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

[WeatherRusty]

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.

Might have but for different reasons. Spectroscopic analysis indicates a deepening of the absorption bands inherent to atmospheric CO2. The greenhouse effect is in the process of strengthening due to the growing concentration of greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4, O3, N20, H2O and some very long chemical concoctions called CFCs.

In any case, because the radiative imbalance continues positive, the warming trend will continue until such is not the case and thermal equilibrium is reached. This is an inescapable reality of physics and the Laws of Thermodynamics.

[Jonger]

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

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

I have been googling my butt off for the article, but there was a study done on this by the NWS office in Gaylord this winter. They wondered whether a warm summer would result in an increase in lake effect snow. The findings proved the theory to be false. I'm going to find this link.... bare with me.

UPDATE:

Here it is.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/apx/spotter/warmlakemoresnow.pdf

[The_Global_Warmer]

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.

This great practical thinking.

It is not very hard.

I am glad you have this kind of mind.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

This great practical thinking.

It is not very hard.

I am glad you have this kind of mind.

Thanks, that means alot! I just want whats best for humanity and the Earth. Just a few years ago I was sceptical, but then I decided well this could be serious and I need to grow up and start thinking what is best for humanity. Then I started to do some deep research and ever since my career paths and everyday choices have been geared for a better lifestyle and hopefully my actions along with others can help future generations.

Also, many people will point out and say, look the US is below average this month. This maybe so, but it is usually at the expense of a torching arctic. I normally tell people AGW has 4 main proponets. 1. Temperatures are warming about 1C a century 2. The northern latitudes are warming faster than other areas on the globe, and just because their certain location isn't warming doesn't mean AGW doesn't exist. 3. Night lows are warming at a greater rate than daytime highs 4. Precipation is increasing in most places with a warming planet. I try and keep it simple and if I usually stick to these points I win alot of people over. I stay away from fear mongering as much as I can and stick to the basics of science that can't be refuted. I think alot of people that don't believe in GW have a hard time grasping the timescales of Earth and how unoticable it may seem. Like the most agruments I receive are things like, well the Earth has been warmer and colder in the past, so whats the big deal now. Then I tell them, this is true, but the climate regime in the past were more stable and increases and decreases had a much much much smaller rate of change(except in catastrophic events ie major volcanic erruptions...etc). I think RATE OF CHANGE is the hardest concept for most to understand. I mean that makes sense, since most people only live to about 75-80 and can't really related to large scale phenomenons. The rate of change in the increase of temperatures is the main argument of GW, we are talking about species that in the past had tens to hundreds of thousands of years to adapt to climate regime changes that are now on the scale of centuries.

[PhillipS]

I have been googling my butt off for the article, but there was a study done on this by the NWS office in Gaylord this winter. They wondered whether a warm summer would result in an increase in lake effect snow. The findings proved the theory to be false. I'm going to find this link.... bare with me.

UPDATE:

Here it is.

http://www.crh.noaa....akemoresnow.pdf

This is one of your better posts. Thank you for sharing that study.

[Harry]

I have been googling my butt off for the article, but there was a study done on this by the NWS office in Gaylord this winter. They wondered whether a warm summer would result in an increase in lake effect snow. The findings proved the theory to be false. I'm going to find this link.... bare with me.

UPDATE:

Here it is.

http://www.crh.noaa....akemoresnow.pdf

meh.. GRR did a study in the winter of 07-08 that showed a increase in areas along and east of 131 ( Like here ) while areas closer to the lake ( Muskegon ) lost some. You can clearly see this in the newly updated seasonal averages for here that went up 7-10" depending on source, While Muskegon lost almost 10 inches etc. The odd one was Bloomingdale which now has a higher seasonal average of 94.1" compared to Muskegon with 93.7" Muskegons was 101.8 i do believe? Yeah Bloomingdale saw a nice increase. Not surprising though considering 00-01/01-02 ( very epic Lake events ) and then winters like 04-05, 06-07 ( which was good there ), 08-09, 09-10.. It is almost like Michigan is being turned upside down with the seasonal snowfall.. North has lost a bit while the south has gained a bit..

Looking at the actual numbers the increase was in the areas south of i96 while those north lost some. Which does seem odd. Keep in mind that 08-09 and 09-10 was MUCH better south of i96. Have had a number of winters like that too.

Personally i don't think the snowfall matters much. Now if we start seeing snow cover filling in across the north ( towards the pole ) further into summer etc then yeah that will be different. That all does have a feedback effect.

