'Hurricane Sandy: The next climate wake-up call?'

[SVT450R]

I just came in here to guess that somebody would try to attribute the noreaster to AGW but looks like somebody already did.

Early season snowfalls will become much less common with AGW, not more.

It's kinda sad and to think only skeptics supposedly only spew disinformation.

[TerryM]

I just came in here to guess that somebody would try to attribute the noreaster to AGW but looks like somebody already did.

Early season snowfalls will become much less common with AGW, not more.

Has this proven true over the last decade or so?

Not a question I know the answer to - I do recall something about snow packs increasing in winter (more moisture in the air) but don't remember anything about early season.

The phenomena I was specifically referring to was the strength & timing of the Greenland Blocking, whether this is being affected by open Arctic waters & whether the wobbling Jet Stream should be attributed to Arctic warming.

Early season snow should be easy to track though, ad it might be related.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

Has this proven true over the last decade or so?

Not a question I know the answer to - I do recall something about snow packs increasing in winter (more moisture in the air) but don't remember anything about early season.

The phenomena I was specifically referring to was the strength & timing of the Greenland Blocking, whether this is being affected by open Arctic waters & whether the wobbling Jet Stream should be attributed to Arctic warming.

Early season snow should be easy to track though, ad it might be related.

Terry

Globally, November snow cover has not increased.

I have heard (from peer-reviewed sources) that blocking (wobbly jet) might become more common but I don't remember how definitive the research is. It makes some sense though and I accept it as a possibility.

But for early season snowfall, the warming signal would be far stronger. I don't care how much blocking there is, in 90 years when CT's climate is that of coastal North Carolina or Virginia, they will not receive more late Oct/early Nov snowfall than they do now. It's almost impossible for it to snow in NC or VA in late Oct/early Nov. It's just too warm. The 1C of warming we've seen so far has moved us significantly closer to that.

[TerryM]

It's kinda sad and to think only skeptics supposedly only spew disinformation.

What disinformation have I been spreading?

Are you denying that the Arctic is refreezing from the lowest minimum recorded or assuming that this will have no effect on contiguous climate zones?

The greatest differences in Arctic temperature are occurring in the spring and fall. During Summer latent heat of fusion keeps Arctic waters close to the norm. In Winter things are frozen over and very low temperatures still prevail. In Spring and Fall we're having open water where previously there was ice & these months are when the rest of the Northern Hemisphere is most likely to be affected.

Threads have been devoted to the rapid spring melt off of snow cover. I'm postulating that fall conditions are being affected too, and that anomalous conditions during this period deserve special attention.

I don't recall posting anything that could remotely be seen as disinformation. If Skier is right and early snow events have been becoming more rare, that's interesting information, and I'm awaiting confirmation. The objective should be to gain more information, not to discourage speculation.

Frankly I'm a little disappointed that you're resorting to ad hominem's as opposed to providing data that bolsters your position. I know you had a rough time with Sandy & perhaps haven't had the opportunity to dig through your bookmarks.

Terry

[tacoman25]

Globally, November snow cover has not increased.

I have heard (from peer-reviewed sources) that blocking (wobbly jet) might become more common but I don't remember how definitive the research is. It makes some sense though and I accept it as a possibility.

But for early season snowfall, the warming signal would be far stronger. I don't care how much blocking there is, in 90 years when CT's climate is that of coastal North Carolina or Virginia, they will not receive more late Oct/early Nov snowfall than they do now. It's almost impossible for it to snow in NC or VA in late Oct/early Nov. It's just too warm. The 1C of warming we've seen so far has moved us significantly closer to that.

Has there been a decrease so far in early season snow events for the Mid Atlantic? The 2.9" that NYC received last October was the most snow they've received so early on record, and I believe the amount they got with this past storm also set a new standard.

[TerryM]

Globally, November snow cover has not increased.

I have heard (from peer-reviewed sources) that blocking (wobbly jet) might become more common but I don't remember how definitive the research is. It makes some sense though and I accept it as a possibility.

But for early season snowfall, the warming signal would be far stronger. I don't care how much blocking there is, in 90 years when CT's climate is that of coastal North Carolina or Virginia, they will not receive more late Oct/early Nov snowfall than they do now. It's almost impossible for it to snow in NC or VA in late Oct/early Nov. It's just too warm. The 1C of warming we've seen so far has moved us significantly closer to that.

