Great Lakes ice loss at 71% since the early 1970s

[michsnowfreak]

6 of Boston's 10 warmest winters have been before 1955....5 of their top 6 snowiest winters have been since 1992. Their coldest January on record at Logan airport (since 1920) was 2004. So theirs some freaky stats in there.

Thank you! I knew I could rely on you for some New England stats! Im afraid to talk about snow in this forum LOL but Ill go ahead and say it...5 of the 6 since 1992 in Boston? VERY impressive. At Detroit, 5 of the top 13 snowiest winters have been since 2003. Cleveland, Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, and Grand Rapids each have 4 of their top 10 snowiest winters since 2000, and most other midwest/Lakes cities have 2-3 winters since 2000 in their top 10.

[ORH_wxman]

Thank you! I knew I could rely on you for some New England stats! Im afraid to talk about snow in this forum LOL but Ill go ahead and say it...5 of the 6 since 1992 in Boston? VERY impressive. At Detroit, 5 of the top 13 snowiest winters have been since 2003. Cleveland, Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, and Grand Rapids each have 4 of their top 10 snowiest winters since 2000, and most other midwest/Lakes cities have 2-3 winters since 2000 in their top 10.

The snow part isn't even that close either....if it was you could perhaps blame it on measuring techniques, but the recent snowfall in Boston the last 20 years or so blows the previous years out of the water. I mean there's no way you can blame 96" or 107" or 87" vs 75" on measuring techniques.

ORH's top 4 snowfall years have all been since 1992-1993. And 6 of the top 7 since that time. Only 1960-1961's #5 total of 104.3" gets into the mix of the top 7.

[TerryM]

Thank you! I knew I could rely on you for some New England stats! Im afraid to talk about snow in this forum LOL but Ill go ahead and say it...5 of the 6 since 1992 in Boston? VERY impressive. At Detroit, 5 of the top 13 snowiest winters have been since 2003. Cleveland, Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, and Grand Rapids each have 4 of their top 10 snowiest winters since 2000, and most other midwest/Lakes cities have 2-3 winters since 2000 in their top 10.

If you guy's are in to snowfall leave me out.

It's a pain that we didn't have any this year - but it certainly has little to do with seasonal weather - and nothing to do with climate.

Have Funn!!

Terry

[ORH_wxman]

If you guy's are in to snowfall leave me out.

It's a pain that we didn't have any this year - but it certainly has little to do with seasonal weather - and nothing to do with climate.

Have Funn!!

Terry

Huh? IPCC said the winters will have less snowfall going forward and how does snowfall have "little to do with seasonal weather"? Its a huge topic discussed in the realm of AGW discussion. One of the reasons its been debated is because everyone said it would decrease mostly because of the negative trend from the 1960-1970s to the 1990s but then it spiked back up (globally speaking) this last decade. So now we have papers saying that AGW might cause increased snowfall because of decreased sea ice. Which flies in the face of the big snowfall numbers globally in the 1960s and 1970s when sea ice was high.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The oceans have been warming so the Pacific is warmer now during this -PDO than during previous ones.

http://www.cpc.ncep....NI_change.shtml

Of course, the same happens with the AMO. I have no dispute of the natural trends. This is why we reached that huge peak in the late 90s and matched it since then and have had steady global temps. One forcing measure or multiple lowered there influence while other feedbacks have grown stronger. The global stalemate is pretty easy to spot.

This speaks towards and even weaker -AMO regime this next oscillation. We have also seen strong evidence the AMO regime is no longer the dominate force in the Arctic and possibly other regions.

Looks like another factor is over taking the cooler oscillations.

[ORH_wxman]

Of course, the same happens with the AMO. I have no dispute of the natural trends. This is why we reached that huge peak in the late 90s and matched it since then and have had steady global temps. One forcing measure or multiple lowered there influence while other feedbacks have grown stronger. The global stalemate is pretty easy to spot.