And dude we have warmed a bit over the past century. Questions are more to do with why ( human or natural ) and or will it reverse eventually?

[michsnowfreak]

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.

You have got to be kidding me LOL. What about all these freak snowstorms in recent years that have been hitting southern climes who are used to no snow at all? And where in the world is there ANY evidence that more snowstorms are occurring with temps of 30-34F instead of 28-32F? We just had our 6th warmest winter on record yet our two best snowstorms occurred with temps in the TEENS. We are seeing a definite increase in snowfall in Detroit and we see if anything more powder than we used to rather than wet. I know snowfall records like the back of my hand for this area and your assertions about more snow to liquid events, more wet snow, snow at warmer temps, less blowing and drifting, are all 100% FALSE. And this IS one of the regions where snowfall is increasing so its completely valid that I point this out as false. And it has nothing to do with warming winters because OUR PRESENT DAY WINTERS ARE COLDER THAN THE 1930s-1950s WINTERS. Based on these assertions of snowfall increasing in colder, drier winter climes, wouldnt the far north of MI, MN, WI be seeing the biggest increase? Nope, they are seeing a decrease outside the lake belts.

[ORH_wxman]

You have got to be kidding me LOL. What about all these freak snowstorms in recent years that have been hitting southern climes who are used to no snow at all? And where in the world is there ANY evidence that more snowstorms are occurring with temps of 30-34F instead of 28-32F? We just had our 6th warmest winter on record yet our two best snowstorms occurred with temps in the TEENS. We are seeing a definite increase in snowfall in Detroit and we see if anything more powder than we used to rather than wet. I know snowfall records like the back of my hand for this area and your assertions about more snow to liquid events, more wet snow, snow at warmer temps, less blowing and drifting, are all 100% FALSE. And this IS one of the regions where snowfall is increasing so its completely valid that I point this out as false. And it has nothing to do with warming winters because OUR PRESENT DAY WINTERS ARE COLDER THAN THE 1930s-1950s WINTERS. Based on these assertions of snowfall increasing in colder, drier winter climes, wouldnt the far north of MI, MN, WI be seeing the biggest increase? Nope, they are seeing a decrease outside the lake belts.

Snowfall is a silly thing that CAGW folks argue...it just doesn't fit any of the trends they argue. Either that, or they reverse the argument to fit the obs. Temperatures are warming and that is a fact....ice is less common than it was 50 years ago....that is a fact. Snowfall? Eh, not so much in a lot of places. The snowfall to water ratio here has remained unchanged since they started keeping records.

Also, anyone arguing a snow to liquid ratio during storms as proof of AGW is pretty ignorant on how snow to water ratios works....its mostly about snow growth and not surface temps. Obviously sfc temps near freezing will make the ratios lower...but even a 30F temp can have 18 or 20 to 1 ratios if snowgrowth is good. So I think the arguing of snow vs water is a pretty ignorant thing to do unless those arguing it are well verse on how ice crystals are formed.

The ice argument is different as that is much more closely related to temperatures in the GL. Though as been noted by many here, the GL were actually pretty warm in the 1930-1950s so I'd be shocked if there weren't some years in there where ice was similar to what it was this year. That obviously doesn't mean we haven't warmed since then....we have....but it does tone down the alarmist theme a bit when you include it instead of starting from the 1970s.

[Harry]

You have got to be kidding me LOL. What about all these freak snowstorms in recent years that have been hitting southern climes who are used to no snow at all? And where in the world is there ANY evidence that more snowstorms are occurring with temps of 30-34F instead of 28-32F? We just had our 6th warmest winter on record yet our two best snowstorms occurred with temps in the TEENS. We are seeing a definite increase in snowfall in Detroit and we see if anything more powder than we used to rather than wet. I know snowfall records like the back of my hand for this area and your assertions about more snow to liquid events, more wet snow, snow at warmer temps, less blowing and drifting, are all 100% FALSE. And this IS one of the regions where snowfall is increasing so its completely valid that I point this out as false. And it has nothing to do with warming winters because OUR PRESENT DAY WINTERS ARE COLDER THAN THE 1930s-1950s WINTERS. Based on these assertions of snowfall increasing in colder, drier winter climes, wouldnt the far north of MI, MN, WI be seeing the biggest increase? Nope, they are seeing a decrease outside the lake belts.