Skier

Is there a place to look for Nov. snowfall events specific to the Eastern Seaboard. I think that locally (So. Ont. Canada), early snow has been pushed way back, but this snow isn't usually associated with anomalous events. November snow events in NYC, Atlantic City etc. would however always be the result of strange weather & this, rather than global or hemispheric levels might be more telling.

I recall some on the Sandy/Son of Sandy thread saying that experiencing a hurricane, then a snow event within 8 days was extremely unusual - possibly unprecedented. It's these sort of very unusual events that are indicative of systems moving in a chaotic system rather than random events.

Terry

[tacoman25]

Skier

Is there a place to look for Nov. snowfall events specific to the Eastern Seaboard. I think that locally (So. Ont. Canada), early snow has been pushed way back, but this snow isn't usually associated with anomalous events. November snow events in NYC, Atlantic City etc. would however always be the result of strange weather & this, rather than global or hemispheric levels might be more telling.

I recall some on the Sandy/Son of Sandy thread saying that experiencing a hurricane, then a snow event within 8 days was extremely unusual - possibly unprecedented. It's these sort of very unusual events that are indicative of systems moving in a chaotic system rather than random events.

Terry

That's exactly what weather is. Which is why computer models struggle mightily to predict it more than a few days in advance, and why somewhere in the world, there is almost always some sort of unusual or unprecedented weather event happening.

[skierinvermont]

Skier

Is there a place to look for Nov. snowfall events specific to the Eastern Seaboard. I think that locally (So. Ont. Canada), early snow has been pushed way back, but this snow isn't usually associated with anomalous events. November snow events in NYC, Atlantic City etc. would however always be the result of strange weather & this, rather than global or hemispheric levels might be more telling.

I recall some on the Sandy/Son of Sandy thread saying that experiencing a hurricane, then a snow event within 8 days was extremely unusual - possibly unprecedented. It's these sort of very unusual events that are indicative of systems moving in a chaotic system rather than random events.

Terry

Your last statement strikes me as someone that hasn't been following weather all that long. If you define an event in specific narrow enough terms, it is always a first. You can come up with gazillions of bizarre weather "firsts" and records from the first half of the 20th century that haven't happened since. It's like in sports.. they are constantly breaking records and it's not because the game has changed it's because they come up with narrowly defined records. Many of the broadly defined records have not been broken in many many years (think "most winning season in baseball") but they are constantly looking for and finding more narrowly defined records that get broken so that they can announce them on-air (think "most number of complete passes in a game where the QB is sacked 4+ times").

Just to get things started, since you're claiming every single bizarre weather event is due to AGW without showing a statistical increase in "bizarre" weather events, here are a few "bizarre" weather events from earlier this century from wikipedia. Let's have a competition. So far I've got 11 you have 2.

Rain

• Most in one minute: 38 mm (1.5 in); Barst, Guadeloupe, 26 November 1970.^[118]
  
• Most in one hour: 305 mm (12.0 in) in 42 minutes. Holt, Missouri, United States, 22 June 1947.^[39]
  
• Most in 12 hours: 1,144 mm (45.0 in); Foc-Foc, Réunion, 8 January 1966, during tropical cyclone Denise.^[39]
  
• Most in 24 hours: 1,825 mm (71.9 in); Foc-Foc, Réunion, 7–8 January 1966, during tropical cyclone Denise.^[39]
  
• Most in 48 hours: 2,467 mm (97.1 in); Aurère, Réunion, 8–10 January 1958.^[39]
  
• Most in one year: 26,470 mm (1,042 in); Cherrapunji, India, 1860–1861.^[39]
  

Snow

• Most in one-year period: 31.1 meters (102 ft); Mount Rainier, Washington, United States, 19 February 1971 to 18 February 1972.^[75]]
  
• Largest snowflake ever observed: 38 centimeters (15 in) in diameter; Fort Keogh, Montana, United States, 28 January 1887.^[75]
  

Wind

• Fastest recorded with an anemometer outside of a tropical cyclone: 372 km/h (231 mph) sustained 1-minute average; Mount Washington, New Hampshire, 12 April 1934.^[122]
  
• Fastest daily average: 174 km/h (108 mph); Port Martin (Adélie Land), Antarctica, 24-hour period from 21 March 1951 to 22 March 1951.^[75]
  

Hurricane:

Most intense ever recorded on land: 892 mb (26.35 inHg); Craig's Key, Florida, eye of the Labor Day Hurricane, 2 September 1935.