This speaks towards and even weaker -AMO regime this next oscillation. We have also seen strong evidence the AMO regime is no longer the dominate force in the Arctic and possibly other regions.

Looks like another factor is over taking the cooler oscillations.

How is this so?...we are near the AMO max right now...just on the downside of it. We are still well within the big +AMO regime. when it goes negative we will see what happens...we've already seen a total flat lining of global temps in the past 11 years with the PDO shift...now it is only a matter of time to see wha happens when the AMO goes negative too.

[TerryM]

Huh? IPCC said the winters will have less snowfall going forward and how does snowfall have "little to do with seasonal weather"? Its a huge topic discussed in the realm of AGW discussion. One of the reasons its been debated is because everyone said it would decrease mostly because of the negative trend from the 1960-1970s to the 1990s but then it spiked back up (globally speaking) this last decade. So now we have papers saying that AGW might cause increased snowfall because of decreased sea ice. Which flies in the face of the big snowfall numbers globally in the 1960s and 1970s when sea ice was high.

I spent 3 days snowed in, in El Paso, lost my camping gear in a blizzard in Death Valley, and the first year I moved to Las Vegas they closed I 15 for 3 days because of the snow. if you think that snowfall has any predictive, prognosticative value, as I said before, Have Funn - but I'd prefer to consult with a rodent in Wiarton.

[ORH_wxman]

I spent 3 days snowed in, in El Paso, lost my camping gear in a blizzard in Death Valley, and the first year I moved to Las Vegas they closed I 15 for 3 days because of the snow. if you think that snowfall has any predictive, prognosticative value, as I said before, Have Funn - but I'd prefer to consult with a rodent in Wiarton.

So you admit the IPCC is wrong in trying to say that winter snowfall will decrease? Glad we got that cleared up. I agree, they are full of crap on that front.

[ORH_wxman]

We can finally put to rest the grandfather stories "the winters used to be snowier when I was a kid" junk for most regions. At least that much is cleared up.

[The_Global_Warmer]

How is this so?...we are near the AMO max right now...just on the downside of it. We are still well within the big +AMO regime. when it goes negative we will see what happens...we've already seen a total flat lining of global temps in the past 11 years with the PDO shift...now it is only a matter of time to see wha happens when the AMO goes negative too.

If the trends continue which they will the AMO won't go as negative a before, the Atlantic won't cool of as much.

http://www.scienceda...20130172611.htm

The PDO goes negative

I would say that is a pretty substantial drop and a long one.

It also isn't a decadal flat line in temps globally, the 2000s were warmer than any other decade on record. And the Arctic is warming at an accelerated rate.

Your telling me the Atlantic is going to oscillate and the Earth is going to cool from the point we are at? I don't see how that will happen with the positive feedback's continuing to grow stronger. Not to mention the increasing GHGS.

Maybe if you could explain to me how the AMO works better, I would understand how it needs a long period of time to cause warming and cooling. the surface reflection at any given moment in real time should be a pretty good indicator of the energy transfer from the Atlantic ocean to the Atmosphere. How can the Atlantic effect the Earths energy system enough to stop the current warming and feedbacks that keep getting stronger? And why doesn't say a 3 month period matter? This Nov-Feb the AMO was neutral or negative and the arctic kept boiling. Why didn't the atmosphere see a drop off if there is a much smaller heat transfer? Was the energy lost made up somewhere else? Was there not enough time for the the effects to be seen globally or in the arctic or anywhere?

If a grand solar min and -PDO can only stall atmospheric warming but can't stop ice melt and OHC rise, how much influence will a negative AMO in the 2020s have when positive feedback's as well as GHGs are still getting stronger, how negative will that AMO be?

I would love to have a better grasp on these things, but I do not know. I read a lot on the AMO and there is a lot of contradicting information out there about it's effects.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I spent 3 days snowed in, in El Paso, lost my camping gear in a blizzard in Death Valley, and the first year I moved to Las Vegas they closed I 15 for 3 days because of the snow. if you think that snowfall has any predictive, prognosticative value, as I said before, Have Funn - but I'd prefer to consult with a rodent in Wiarton.