The lake belts *closest* to/on the lakes as mentioned above have lost some. It is the areas just inland especially S.MI that saw the increase. I admit i am not sure what to attribute that too other then natural variations? Can't say it is or is not because of GW.. From what i read on the subject matter though ( makes sense ) is warmer for areas up north should equal more snow ( warmer means the atmosphere can hold more liquid, etc ) while areas further south in already warmer climates would lose?

Also GW is *supposed* to affect the poles more vs the mid latitudes. So the theory goes.

[Harry]

Snowfall is a silly thing that CAGW folks argue...it just doesn't fit any of the trends they argue. Either that, or they reverse the argument to fit the obs. Temperatures are warming and that is a fact....ice is less common than it was 50 years ago....that is a fact. Snowfall? Eh, not so much in a lot of places. The snowfall to water ratio here has remained unchanged since they started keeping records.

Also, anyone arguing a snow to liquid ratio during storms as proof of AGW is pretty ignorant on how snow to water ratios works....its mostly about snow growth and not surface temps. Obviously sfc temps near freezing will make the ratios lower...but even a 30F temp can have 18 or 20 to 1 ratios if snowgrowth is good. So I think the arguing of snow vs water is a pretty ignorant thing to do unless those arguing it are well verse on how ice crystals are formed.

The ice argument is different as that is much more closely related to temperatures in the GL. Though as been noted by many here, the GL were actually pretty warm in the 1930-1950s so I'd be shocked if there weren't some years in there where ice was similar to what it was this year. That obviously doesn't mean we haven't warmed since then....we have....but it does tone down the alarmist theme a bit when you include it instead of starting from the 1970s.

Yet what is crazy is 30s-50s were noted for the lowest seasonal snowfall averages in much of the state/region.

As mentioned above GRR did a study on it and included a chart with snowfall averages which started out higher in the late 1800s and then took a huge dip in that 30-50s period and has since come back up to the levels ( higher in some cases ) seen back in the 1800s. Yeah that has always left me scratching my head as it relates to this subject matter. A number of climo sites around here do show that though..

[michsnowfreak]

meh.. GRR did a study in the winter of 07-08 that showed a increase in areas along and east of 131 ( Like here ) while areas closer to the lake ( Muskegon ) lost some. You can clearly see this in the newly updated seasonal averages for here that went up 7-10" depending on source, While Muskegon lost almost 10 inches etc. The odd one was Bloomingdale which now has a higher seasonal average of 94.1" compared to Muskegon with 93.7" Muskegons was 101.8 i do believe? Yeah Bloomingdale saw a nice increase. Not surprising though considering 00-01/01-02 ( very epic Lake events ) and then winters like 04-05, 06-07 ( which was good there ), 08-09, 09-10.. It is almost like Michigan is being turned upside down with the seasonal snowfall.. North has lost a bit while the south has gained a bit..

Looking at the actual numbers the increase was in the areas south of i96 while those north lost some. Which does seem odd. Keep in mind that 08-09 and 09-10 was MUCH better south of i96. Have had a number of winters like that too.

Personally i don't think the snowfall matters much. Now if we start seeing snow cover filling in across the north ( towards the pole ) further into summer etc then yeah that will be different. That all does have a feedback effect.

And dude we have warmed a bit over the past century. Questions are more to do with why ( human or natural ) and or will it reverse eventually?

I usually stay out of this forum because it does NOT matter what the subject is, you end up seeing the same charts, graphs, etc of how the global temp is whatever and such. I never said the earth hasnt warmed any. What gets me involved is when people start on the winters of yesteryear. Now, other areas climate experts (ORH for instance in New England) have shown that winters seem to be more harsher there as well, proving thats its not just one region, but still I try and limit myself to what I 100% know for certain, and thats my region. The 1970s were the coldest winters of ANY decade on record here (records began in 1870). Of course when you compare anything to the 1970s it wont be as cold or ice covered. Even the 1980s were noticably colder than the longterm mean, and the 1990s noticably warmer. The warmest winters (1870s-2000s) were clearly the 1880s, 1930s, 1950s, and 1990s.

Im not denying that the EARTH has warmed slightly. Im talking about winters in SE MI. And when I start hearing fictitious tales of winters of the past in this region, I WILL speak up. I mean the increasing snow evidence speaks for itself, how much more can I beat a dead horse? But you wanna talk temps? Even with the 4th warmest winter on record (2001-02), the 2000s had colder winters than the 1880s, 1930s, 1950s, and 1990s in Detroit. And dont tell me UHI has no affect, as it has been cited NUMEROUS times by DTX and local climate historian/expert Bill Deedler that it does and has taken off insanely since the 1980s. So this talk of a steady increase in winter temps is complete BS for HERE.

