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

[Jonger]

The US shows the same warming trend averaged out.

February US

What are the locations this data is being drawn from?

[PhillipS]

This makes me convinced there is a bad measurement. This is showing a 7 degree jump over 100 years and a much more extreme yearly increase than Detroit numbers. I'm calling heat island on this.

I think you're misreading the charts. The Feb average temp (not anomaly) chart shows a trend from about -9.5 C in 1895 to -6.5 C in 2010. That works out to about a 0.26 C/decade warming rate.

You seem to enjoy beating the UHI drum every time there is a temperature record you don't like. I wonder why. What you don't seem to understand is that the UHI effect is understood and adjusted for in the temperature records. Verifying the UHI adjustments was one of the goals of the BEST project. Here's a link to their draft report - Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average. What you'll learn is that their analysis shows that there is actually a slight overadjustment for the UHI effect.

[bluewave]

What are the locations this data is being drawn from?

You can set it to any area that you want to with the NCDC site.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.../cag3/cag3.html

[michsnowfreak]

The 20's thru the early 40's were quite warm and snow-less across a good part of the Great Lakes region. In fact we had one of the two warmest Winters in Toronto in a row; 1931-32 and 1932-33. Other Winters in the 30's that were quite warm were; 1936-37, 1937-38 and even 1938-39 was warmer than normal. There was no below avg Winters (DJF) in the 20's in Toronto yet we had 3 Winters that were quite below normal since 2000 (2002-03, 2008-09 and 2010-11).

The late 60's thru the 70's featured one of the greatest Winters of all time and perhaps the 20th century. Jan 94, was the coldest January in Toronto's history (>1937). In fact there were only two January's to come close enough to be in the top 10 prior to 1970 and they were, 1945 and 1940. The period from 1976-1980 remains as the coldest pair of Winters in a row.

I just dont see any "climate change" being observed across most of the Great Lakes region.

Prior to the Satellite era, coverage was much lower thus we couldnt properly examine land across a vast area but IMO lets see what ends up happening thru this decade since were far from any conclusion yet on climate. Dont ever confuse weather with climate.

Good points. As someone who has a very strong knowledge of their local climate data, I can tell you there is no general climate change being observed here. There may be trends and there are always cycles of course. It should be noted that never before have 2 winters been exactly alike, and never in the future will 2 be alike. So as much as we all like to fascinate over statistics and averages, the average is just that, an average of everything. So thats why when any of us refer to something in the past, it would be silly to ever assert or imply that things used to "always" be a certain way. When looking at the big picture of the 1930s-1950s, Detroits winters in general were an absolute trainwreck...but when looking at individual seasons, there were a few (1929-30, 1942-43, 1951-52) that I could certainly handle seeing again. Just like when I salivate over the wonderful period of winters from the 1970s-1980s, there were a few individual winters (1979-80, 1982-83) that make me cringe as they were even worse than 2011-12. And if the next few winters are good winters around here, 2011-12 will likely get lost (like the aforementioned 1979-80) as the winter-to-forget in a period of harsh winters.

[michsnowfreak]

This makes me convinced there is a bad measurement. This is showing a 7 degree jump over 100 years and a much more extreme yearly increase than Detroit numbers. I'm calling heat island on this.

Dec temps at Detroit by decade

1870s- 27.0

1880s- 31.3

1890s- 29.3

1900s- 27.4

1910s- 28.4

1920s- 26.7

1930s- 30.0

1940s- 29.6

1950s- 30.5

1960s- 28.4

1970s- 28.6

1980s- 28.0

1990s- 32.1

2000s- 29.6

Jan temps at Detroit by decade

1870s- 23.6

1880s- 24.5

1890s- 24.9

1900s- 25.4

1910s- 24.7

1920s- 24.1

1930s- 28.1

1940s- 25.0

1950s- 26.8

1960s- 24.2

1970s- 21.5

1980s- 23.4

1990s- 26.5

2000s- 25.9

Feb temps by decade at Detroit

1870s- 25.0

1880s- 27.0

1890s- 25.4

1900s- 21.8

1910s- 23.3

1920s- 26.7

1930s- 26.9

1940s- 26.3

1950s- 28.5

1960s- 26.1

1970s- 24.4

1980s- 26.2

1990s- 29.1

2000s- 27.7

[TerryM]

