Chicago WX Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 94 really did a good job maximizing the cold. The airmass was pretty brutal to begin with but there was a big snowstorm around the 17th which made it even colder than it otherwise would've been. You don't get down into the -30's in southern Indiana without everything breaking just right. Yeah you're right, it was a perfect situation really. Brutal cold, well awesome cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmc76 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Mostly blame myself since god or whatever higher power is out there hates me. If I end up going to law school in Windsor, watch Josh's run of amazing winters evaporate. Uggg You think Toronto is bad...Windsor is awful for Snow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michsnowfreak Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Uggg You think Toronto is bad...Windsor is awful for Snow Windsor has been doing good recently, just like Detroit (Windsor had 36" in Feb 2011 I believe), Mikes fear is if he moves to Windsor, their winters will start going downhill and Toronto's will get better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Uggg You think Toronto is bad...Windsor is awful for Snow They've b**ch slapped us the last decade. Even compared to DTW or Josh's numbers, they're piling up snow like it's going out of style. I believe they've had 3-4 80"+ winters in the 2000s. You wanna talk about measuring in a drift... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 After quickly glancing at Buffalo and Rochester looks like there staying consistent (1940-1941 start). They both average substantially more snow then Toronto at 94and 99 inches. Buffalo and Rochester have beaten the average 27 times. They also have numerous average years (I kept average as give or take a couple inches) Buffalo's Low point 1948-1949 with 40.1 inches and a high point 199.4 inches 1976-1977. Rochester's low point 41.7 and high of 161.7 source:http://www.goldensno...olden-award.htm. This was the quickest link I could find with what seems like reliable information If GW is the culprit, then areas impacted heavily by LES won't see their snowfall numbers affected because warmer wx overall = warmer lk temps = more LES. That's the line at least and I don't have nearly enough knowledge on the subject to refute it. One of us should take a look at how YOW/YUL/BOS/NYC were doing 100+ years ago. I recently saw some numbers for Boston. They date back to 1890. Frankly, I didn't notice a discernible trend either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Uh-Oh. Give me forewarning so I can book at least 3 trips up north that winter. j/k Duly noted. I'll shoot a flare from across the river to mark my dreaded arrival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherpsycho Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 This Christmas weather in the GLs may cause a record amount of YAWNS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbcmh81 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Snowfall measuring and history remains sketchy at best, I truly believe. I mean what "technique" were people using in the mid-late 19th and early 20th centuries? That's not to say that we've perfected the craft now, but at least we seem to have a uniform idea/way of doing it. Of course I have the same questions about temperature data from "way back when"...but I suppose that's better served in another sub-forum here. I've noticed, at least with Columbus records, is that almost all the snowfall records before the 1920s were straight 10:1 ratios. That is HIGHLY unlikely to me and seems they may have been just using measurable precip and extrapolating to some degree. Something esle is that Trace events never amounted to anything in the old records. Today you can have a Trace that ends up being 1" of snow. Then, a Trace was a Trace period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 I've noticed, at least with Columbus records, is that almost all the snowfall records before the 1920s were straight 10:1 ratios. That is HIGHLY unlikely to me and seems they may have been just using measurable precip and extrapolating to some degree. Something esle is that Trace events never amounted to anything in the old records. Today you can have a Trace that ends up being 1" of snow. Then, a Trace was a Trace period. I noticed that too when looking at some older data (pre 1900) for the local COOP. Everything was straight 10:1. Not buying that one bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michsnowfreak Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I've noticed, at least with Columbus records, is that almost all the snowfall records before the 1920s were straight 10:1 ratios. That is HIGHLY unlikely to me and seems they may have been just using measurable precip and extrapolating to some degree. Something esle is that Trace events never amounted to anything in the old records. Today you can have a Trace that ends up being 1" of snow. Then, a Trace was a Trace period. You know I noticed that too about the snow (10-1 ratios) pre-1920 at Detroit. Im sure many other places too. The thing is, they could have been measuring the snow and simply applying the 10-1 ratio for liquid precip, ie the liquid is overdone. Especially when the snow depth jives with snowfall data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.