[Harry]

I usually stay out of this forum because it does NOT matter what the subject is, you end up seeing the same charts, graphs, etc of how the global temp is whatever and such. I never said the earth hasnt warmed any. What gets me involved is when people start on the winters of yesteryear. Now, other areas climate experts (ORH for instance in New England) have shown that winters seem to be more harsher there as well, proving thats its not just one region, but still I try and limit myself to what I 100% know for certain, and thats my region. The 1970s were the coldest winters of ANY decade on record here (records began in 1870). Of course when you compare anything to the 1970s it wont be as cold or ice covered. Even the 1980s were noticably colder than the longterm mean, and the 1990s noticably warmer. The warmest winters (1870s-2000s) were clearly the 1880s, 1930s, 1950s, and 1990s.

Im not denying that the EARTH has warmed slightly. Im talking about winters in SE MI. And when I start hearing fictitious tales of winters of the past in this region, I WILL speak up. I mean the increasing snow evidence speaks for itself, how much more can I beat a dead horse? But you wanna talk temps? Even with the 4th warmest winter on record (2001-02), the 2000s had colder winters than the 1880s, 1930s, 1950s, and 1990s in Detroit. And dont tell me UHI has no affect, as it has been cited NUMEROUS times by DTX and local climate historian/expert Bill Deedler that it does and has taken off insanely since the 1980s. So this talk of a steady increase in winter temps is complete BS for HERE.

Easy there.. We are in agreement on this subject matter. Jonger seems to think we have not seen any warming though ( Globally speaking ) which is false. That was all i was commenting on. K?

[ORH_wxman]

Easy there.. We are in agreement on this subject matter. Jonger seems to think we have not seen any warming though ( Globally speaking ) which is false. That was all i was commenting on. K?

Jonger is dead wrong when he says the earth hasn't warmed...or at least scientifically he is dead wrong....99.9% chance we have warmed...I should obey the error bars. But its also alarmist to use the trend from the 1970s onward to prove a CAGW point which is where I think a lot of these debates start.

[michsnowfreak]

Snowfall is a silly thing that CAGW folks argue...it just doesn't fit any of the trends they argue. Either that, or they reverse the argument to fit the obs. Temperatures are warming and that is a fact....ice is less common than it was 50 years ago....that is a fact. Snowfall? Eh, not so much in a lot of places. The snowfall to water ratio here has remained unchanged since they started keeping records.

Also, anyone arguing a snow to liquid ratio during storms as proof of AGW is pretty ignorant on how snow to water ratios works....its mostly about snow growth and not surface temps. Obviously sfc temps near freezing will make the ratios lower...but even a 30F temp can have 18 or 20 to 1 ratios if snowgrowth is good. So I think the arguing of snow vs water is a pretty ignorant thing to do unless those arguing it are well verse on how ice crystals are formed.

The ice argument is different as that is much more closely related to temperatures in the GL. Though as been noted by many here, the GL were actually pretty warm in the 1930-1950s so I'd be shocked if there weren't some years in there where ice was similar to what it was this year. That obviously doesn't mean we haven't warmed since then....we have....but it does tone down the alarmist theme a bit when you include it instead of starting from the 1970s.

Its extremely convenient for any GW alarmist to start an argument about the warming of the Great Lakes since the 1970s LOL as I pointed out the 1970s are our #1 coldest winters on record. And were talking to the tune of 3-4F colder than winters of the 1930s and 1950s ("just" 2.2F colder than 1940s winters, but 1940s winters stood out for one thing, and that is amazing snow futility). Even the 1980s were much colder than the 1880s-1890s and 1930s-1960s.

Also, even if the earth has warmed since the 1930s, in SE MI, winters (and summers) are most definitely colder than during the 1930s-1950s. A sharp cooling trend hit our winters in the 1960s, and with the exception of the mild 1990s winters, we have no evidence showing we are headed for a repeat of that 1930s-1950s stretch of winters in terms of temps, and we couldnt be farther from those times wrt snowfall.

[Harry]

Jonger is dead wrong when he says the earth hasn't warmed...or at least scientifically he is dead wrong....99.9% chance we have warmed...I should obey the error bars. But its also alarmist to use the trend from the 1970s onward to prove a CAGW point which is where I think a lot of these debates start.

I am in total agreement with you.

[michsnowfreak]

Easy there.. We are in agreement on this subject matter. Jonger seems to think we have not seen any warming though ( Globally speaking ) which is false. That was all i was commenting on. K?