Good points. As someone who has a very strong knowledge of their local climate data, I can tell you there is no general climate change being observed here. There may be trends and there are always cycles of course. It should be noted that never before have 2 winters been exactly alike, and never in the future will 2 be alike. So as much as we all like to fascinate over statistics and averages, the average is just that, an average of everything. So thats why when any of us refer to something in the past, it would be silly to ever assert or imply that things used to "always" be a certain way. When looking at the big picture of the 1930s-1950s, Detroits winters in general were an absolute trainwreck...but when looking at individual seasons, there were a few (1929-30, 1942-43, 1951-52) that I could certainly handle seeing again. Just like when I salivate over the wonderful period of winters from the 1970s-1980s, there were a few individual winters (1979-80, 1982-83) that make me cringe as they were even worse than 2011-12. And if the next few winters are good winters around here, 2011-12 will likely get lost (like the aforementioned 1979-80) as the winter-to-forget in a period of harsh winters.

Can you post any long running chart or data set that shows this?

In past posts you have pointed out how memories are poor devices for noting past weather. I think we deserve more than your memories of past weather to prove your point. You also correctly note that one or two years of extreme weather mean little. This leaves us with long term charts to prove or disprove your contention.

Terry

[michsnowfreak]

Can you post any long running chart or data set that shows this?

In past posts you have pointed out how memories are poor devices for noting past weather. I think we deserve more than your memories of past weather to prove your point. You also correctly note that one or two years of extreme weather mean little. This leaves us with long term charts to prove or disprove your contention.

Terry

lol these are not my past memories of weather....I turn 29 in May, if you want the truth, my good weather memories realistically extend to the mid-1990s, with isolated memories from earlier than that. I am going by climate data to as far back as the 1870s for Detroit, MI. I have studied them extensively over the years, esp winter snowfall and snowcover. I do not have a graph or a chart. If you know of any program where I can graph/chart things thatd be great Ive always wanted to anyway. Best thing I can do is link you to DTX climate page and the NCDC link where you can look up any climate data you want.

The only thing I can roughly tell you is that a line chart, temp wise in winter, would show a definite spike in temps/dip in snowfall in the 1930-1950s, and a definite dip in the 1970s temps.

DTX clim page

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/cms.php?n=decadetable

NCDC

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

Though you are not into snowfall, heres a chart of seasonal snowfalls and snowiest/least snowy winters for many cities in the midwest and great lakes, including Toronto.

[Harry]

The most pronounced long term trend has been the February warming in the winters over the MW/ GL region.

February

DJF

You can set it to any area that you want to with the NCDC site.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.../cag3/cag3.html

Most are all urbanized aka heat island effect. In short they have seen decent growth over the past 100 yrs or so. No surprise at the warming that shows up. The one or two that has not seen crazy growth ( see Grand Island, NE for one) says otherwise.

[Harry]

Can you post any long running chart or data set that shows this?

In past posts you have pointed out how memories are poor devices for noting past weather. I think we deserve more than your memories of past weather to prove your point. You also correctly note that one or two years of extreme weather mean little. This leaves us with long term charts to prove or disprove your contention.

Terry

See my post above. Alot of the problem revolves around the use of stations that has seen decent growth over the past 100yrs or so. The place i mentioned is one such example. I can name a number of others as well that has not seen much change in growth and temps. I do KNOW the world has warmed a bit ( never denied that ) but to what extent is one question and the other is how and or why?

[TerryM]

Most are all urbanized aka heat island effect. In short they have seen decent growth over the past 100 yrs or so. No surprise at the warming that shows up. The one or two that has not seen crazy growth ( see Grand Island, NE for one) says otherwise.