It doesn't but it does keep us off the ice issue.

[ORH_wxman]

It doesn't but it does keep us off the ice issue.

So you admit the snowfall stuff is bogus too....good thing.

[TerryM]

So you admit the snowfall stuff is bogus too....good thing.

As I recall it was you who brought snow levels into the mix. If you knew that snow is bogus, why did you being it up?

BTW the question is rhetorical.

[skierinvermont]

Huh? IPCC said the winters will have less snowfall going forward and how does snowfall have "little to do with seasonal weather"? Its a huge topic discussed in the realm of AGW discussion. One of the reasons its been debated is because everyone said it would decrease mostly because of the negative trend from the 1960-1970s to the 1990s but then it spiked back up (globally speaking) this last decade. So now we have papers saying that AGW might cause increased snowfall because of decreased sea ice. Which flies in the face of the big snowfall numbers globally in the 1960s and 1970s when sea ice was high.

This is not an accurate description of the history of climate forecasts on snowfall. The IPCC only has ever said that snowfall would decrease gradually in the very long run over 100+ years. Which is what the IPCC still says, and which is an absolute certainty given a likely warming of close to 3C over the next century and probable warming of mid-latitude winters by 5C+. Given we've only warmed less than 1C so far any effects on snowfall would likely be fairly small and difficult to detect given our unreliable snowfall records.

Finally, a negative effect on snowfall is already detectable in locations which were marginal for snowfall to begin with, like Seattle, NYC, and DCA. The declines in places like Seattle and Portland are astonishing over the last 100+ years. Try blaming that one on the AMO.

Are you actually denying that 3C of warming and 5C of mid-latitude winter warming will have a deleterious effect on winter snowfall? That would be a pretty stupid thing to deny.

Or are you simply denying that we will warm 3C globally and 5C in mid-latitude winters? If so, perhaps your objections are misplaced. Objecting to the warming forecast itself is an entirely separate issue from denying snowfall forecasts based on particular assumptions.

[Harry]

This is not an accurate description of the history of climate forecasts on snowfall. The IPCC only has ever said that snowfall would decrease gradually in the very long run over 100+ years. Which is what the IPCC still says, and which is an absolute certainty given a likely warming of close to 3C over the next century and probable warming of mid-latitude winters by 5C+. Given we've only warmed less than 1C so far any effects on snowfall would likely be fairly small and difficult to detect given our unreliable snowfall records.

Finally, a negative effect on snowfall is already detectable in locations which were marginal for snowfall to begin with, like Seattle, NYC, and DCA. The declines in places like Seattle and Portland are astonishing over the last 100+ years. Try blaming that one on the AMO.

Are you actually denying that 3C of warming and 5C of mid-latitude winter warming will have a deleterious effect on winter snowfall? That would be a pretty stupid thing to deny.

Or are you simply denying that we will warm 3C globally and 5C in mid-latitude winters? If so, perhaps your objections are misplaced. Objecting to the warming forecast itself is an entirely separate issue from denying snowfall forecasts based on particular assumptions.

Dude you are reaching as well. Nice cherry picking too. The Majority ( which counts ) says otherwise anyways as far as snowfall goes. Oh and i believe you would have a better case using Richmond over DCA but ala i can post numbers from a few locations at the coast ( DE/MD ) that say otherwise as well.

And you *honestly* believe we are gonna warm another 3C globally and 5C in the mid-Latitude winters? Good luck with that.. And i don't care who is predicting it either. This btw is what keeps getting you people in trouble and thus these outlandish calls. yeah i know the goal posts will change again when that fails. Oh something new came along and so it is delayed or whatever again.