Oh I know..you and I are on the same page. LOL I quoted your post as you are a fellow MI poster on the same page as me, and I realized when reading it back it sounded like I was getting on you rather than some of the other BS posts in this thread

Its always the same kind of thing.

An unusual warm spell hits a certain area, and the GW talk is off the charts...then someone brings up how their local climate doesnt show a warming trend to which they get something like "its about the GLOBE or EARTH, not one persons backyard" (even though one regions warmspell is what fueled much talk).

OR

A thread about a particular region is discussed (this case in point, Great Lakes)....pull out the Great Lakes climate data to show winters arent warming like the earth is, and you get the whole "its about the GLOBE/EARTH" stuff again.

[Harry]

Its extremely convenient for any GW alarmist to start an argument about the warming of the Great Lakes since the 1970s LOL as I pointed out the 1970s are our #1 coldest winters on record. And were talking to the tune of 3-4F colder than winters of the 1930s and 1950s (just 2F colder than 1940s winters, but 1940s winters stood out for one thing, and that is amazing snow futility). Even the 1980s were much colder than the 1880s-1890s and 1930s-1960s.

Also, even if the earth has warmed since the 1930s, in SE MI, winters (and summers) are most definitely colder than during the 1930s-1950s. A sharp cooling trend hit our winters in the 1960s, and with the exception of the mild 1990s winters, we have no evidence showing we are headed for a repeat of that 1930s-1950s stretch of winters in terms of temps.

When a winter season here finishes below 40 ( very common back then in that period as you know ) then i'll start to wonder about those 1930s-1950s and 90s period here. Last sub 40 season here was 97-98..

Sub 40 seasons for here by decade back to the 1930s..

2000 to current.. None

1990s.. 3.. Last was 97-98 with 38.6"

1980s.. 1

1970s.. 3

1960s.. 3.. First 90+ season and 1st decade with 3 seasons with 65" or more in a season since 1800s..

1950s.. 4 and only one season above the 50" mark.. 51-52 with about 80.. One 52-53 was sub 30..with 27.0 and officially the last sub 30" season this location has seen..

1940s.. 7 and includes a sub 30 and a sub 20 with 18.3" in 48-49.. Had 2 with 50+ but no 60+..

1930s.. 5 and only one season cracked 50..3 sub 30 as well with 37-38 the low mark of 18.0"

However this station has a history of missing data BUT that seems to be more of a problem from the 70s onward. Anything prior to 47-48 is unofficial per GRR..

[WeatherRusty]

Jonger is dead wrong when he says the earth hasn't warmed...or at least scientifically he is dead wrong....99.9% chance we have warmed...I should obey the error bars. But its also alarmist to use the trend from the 1970s onward to prove a CAGW point which is where I think a lot of these debates start.

The Earth has warmed about 0.75C since the beginning of the 20th century according to HadCRUT.

The instrument record is taken to have begun in 1880. Who uses the 70's onward to make a point, other than that is the period of most rapid warming to date?

The snow argument is ridiculous based on a global average increase of 0.75C. Local and regional natural variability in all weather parameters is subject to wide variation regardless of a 0.4C-0.5C increase in global temps since the 1970's.

The question is what will local and regional snow and ice patterns look like when the global average temp is 2C-3C warmer than around the year ~1900? Is there any doubt they will be decreased most everywhere?

[bluewave]

I have been googling my butt off for the article, but there was a study done on this by the NWS office in Gaylord this winter. They wondered whether a warm summer would result in an increase in lake effect snow. The findings proved the theory to be false. I'm going to find this link.... bare with me.

UPDATE:

Here it is.

http://www.crh.noaa....akemoresnow.pdf

[Jonger]

Sorry, there is no way for the nws to know what was lake effect snow and what wasn't in the 1930s. Sounds like more estimating.

[Jonger]

Jonger is dead wrong when he says the earth hasn't warmed...or at least scientifically he is dead wrong....99.9% chance we have warmed...I should obey the error bars. But its also alarmist to use the trend from the 1970s onward to prove a CAGW point which is where I think a lot of these debates start.

I have conceded that the earth has warmed. I just have little faith in reconstructed data and pre satallite data.

[bluewave]

Sorry, there is no way for the nws to know what was lake effect snow and what wasn't in the 1930s. Sounds like more estimating.

Time for you to just embrace the changing climate and move on already. No amount of information that people post in

this forum is good enough for you so that says that you are coming from ideology and not science.