The Ontario data the Bluewave posted earlier, mostly from small towns/villages would suggest otherwise.

The BEST study spent lots of money trying to find a heat island effect and found nothing - that argument has been found wanting and has been studied to death. Time to put that one to bed.

Terry

[Harry]

The Ontario data the Bluewave posted earlier, mostly from small towns/villages would suggest otherwise.

The BEST study spent lots of money trying to find a heat island effect and found nothing - that argument has been found wanting and has been studied to death. Time to put that one to bed.

Terry

I don't think so. Not when a number of stations i have found ( USA ) don't show that Including those two. There is a problem. I mean my goodness look at what climo sites they used? Talk about some serious cherry picking. My goodness.

And who or what was this best study? Link me to it. Thanks.

[TerryM]

I don't think so. Not when a number of stations i have found ( USA ) don't show that Including those two. There is a problem. I mean my goodness look at what climo sites they used? Talk about some serious cherry picking. My goodness.

And who or what was this best study? Link me to it. Thanks.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

#26

Sorry I assumed you would have been aware - my bad

Terry

[Harry]

http://www.skeptical...om/argument.php

#26

Sorry I assumed you would have been aware - my bad

Terry

Just so we are clear. Unlike a few i don't treat everything i see or hear as the holy grail. There is a thing called research which yes i love to do. Thus if i need data or whatever i'll go to the source myself and not some place that is promoting a cause. That is how i roll.

And yes i have been to that site before. Been a little while though.

[Snowstorms]

Good points. As someone who has a very strong knowledge of their local climate data, I can tell you there is no general climate change being observed here. There may be trends and there are always cycles of course. It should be noted that never before have 2 winters been exactly alike, and never in the future will 2 be alike. So as much as we all like to fascinate over statistics and averages, the average is just that, an average of everything. So thats why when any of us refer to something in the past, it would be silly to ever assert or imply that things used to "always" be a certain way. When looking at the big picture of the 1930s-1950s, Detroits winters in general were an absolute trainwreck...but when looking at individual seasons, there were a few (1929-30, 1942-43, 1951-52) that I could certainly handle seeing again. Just like when I salivate over the wonderful period of winters from the 1970s-1980s, there were a few individual winters (1979-80, 1982-83) that make me cringe as they were even worse than 2011-12. And if the next few winters are good winters around here, 2011-12 will likely get lost (like the aforementioned 1979-80) as the winter-to-forget in a period of harsh winters.

Even during the last negative PDO phase we had horrible Winters here and there and examples include 1956-57 or 1962-63. One should not be confused between weather and climate. Surely this current warmth were experiencing is quite historic across the region but its not like it hasn't happened before...in fact we had the two WARMEST March's on record in a row (1945 and 1946) in some regions which is astounding. The 1920's thru the early 1940's featured some really horrible Winters and featured very warm summer temperature anomalies as well. Sea ice across the Great lakes region varies yearly and its solely based on the winds and temperature anomalies across the region. For much of this winter we saw a consistent zonal wind flow and mostly SW winds which prevented air temps from cooling and allowing water temperatures from cooling thus very little ice formed but when compared to other winters in the past which were colder..you get a different outcome.

It'll be interesting to see the ENSO state for next winter but past winters have shown that El Nino's following a 2-3 La Nina phenomena often end up colder than normal across the region, so lets see. The 2 year La Nina phase killed off the STJ thus the prospects of any strong storms this winter was quite minimal esp with the dead MJO....therefore the snow cover remained very weak across NA too and this effected the albedo effect and temps usually/always moderated the further south they progressed.

[TerryM]

Just so we are clear. Unlike a few i don't treat everything i see or hear as the holy grail. There is a thing called research which yes i love to do. Thus if i need data or whatever i'll go to the source myself and not some place that is promoting a cause. That is how i roll.

And yes i have been to that site before. Been a little while though.

So do you have a problem with BEST results?

