing about the 6 hr technique is that it helps reduce the problem of compaction, but is spaced out long enough to not inflate totals.

It's tough to do every 6 hrs for a lot of the public. People work, sleep, etc...so it can be difficult. I try to, but if I'm not home until after the storm ends...so be it.

Both techniques are technically correct (as long as the one time measurement is for a storm less than 24 hours) and accepted, but people should just realize that its not quite comparing apples to apples when one person does every 6 hours and the other does once per 24 hours. A lot of coop sites can come in with different amounts because of this. Some of the guys are very diligent at measuring snow right when it falls or ends and others do it just once at the same time every day which can produce lower totals.

It would be nice if we just adopted one technique, but its difficult to do that with people's schedules.

[A-L-E-X]

BTW Will, what effect could this volcano have on our winter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Nabro_eruption

The 2011 Nabro eruption is a continuing eruption of the Nabro stratovolcano in the Southern Red Sea Region of Eritrea, which began on 12 June 2011 after a series of earthquakes.[1] The eruption has killed seven people[2] and emitted the highest levels of sulfur dioxide (SO2) ever observed from Earth's orbit.[3] The ash cloud from the eruption reached altitudes which disrupted airline traffic in the region.[4] Until the eruption began, the volcano was thought to be extinct.[5]

[A-L-E-X]

The timing seems to be in line with Pinatubo which also erupted in the early summer.... I know the VEI was nowhere near as high (dont even know what it was) but maybe the quantity of SO-2 ejected would matter more?

On 19 June, the volcano produced the highest level of sulfur dioxide emissions in the earth's atmosphere ever detected from space.[3] Satellite images showed a 15 km long lava flow.[13] On 20 June, VAAC reported that the SO2 eruption was continuing.[14]

From 22 June to 27 June, the eruption of sulfur dioxide, water vapour, and ash was confirmed to be still active by MODIS pictures taken from the TERRA satellite.

[ORH_wxman]

The timing seems to be in line with Pinatubo which also erupted in the early summer.... I know the VEI was nowhere near as high (dont even know what it was) but maybe the quantity of SO-2 ejected would matter more?

On 19 June, the volcano produced the highest level of sulfur dioxide emissions in the earth's atmosphere ever detected from space.[3] Satellite images showed a 15 km long lava flow.[13] On 20 June, VAAC reported that the SO2 eruption was continuing.[14]

From 22 June to 27 June, the eruption of sulfur dioxide, water vapour, and ash was confirmed to be still active by MODIS pictures taken from the TERRA satellite.

It wouldn't be a huge effect unless a lot of the SO2 makes it into the stratosphere.

[Ginx snewx]

It wouldn't be a huge effect unless a lot of the SO2 makes it into the stratosphere.

the volcanic activity at Nabro increased as the ash plume reached an altitude of 15.000 meters, well into the stratosphere

[ORH_wxman]

the volcanic activity at Nabro increased as the ash plume reached an altitude of 15.000 meters, well into the stratosphere

I wouldn't say that...it might be getting in there but a lot of it isn't too. Pinatubo blew that sh** 75,000 feet into the atmosphere.

[Ginx snewx]

I wouldn't say that...it might be getting in there but a lot of it isn't too. Pinatubo blew that sh** 75,000 feet into the atmosphere.

That quote was from NASA, great pics online today.

[A-L-E-X]

I wouldn't say that...it might be getting in there but a lot of it isn't too. Pinatubo blew that sh** 75,000 feet into the atmosphere.

Will, how long after the initial eruption does the climatic effect usually max out?

[A-L-E-X]

I wouldn't say that...it might be getting in there but a lot of it isn't too. Pinatubo blew that sh** 75,000 feet into the atmosphere.

It might make it that high, Will.... 15,000 m is about 50,000 feet so it's two thirds of the way there and still rising.