Here is NYC November snowfall. As you can see it already shows decline. Warming is the dominant factor. Any speculative increase in blocking is overwhelmed.

[aslkahuna]

Skier-you could also have included that 1.23 in of rain in one minute at Uniontown MD on July 4 1956 or how's about the heaviest single storm snowfall 189 inches from Mt Shasta in February 1959 (ironically the 58-59 winter was a dry one in the SFO Bay Area.

Steve

[TerryM]

Perhaps we're using the wrong metric.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

Perhaps we're using the wrong metric.

Terry

What is this chart supposed to show us? All it shows is average and record snow depth at NYC.

My chart shows that November snowfall at NYC has declined, contrary to speculation in this thread that it would increase.

[TerryM]

What is this chart supposed to show us? All it shows is average and record snow depth at NYC.

My chart shows that November snowfall at NYC has declined, contrary to speculation in this thread that it would increase.

Sorry - should have given some explanation.

The chart shows how rare snow events this early in the season are, as opposed to the much more prevalent late November snows. I read a few reports that mentioned this as the earliest 4' event since records were kept. I believe last years October event was also a first ever. Other charts I came across show increased precipitation, particularly since the early 70's.

'Tis late where I'm at, but will get back tomorrow.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

Sorry - should have given some explanation.

The chart shows how rare snow events this early in the season are, as opposed to the much more prevalent late November snows. I read a few reports that mentioned this as the earliest 4' event since records were kept. I believe last years October event was also a first ever. Other charts I came across show increased precipitation, particularly since the early 70's.

'Tis late where I'm at, but will get back tomorrow.

Terry

Oh ok so it's not November snowstorms that AGW is increasing.. it's only snowstorms between Oct 30th and November 8th. Like I said before, if you narrowly define what you are looking for enough, you are likely to find it. I find it highly unlikely that AGW would increase the frequency of snow in the first week of November, but dramatically decrease it in the remaining 3 weeks. More likely NYC has just had two freak storms that have nothing to do with AGW. In fact, the probability of such storms has probably decreased from AGW but the sample size is too small to show it unless we look at the whole month.

What is your strange affinity for sample sizes of one or two?

[SVT450R]

What disinformation have I been spreading?

Are you denying that the Arctic is refreezing from the lowest minimum recorded or assuming that this will have no effect on contiguous climate zones?

The greatest differences in Arctic temperature are occurring in the spring and fall. During Summer latent heat of fusion keeps Arctic waters close to the norm. In Winter things are frozen over and very low temperatures still prevail. In Spring and Fall we're having open water where previously there was ice & these months are when the rest of the Northern Hemisphere is most likely to be affected.

Threads have been devoted to the rapid spring melt off of snow cover. I'm postulating that fall conditions are being affected too, and that anomalous conditions during this period deserve special attention.

I don't recall posting anything that could remotely be seen as disinformation. If Skier is right and early snow events have been becoming more rare, that's interesting information, and I'm awaiting confirmation. The objective should be to gain more information, not to discourage speculation.

Frankly I'm a little disappointed that you're resorting to ad hominem's as opposed to providing data that bolsters your position. I know you had a rough time with Sandy & perhaps haven't had the opportunity to dig through your bookmarks.

Terry

It wasn't directed solely at you there are others and as skier pointed out you seem to come off as someone that doesn't follow/understand how weather works which also falls under the others to. Just because there is a unusual weather event you can't immediately blame it on AGW exp considering how difficult it is to do so in the first place. It's very simple for anyone to try and make a connection with saying we had the lowest minimum recorded sea ice so it must be that when in reality if you break down the weather pattern etc you would see it's not that unusual to support a storm such as sandy/son of sandy and the reason why similar weather patterns in the past have seen similar outcomes . That is what i consider disinformation. Weather is chaotic plane and simple you can go from temps in 70s to a foot of snow the next day it's just how it works. If you want to make a connection with the record low sea ice i would think the easiest would be it's effects on land temperatures.