[WeatherRusty]

Just so we are clear. Unlike a few i don't treat everything i see or hear as the holy grail. There is a thing called research which yes i love to do. Thus if i need data or whatever i'll go to the source myself and not some place that is promoting a cause. That is how i roll.

And yes i have been to that site before. Been a little while though.

Skeptical Science website usually references peer-reviewed literature as the basis for their analysis, an analysis designed to make science understandable to the layperson. Use the citations provided if you wish to interpret the science yourself.

[PhillipS]

I don't think so. Not when a number of stations i have found ( USA ) don't show that Including those two. There is a problem. I mean my goodness look at what climo sites they used? Talk about some serious cherry picking. My goodness.

And who or what was this best study? Link me to it. Thanks.

The BEST project is the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Here's the link to their website which describes their objectives, methodology and data used. The four draft reports are available there. They were posted on-line so that anyone with a computer could review them and make comments. It is interesting that in the several months the drafts have been available none of the denialist blogs have made any substantive criticism of the results.

The Koch brothers (arch skeptics) provided much of the funding for the project, and Dr. Judith Curry (a noted skeptic) is one of the co-authors of the reports, so please don't waste time claiming theirs was an AGW biased analysis. And please keep in mind that they used 1.6 billion temperature records from 39,390 unique stations in their analysis so any claim of cherry picking just makes you look silly and uninformed.

The reports will be published after they complete peer-review and any needed revisions. Among the conclusions of the BEST project are that the global temperature records are rubust. and that the UHI effect is well understood and adjusted for.

So, as Terry said, it is time to put the UHI strawman to rest.

[Harry]

The BEST project is the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Here's the link to their website which describes their objectives, methodology and data used. The four draft reports are available there. They were posted on-line so that anyone with a computer could review them and make comments. It is interesting that in the several months the drafts have been available none of the denialist blogs have made any substantive criticism of the results.

The Koch brothers (arch skeptics) provided much of the funding for the project, and Dr. Judith Curry (a noted skeptic) is one of the co-authors of the reports, so please don't waste time claiming theirs was an AGW biased analysis. And please keep in mind that they used 1.6 billion temperature records from 39,390 unique stations in their analysis so any claim of cherry picking just makes you look silly and uninformed.

The reports will be published after they complete peer-review and any needed revisions. Among the conclusions of the BEST project are that the global temperature records are rubust. and that the UHI effect is well understood and adjusted for.

So, as Terry said, it is time to put the UHI strawman to rest.

Again i don't care WHO is involved and or funded it especially the Koch brothers who i have no use for anyways for unrelated reasons. I can pour over the data myself and figure it out. As said before i know the world has warmed. The main difference is the cause. Some issue as well with the data used to get the conclusions a few have. You and everyone else can try all you like to say this or that has been accounted for/debunked or whatever it doesn't matter. That is called a scape goat not real science. Atlast check nobody has yet to figure out the wx/climate. Yes i am fully aware of how this all works with people from both sides who try to constantly shut the other down. Move along if that is how you are gonna play.

The short.. Don't feel like typing a book..

As for the cause where humans are concerned? I honestly do think we have had a impact ( tiny.. and it is related to loss of trees ) but not for all the reasons the gw crowd claims and thus what kills the cause. Can thank politics being injected into the mix for why that has happened. BTW.. I say TINY because i need to see something solid first aka -AMO/-PDO and such in my lifetime which shouldn't be too long from now.. As said before the climate/wx is usually slower to respond so yeah a little time with that combo etc will be needed.

[TerryM]

Again i don't care WHO is involved and or funded it especially the Koch brothers who i have no use for anyways for unrelated reasons. I can pour over the data myself and figure it out. As said before i know the world has warmed. The main difference is the cause. Some issue as well with the data used to get the conclusions a few have. You and everyone else can try all you like to say this or that has been accounted for/debunked or whatever it doesn't matter. That is called a scape goat not real science. Atlast check nobody has yet to figure out the wx/climate. Yes i am fully aware of how this all works with people from both sides who try to constantly shut the other down. Move along if that is how you are gonna play.