[Jonger]

Josh is probably the most climate aware poster on this forum in regard to the great lakes region. There is another poster from Chicago who is about the same in that regard. Both posters have found no correlations to these claims.

What else do you want to hear?

[skierinvermont]

Dude you are reaching as well. Nice cherry picking too. The Majority ( which counts ) says otherwise anyways as far as snowfall goes. Oh and i believe you would have a better case using Richmond over DCA but ala i can post numbers from a few locations at the coast ( DE/MD ) that say otherwise as well.

And you *honestly* believe we are gonna warm another 3C globally and 5C in the mid-Latitude winters? Good luck with that.. And i don't care who is predicting it either. This btw is what keeps getting you people in trouble and thus these outlandish calls. yeah i know the goal posts will change again when that fails. Oh something new came along and so it is delayed or whatever again.

So it is not true that Portland, Seattle, DC, NYC, and most other areas that are marginal for winter snowfall have sean long term declines in snowfall?

I do not know if we will warm 3C or not. That depends if we continue to emit CO2. CO2 is a GHG and as long as its concentration continues to rise, the earth will continue to warm. Temperatures rose nearly 1C last century in response to a 100ppm increase in CO2. CO2 is currently rising at 3X the rate it rose during the 20th century. As the study posted by DonS in the other thread shows, the earth remains in an energy imbalance despite the solar minimum. This represents a smoking gun for the effect of GHG forcing.

All I see from you is a lot of tough talk and no evidence.

[Jonger]

Dude you are reaching as well. Nice cherry picking too. The Majority ( which counts ) says otherwise anyways as far as snowfall goes. Oh and i believe you would have a better case using Richmond over DCA but ala i can post numbers from a few locations at the coast ( DE/MD ) that say otherwise as well.

And you *honestly* believe we are gonna warm another 3C globally and 5C in the mid-Latitude winters? Good luck with that.. And i don't care who is predicting it either. This btw is what keeps getting you people in trouble and thus these outlandish calls. yeah i know the goal posts will change again when that fails. Oh something new came along and so it is delayed or whatever again.

You can pretty much Google up a chart showing any desired outcome. The thing common with these charts are the small increments. They make rise and falls look much more dramatic.

I even agree the arctic has warmed a tad. Just nothing notable in mid latitudes.

[WeatherRusty]

So you admit the IPCC is wrong in trying to say that winter snowfall will decrease? Glad we got that cleared up. I agree, they are full of crap on that front.

Simple logic indicates that as global temps rise, general hemispheric snowfall amount will decrease. However, just like for any other metric the trend over time will not be strictly linear, and variability will be more evident on local and regional scales.

Why is this so difficult to understand? The IPCC is full of crap because you can point out deviations from a linear trend? Come on!

[Ottawa Blizzard]

6 of Boston's 10 warmest winters have been before 1955....5 of their top 6 snowiest winters have been since 1992. Their coldest January on record at Logan airport (since 1920) was 2004. So theres some freaky stats in there.

I think an argument could be made that Canada's winters have warmed a lot more than those in the US. Toronto and Ottawa have deffinately warmed over the past century and while there were very warm winters a century ago (1905-1906, 1918-1919 for example) almost all of the warmest ones have been in the past 30 years. Perhaps the further north, the more pronounced the warming? I'm playing devil's advocate here because I'm not a met or a climatologist and therefore have no idea.

[WeatherRusty]

Dude you are reaching as well. Nice cherry picking too. The Majority ( which counts ) says otherwise anyways as far as snowfall goes. Oh and i believe you would have a better case using Richmond over DCA but ala i can post numbers from a few locations at the coast ( DE/MD ) that say otherwise as well.

And you *honestly* believe we are gonna warm another 3C globally and 5C in the mid-Latitude winters? Good luck with that.. And i don't care who is predicting it either. This btw is what keeps getting you people in trouble and thus these outlandish calls. yeah i know the goal posts will change again when that fails. Oh something new came along and so it is delayed or whatever again.