[TerryM]

It wasn't directed solely at you there are others and as skier pointed out you seem to come off as someone that doesn't follow/understand how weather works which also falls under the others to. Just because there is a unusual weather event you can't immediately blame it on AGW exp considering how difficult it is to do so in the first place. It's very simple for anyone to try and make a connection with saying we had the lowest minimum recorded sea ice so it must be that when in reality if you break down the weather pattern etc you would see it's not that unusual to support a storm such as sandy/son of sandy and the reason why similar weather patterns in the past have seen similar outcomes . That is what i consider disinformation. Weather is chaotic plane and simple you can go from temps in 70s to a foot of snow the next day it's just how it works. If you want to make a connection with the record low sea ice i would think the easiest would be it's effects on land temperatures.

Why would you think so.

Terry

[Ground Scouring]

Yawn. This debate is so symptomic of the disinformation that the media, entrusted with the mantles of influence, nevertheless imparts to imbue the ignorant public with false conclusions.

The fact is that events that would be worse / more expensive than Sandy, regionally, today have occurred in the past: the 1815, 1824, 1938, and 1944 hurricanes. Yes, the last two would perhaps be not so devastating to NJ as Sandy was, but in terms of raw size, track, and intensity, they and the rest of these events would each be more expensive than Sandy was. The 1824 hurricane is actually suspected to have been at least a Category-4 in NC and probably a Cat.-2 or -3 at landfall near Cape May, NJ. Such a system would be devastating to the coastal areas, whether by wind (the 1824 storm was actually fairly compact) or by tide, depending upon the size of the system.

I would just love to see the reaction when we get an absolutely extreme event--not a weakening (but still extremely damaging) Cat.-3 falling apart before landfall, like all the recent Gulf majors except Wilma, but a large Category-4 or -5 hurricane like Carla 1961 or the Great Miami Hurricane 1926, hitting places like Galveston or the Miami metro head-on. Such large, intense, Cat.-4/-5 events have actually occurred many other times historically--Key West 1846, Indianola 1886, Galveston 1900 & 1915, S TX 1916, FL Keys 1919, Okeechobee 1928, Ft. Lauderdale 1947, Palm Beach 1949 (reanalysis), Hazel 1954, Hugo 1989--but not very recently. All the most recent Cat.-4/-5 events since Hugo have been very small, local micro-hurricanes like Andrew and Charley.

In fact, in a post that everyone seemed to overlook, I have pointed out that the recent frequency of really intense majors hitting the U.S. has dropped relative to past history:

http://www.americanw...42#entry1788842

1851-1900: 26 major strikes,* avg. intensity 108 kt, Cat. 4/5 once every 9.8 yrs. (median cluster w/in 5 yrs.)

1901-1950: 31 major strikes (19 during active cycle 1926-1950),* avg. intensity 111 kt (avg. intensity 113 kt during active cycle 1926-1950), Cat. 4/5 once every 4.4 yrs. (median cluster w/in 3 yrs.)

1951-1994: 24 major strikes (11 during inactive cycle 1969-1994),* avg. intensity 112 kt (avg. intensity 115 kt during inactive cycle 1969-1994), Cat. 4/5 once every 5.1 yrs. (median cluster w/in 3 yrs.)

1995-2012: 10 major strikes,* avg. intensity 106 kt, Cat. 4/5 once every 9 yrs. (median cluster w/in >9 yrs.)

So all the notions that global warming (which I do believe is real, though not entirely anthropogenic in origin) is having a real effect on the intensity and frequency of U.S. hurricanes are pure nonsense. The current active cycle has largely been tame for us, based solely on the historical record. How will we react when a big event like the great hurricanes of the past comes?

[Mr Torchey]

I said 'maybe 2F' ... you are right it probably is closer to 1F although I said 2F just because AGW warms some regions more than others and I don't know about the gulf stream.. could be anywhere from 0-2F.

These papers do not even agree with you. They show that ALL ELSE EQUAL warmer SSTS = stronger hurricane. Well no **** sherlock, forecasters have been using SSTs as a major factor in forecasting hurricanes for decades.

However, with AGW, not all else is equal. The atmosphere is warmer too, which lowers the vertical temperature gradient from warm ocean to upper atmosphere.

It's the same reason 75F water temps can sustain a powerful hurricane at high latitude, but at low latitude it would be hard to sustain one at all with those water temps.

I would thing baroclinic forces would be much more in play than anything else at higher latitudes.

[aslkahuna]

I would thing baroclinic forces would be much more in play than anything else at higher latitudes.

Depends upon the Basin. In EPAC you run into the 75F SSTs before you get too high in latitude because of the upwelling along the West coast of North America (and Australia for that matter).