The short.. Don't feel like typing a book..

As for the cause where humans are concerned? I honestly do think we have had a impact ( tiny.. and it is related to loss of trees ) but not for all the reasons the gw crowd claims and thus what kills the cause. Can thank politics being injected into the mix for why that has happened. BTW.. I say TINY because i need to see something solid first aka -AMO/-PDO and such in my lifetime which shouldn't be too long from now.. As said before the climate/wx is usually slower to respond so yeah a little time with that combo etc will be needed.

Does this mean you are in agreement with BEST?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Again i don't care WHO is involved and or funded it especially the Koch brothers who i have no use for anyways for unrelated reasons. I can pour over the data myself and figure it out. As said before i know the world has warmed. The main difference is the cause. Some issue as well with the data used to get the conclusions a few have. You and everyone else can try all you like to say this or that has been accounted for/debunked or whatever it doesn't matter. That is called a scape goat not real science. Atlast check nobody has yet to figure out the wx/climate. Yes i am fully aware of how this all works with people from both sides who try to constantly shut the other down. Move along if that is how you are gonna play.

The short.. Don't feel like typing a book..

As for the cause where humans are concerned? I honestly do think we have had a impact ( tiny.. and it is related to loss of trees ) but not for all the reasons the gw crowd claims and thus what kills the cause. Can thank politics being injected into the mix for why that has happened. BTW.. I say TINY because i need to see something solid first aka -AMO/-PDO and such in my lifetime which shouldn't be too long from now.. As said before the climate/wx is usually slower to respond so yeah a little time with that combo etc will be needed.

.

I will never understand how you and so many others can dismiss the work of thousands actually tens of thousands of scientists then use faulty conjecture as a way to believe the warming.

Do you really think those men and women of the gw crowd who spend their lives looking for answers, researching, are wrong? But you are right and just need a -AMO and -PDO to see it?

[Harry]

Does this mean you are in agreement with BEST?

No..

There is some hge holes/problems with how they come up with their conclusions. One such example is The solar debate they used which has some serious issues. Hopefully i don't have to explain it to you? In short the sun is still more active then it was earlier in the century etc. The real decline in solar activity only began a few years back. As said before things don't just happen instantly and that one chart of theirs using the sun vs temps kinda shows it. Also note their chart shows 0.5 warming. The solar stuff is huge as far as this debate goes so yeah that is a problem.

Alot more but yeah i'll stop there. Again people like that are NOT helping your cause.

[Harry]

.

I will never understand how you and so many others can dismiss the work of thousands actually tens of thousands of scientists then use faulty conjecture as a way to believe the warming.

Do you really think those men and women of the gw crowd who spend their lives looking for answers, researching, are wrong? But you are right and just need a -AMO and -PDO to see it?

Look at that link aka BEST. Thus what i commented on. That is how. Again i never said there was no warming. I am a climate change person. When MONEY/Politics is involved YES i believe opinions etc get skewed. Not saying all do that but everyone and their mother knows Money/Politics factors in big time. That is with BOTH sides too not just the GW crowd. Trust me sites like that do not help your cause especially with people like me who knows a bit about the subject/data ( how it relates to the weather and thus our climate ) and so forth. You people should be screaming at THEM.

I never claimed to be right. I nor anyone else has all the answers to our climate/weather. To suggest otherwise ( which a few do especially where THIS topic is concerned ) is beyond words.

[WeatherRusty]

Again i don't care WHO is involved and or funded it especially the Koch brothers who i have no use for anyways for unrelated reasons. I can pour over the data myself and figure it out. As said before i know the world has warmed. The main difference is the cause. Some issue as well with the data used to get the conclusions a few have. You and everyone else can try all you like to say this or that has been accounted for/debunked or whatever it doesn't matter. That is called a scape goat not real science. Atlast check nobody has yet to figure out the wx/climate. Yes i am fully aware of how this all works with people from both sides who try to constantly shut the other down. Move along if that is how you are gonna play.