This is the basic point of contention between what the science says and what the doubters of the science want us to believe. The way you phrase that sentence indicates you have little regard for the science of climate change.

According to the science, the most likely global temperature rise reached at radiative equilibrium is near 3C for each doubling of CO2 (or it's radiative forcing equivalent) with the most northern latitudes warming much more rapidly than the global mean.

[Jonger]

I pull most of my data from here.

http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html

[Jonger]

Using that link I was really shocked by some of the crappy winters my location had in the 1950's... Also the 1930's were real stinkers.

[Jonger]

Its also interesting how many locations use WWTPs for long range temps.... That one Watts study took a night time heat image of those plants and they were glowing in the areas surrounding the weather site.

[Jonger]

Look at 1918... MAN, I would love that one.

I was sorting through site data and Jan 1918 my mean average was 10 degrees!

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/IPS-CD135553-6D25-45C9-9268-35B21A5201C8.pdf

[Jonger]

Michigan is smack in the middle of the great lakes... This is why the original thread subject is very odd.

[skierinvermont]

You can pretty much Google up a chart showing any desired outcome. The thing common with these charts are the small increments. They make rise and falls look much more dramatic.

I even agree the arctic has warmed a tad. Just nothing notable in mid latitudes.

The charts I posted do not have small increments. Portland's average snowfall has declined from 20"+ to 4 or 5". NYC has a line of best fit of -7"/century.

Nor are these graphs cherry picked. Nearly all locations which are marginal for snowfall and where temperature is the primary determinant to snowfall (not precipitation) have seen a decline in average annual snowfall over the last century (like NYC, DCA, Seattle, Portland etc.).

[skierinvermont]

Michigan is smack in the middle of the great lakes... This is why the original thread subject is very odd.

The original thread subject is ice not snow.

[TerryM]

Jong

Thanks for the link - don't have time right now, but will pour over it when I do.

I believe I can locate some graphics showing ice coverage in the Great Lakes for different eras, unfortunately not dating back as early as the time period that we seem to be mainly concerned with. I'll post them as soon as I get time. (busy day)

Bluewave posted charts, one going back as far as 1890 for a few locations on the Canadian side. What struck me as different was that many of the locations charted are from very small villages/towns that have had no industrial and very little residential growth- ever.

Hamilton, Ottawa and Oshawa (think Toronto) are the exceptions, but 2 of these are only charted back to 1970. I've seen early photos of hubs of industry on both sides of the border and have been struck by the amount of smoke/smog. It was coal that was powering everything from transportation and manufacturing to residential heating. The amount to soot and ash had to have had some effect on local temperature, and perhaps data from smaller sites, or at least sites far upwind from larger centers, might provide a different picture.

http://www.climateontario.ca/datasheets.php is the site that Bluewave had posted earlier.

Terry

[bluewave]

Jong

Thanks for the link - don't have time right now, but will pour over it when I do.

I believe I can locate some graphics showing ice coverage in the Great Lakes for different eras, unfortunately not dating back as early as the time period that we seem to be mainly concerned with. I'll post them as soon as I get time. (busy day)

Bluewave posted charts, one going back as far as 1890 for a few locations on the Canadian side. What struck me as different was that many of the locations charted are from very small villages/towns that have had no industrial and very little residential growth- ever.

Hamilton, Ottawa and Oshawa (think Toronto) are the exceptions, but 2 of these are only charted back to 1970. I've seen early photos of hubs of industry on both sides of the border and have been struck by the amount of smoke/smog. It was coal that was powering everything from transportation and manufacturing to residential heating. The amount to soot and ash had to have had some effect on local temperature, and perhaps data from smaller sites, or at least sites far upwind from larger centers, might provide a different picture.

http://www.climateon.../datasheets.php is the site that Bluewave had posted earlier.

Terry

This paper has those details:

http://aqua.wisc.edu/SOLM/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Jg34HPGezkk%3D&tabid=74