[Jonger]

Is this a standard deviation of +/- 3 inches? You do know some of these areas average over 200 inches of lake effect snow per season? This isn't even a change of .5 to 1%. You seriously trying to tell me they had the ability to determine what is or isn't lake effect in 1935? Right down to the inch?

[michsnowfreak]

The question is what will local and regional snow and ice patterns look like when the global average temp is 2C-3C warmer than around the year ~1900? Is there any doubt they will be decreased most everywhere?

When/if the global avg temp is 2-3C higher than it was in 1900 (im curious when you estimate that will be), there is still no reason to believe snowfall in northern climates will be decreased. Based on that theory, if anything, Id expect snowcover to be less or of shorter duration, but not necessarily snowfall. Hell based on many AGW folks who have switched from their 1990s view of "snowfall is rapidly decreasing" to their 2000s view of "melting sea ice and more moisture is creating more snowfall in northern climes", wouldnt an increase in temp continue the trend in increasing snowfall in the north? Besides, a global rise of 2-3C in temp does not equate to that much of a rise in many areas temps (ie its highest in the arctic regions).

[michsnowfreak]

Is this a standard deviation of +/- 3 inches? You do know some of these areas average over 200 inches of lake effect snow per season? This isn't even a change of .5 to 1%. You seriously trying to tell me they had the ability to determine what is or isn't lake effect in 1935? Right down to the inch?

I would like to think that the NWS put a great deal of time into that study, but clearly it isnt flawless. It is 100% impossible to separate every inch of snow as lake effect or synoptic. Not to mention, many events are lake-enhanced synoptic snow.

[donsutherland1]

Is this a standard deviation of +/- 3 inches?

No. The numbers -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, etc. are standard deviations from the historic mean, not inches. A standard deviation is much greater than an inch.

[Jonger]

No. The numbers -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, etc. are standard deviations from the historic mean, not inches. A standard deviation is much greater than an inch.

Hmm... wish I knew what the increments are.

[cheetah440]

The Earth has warmed about 0.75C since the beginning of the 20th century according to HadCRUT.

The instrument record is taken to have begun in 1880. Who uses the 70's onward to make a point, other than that is the period of most rapid warming to date?

The snow argument is ridiculous based on a global average increase of 0.75C. Local and regional natural variability in all weather parameters is subject to wide variation regardless of a 0.4C-0.5C increase in global temps since the 1970's.

The question is what will local and regional snow and ice patterns look like when the global average temp is 2C-3C warmer than around the year ~1900? Is there any doubt they will be decreased most everywhere?

How has the instrument data record changed since 1880 until 2012? How many sites were there in 1880 vs 2012 and ever 10 yrs or so in between?

Looking at the oldest data set, CET, it is clear that there has been a long warming trend since the 1850's but nothing that resembles a hockey stick. It's really only about 1c over 350yrs.

[Jonger]

How has the instrument data record changed since 1880 until 2012? How many sites were there in 1880 vs 2012 and ever 10 yrs or so in between?

Looking at the oldest data set, CET, it is clear that there has been a long warming trend since the 1850's but nothing that resembles a hockey stick. It's really only about 1c over 350yrs.

I have been told that climatologists adjust for urban heat islands...... They better, since most of those 1880 placed stations are in BAKING urban environments today. Detroit city proper is so much warmer then 10 miles outside the city its unbelievable.

In June through September my own cars thermometer drops 15 degrees around 10pm when leaving the city on a sunny day. I remember a few days where Detroit was about 50 degrees around 10pm... By the time I reached my home 50 miles away, frost.

[cheetah440]

The Earth has warmed about 0.75C since the beginning of the 20th century according to HadCRUT.

The instrument record is taken to have begun in 1880. Who uses the 70's onward to make a point, other than that is the period of most rapid warming to date?

The snow argument is ridiculous based on a global average increase of 0.75C. Local and regional natural variability in all weather parameters is subject to wide variation regardless of a 0.4C-0.5C increase in global temps since the 1970's.

The question is what will local and regional snow and ice patterns look like when the global average temp is 2C-3C warmer than around the year ~1900? Is there any doubt they will be decreased most everywhere?

What if the Earth had warmed .75C from the beginning of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century? Or from the beginning of the 18th century to the beginning of the 19th century?

Can you tell me with the same certainty that this hasn't happened? What happened from the 8th century to the 9th century? Or from the 5th century to the 6th century? Can extremely limited regional proxies give us a clear determination on the relevance of the global data that we have over the last century?