The short.. Don't feel like typing a book..

As for the cause where humans are concerned? I honestly do think we have had a impact ( tiny.. and it is related to loss of trees ) but not for all the reasons the gw crowd claims and thus what kills the cause. Can thank politics being injected into the mix for why that has happened. BTW.. I say TINY because i need to see something solid first aka -AMO/-PDO and such in my lifetime which shouldn't be too long from now.. As said before the climate/wx is usually slower to respond so yeah a little time with that combo etc will be needed.

AGW science is all about radiative forcing of climate and how a climate will respond to a radiative perturbation.

The two main sources of energy which warm the Earth's surface are the Sun and Earth's own atmosphere. Any changes in those two entities acting on primary, first order physical principles, are what forces Earth's temperature to rise and fall. The effect of this has been measured at the top of atmosphere by satellite and the indication is that the Earth is currently in a positive radiative imbalance. The Earth is absorbing energy which will in time manifest as increasing surface temperature. The Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is radiating away to space.

Do you understand that this is the basis for AGW?

[Jonger]

AGW science is all about radiative forcing of climate and how a climate will respond to a radiative perturbation.

The two main sources of energy which warm the Earth's surface are the Sun and Earth's own atmosphere. Any changes in those two entities acting on primary, first order physical principles, are what forces Earth's temperature to rise and fall. The effect of this has been measured at the top of atmosphere by satellite and the indication is that the Earth is currently in a positive radiative imbalance. The Earth is absorbing energy which will in time manifest as increasing surface temperature. The Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is radiating away to space.

Do you understand that this is the basis for AGW?

This process has been underway for quite a while before fossil fuels were bring burned. That satallite image might have looked exactly the same 500 years ago.

[PhillipS]

This process has been underway for quite a while before fossil fuels were bring burned. That satallite image might have looked exactly the same 500 years ago.

We know that it was cooler 500 years ago and that is the value of paleoclimate reconstructions. Here's the temperature reconstruction of the past thousand years or so from Mann et al 2008:

This newer paleoclimate reconstruction has apparently answered the critical comments by M & M (and others) on the original 'hockey stick'. So we can at least hope that the zombie denialist claims can be finally laid to rest.

[Jonger]

We know that it was cooler 500 years ago and that is the value of paleoclimate reconstructions. Here's the temperature reconstruction of the past thousand years or so from Mann et al 2008:

This newer paleoclimate reconstruction has apparently answered the critical comments by M & M (and others) on the original 'hockey stick'. So we can at least hope that the zombie denialist claims can be finally laid to rest.

Reconstructed data will never be accepted by the public. You want to derail human civilization over reconstructed temperature. All over a single degree.....no notable sea level increase and no visible changes by most of the population. Global warming is a joke people make on a warm day and put out of sight or mind on an average day.

Keep up the fight though...

[PhillipS]

Reconstructed data will never be accepted by the public. You want to derail human civilization over reconstructed temperature. All over a single degree.....no notable sea level increase and no visible changes by most of the population. Global warming is a joke people make on a warm day and put out of sight or mind on an average day.

Keep up the fight though...

Ah, the words of the wilfully ignorant. It's funny how you seem to think that climate science has the agenda of derailing human civilization. An intelligent person would put most of that blame on those who are trying to keep us dependent on fossil fuels - after all, it's our fossil fuel use that is pushing the climate out of its relatively stable regime.

Can you help us understand how you think those evil scientists got the glaciers, arctic sea ice, global temperatures, and the myriad plants and animals to go along with their plan?

[WeatherRusty]

Ah, the words of the wilfully ignorant. It's funny how you seem to think that climate science has the agenda of derailing human civilization. An intelligent person would put most of that blame on those who are trying to keep us dependent on fossil fuels - after all, it's our fossil fuel use that is pushing the climate out of its relatively stable regime.

Can you help us understand how you think those evil scientists got the glaciers, arctic sea ice, global temperatures, and the myriad plants and animals to go along with their plan?

All the changes in nature you mention are not really happening. Natural variation has been greatly exaggerated by the eco-nuts as a way to control our lives. You know global temp has only risen less than 1C degrees and even that is questionable, well within the range of natural variability. The science is a fraud, there is no threat of catastrophic climate change...no threat of 2,3,4,5 degrees of additional warming. Live free and be happy!

NOT

[PottercountyWXobserver]

Ah, the words of the wilfully ignorant. It's funny how you seem to think that climate science has the agenda of derailing human civilization. An intelligent person would put most of that blame on those who are trying to keep us dependent on fossil fuels - after all, it's our fossil fuel use that is pushing the climate out of its relatively stable regime.

Can you help us understand how you think those evil scientists got the glaciers, arctic sea ice, global temperatures, and the myriad plants and animals to go along with their plan?

HAARP of course I'm joking, but there are alot of crazy people out there that believe AGW is being manipulated by evil scientist lol.

How anyone can deny that we are warming is beyond me. I honestly think the whole snowfall decreasing debate is blownout of proportion by the denialist. On the long term time scale snowfall will decrease but not on a linear projection. Actually I think the increase in snowfall in some places fits in with the AGW theory. With an increase in temperatures will provide more moisture to places that are normally cold and dry during the winter time period. This will allow for places to see a slight increase in snowfall until a threshold is reached, where temperatures slowly become the main reason for snowless winters rather than moisture absence. I guarentee if anyone on here took climate sites in regions where winter time precip is low, there will be a noticable increase in precip (not necessarily for snow but also rain aka total QPF). Eventually the temperature increase will overshadow the precipation factor, and thus will begin the noticable decrease in the snowfall department. The polar and subtropical jetstream is gradually moving slowly towards the north over the years. With this motion, places will experience more snowfall in marginal locations where snowfall is already present during the winter-time time frame (Unitl temperature reaches a threshold) More storm systems over the years are producing more maginal type snow events ie snow falling in temperatures around 30-34F when in past these systems where snowing in temperatures 28-32F. More systems are accompanied by more WAA(warm air aloft) than before, this means more storms are switching over to sleet, freezing rain, and eventually plain rain when before the storm was more likely to produce all frozen precipitation. I'm also willing to bet, if there was a study done over the years, the water content of the snowfall has increased in probabilitly from less powdery type events to more "wet" type cement snows. Which would make sense with an increase in temperatures, also this means blowing and drifting type events have probably decreased over the years.

[bluewave]

HAARP of course I'm joking, but there are alot of crazy people out there that believe AGW is being manipulated by evil scientist lol.

How anyone can deny that we are warming is beyond me. I honestly think the whole snowfall decreasing debate is blownout of proportion by the denialist. On the long term time scale snowfall will decrease but not on a linear projection. Actually I think the increase in snowfall in some places fits in with the AGW theory. With an increase in temperatures will provide more moisture to places that are normally cold and dry during the winter time period. This will allow for places to see a slight increase in snowfall until a threshold is reached, where temperatures slowly become the main reason for snowless winters rather than moisture absence. I guarentee if anyone on here took climate sites in regions where winter time precip is low, there will be a noticable increase in precip (not necessarily for snow but also rain aka total QPF). Eventually the temperature increase will overshadow the precipation factor, and thus will begin the noticable decrease in the snowfall department. The polar and subtropical jetstream is gradually moving slowly towards the north over the years. With this motion, places will experience more snowfall in marginal locations where snowfall is already present during the winter-time time frame (Unitl temperature reaches a threshold) More storm systems over the years are producing more maginal type snow events ie snow falling in temperatures around 30-34F when in past these systems where snowing in temperatures 28-32F. More systems are accompanied by more WAA(warm air aloft) than before, this means more storms are switching over to sleet, freezing rain, and eventually plain rain when before the storm was more likely to produce all frozen precipitation.

The Great Lakes Region is a good example of increasing snowfall despite rising temperatures.

http://www.scienceda...31106052121.htm