Steve

[Mr Torchey]

Depends upon the Basin. In EPAC you run into the 75F SSTs before you get too high in latitude because of the upwelling along the West coast of North America (and Australia for that matter).

Steve

I agree, but this storm was always forecast to deepen as the polar jet interacted with it, and it did. Earlier on the STJ did an amazing job allowing the cyclone to breathe, I just do not see the AGW argument here. Higher SSTS were a result of a non winter last year and a very warm Spring, Summer was rather tame along the east coast, nothing remarkable at all.

[SVT450R]

Why would you think so.

Terry

Isn't self explanatory not going to derail another thread to talk all about the arctic.

[TerryM]

Isn't self explanatory not going to derail another thread to talk all about the arctic.

So you either think we're seeing WACCy weather, or the opposite. As you say it "isn't self explanatory".

2011's Oct, storm, Sandy & Son of Sandy have all been referred to as "hundred year events". Three hundred year events in 13 months at a particular location, while certainly within the bounds of possibility, is beginning to stretch the odds - unless the fundamentals are changing & the odds on each event aren't actually what they seem.

As I understand it, what really stood out with Sandy was the hook back to the American coast. This was due to extreme Greenland blocking - someone mentioned 3 standard deviations from norm?. To assume that this isn't in some way connected to the deep SLPs following the ice edge - or to assume that the huge low over Hudson Bay would have been in place had that body of water been frozen over seems to be grasping as straws.

Terry

[SVT450R]

So you either think we're seeing WACCy weather, or the opposite. As you say it "isn't self explanatory".

2011's Oct, storm, Sandy & Son of Sandy have all been referred to as "hundred year events". Three hundred year events in 13 months at a particular location, while certainly within the bounds of possibility, is beginning to stretch the odds - unless the fundamentals are changing & the odds on each event aren't actually what they seem.

As I understand it, what really stood out with Sandy was the hook back to the American coast. This was due to extreme Greenland blocking - someone mentioned 3 standard deviations from norm?. To assume that this isn't in some way connected to the deep SLPs following the ice edge - or to assume that the huge low over Hudson Bay would have been in place had that body of water been frozen over seems to be grasping as straws.

Terry

I don't know where your getting the referred as ''100 year events'' sandy itself could maybe fall under that but again it was more the track itself that was most devastating as others have pointed out we have seen impressive storms in the past. The other two storms you are referring to are run of the mill nor'easter that had the perfect set up and pattern to produce snow. Do you really believe that this is the first time we have seen a blocking pattern present that can produce stormy conditions? Hudson bay is never frozen over in late October so you seem to be grasping for straws go back in archives to see for yourself.

[nzucker]

I don't know where your getting the referred as ''100 year events'' sandy itself could maybe fall under that but again it was more the track itself that was most devastating as others have pointed out we have seen impressive storms in the past. The other two storms you are referring to are run of the mill nor'easter that had the perfect set up and pattern to produce snow. Do you really believe that this is the first time we have seen a blocking pattern present that can produce stormy conditions? Hudson bay is never frozen over in late October so you seem to be grasping for straws go back in archives to see for yourself.

I think the problem with "100-year storm" is that these are different types of storms that have that return period. It's not as if we saw a Sandy and then another Sandy the next year. You're comparing apples with oranges when you talk about tropical systems versus winter snowstorms. To me, the 10/29 and 11/7 snowstorms were pretty common Nor'easters that just happened with cold air in place. Sure, southern Westchester County where I live receiving 10" of snow on October 29th, or 8" of snow on November 7th, might only happen once every 75-100 years, but is the storm formation itself that rare? Another distinction when discussing "100 year storms" is not just tropical versus Nor'easters, but also formation versus effects. I wouldn't call the formation of the October snowstorm a 100-year event, but I would call the time of year/effects a 100 year event.

[SVT450R]

I think the problem with "100-year storm" is that these are different types of storms that have that return period. It's not as if we saw a Sandy and then another Sandy the next year. You're comparing apples with oranges when you talk about tropical systems versus winter snowstorms. To me, the 10/29 and 11/7 snowstorms were pretty common Nor'easters that just happened with cold air in place. Sure, southern Westchester County where I live receiving 10" of snow on October 29th, or 8" of snow on November 7th, might only happen once every 75-100 years, but is the storm formation itself that rare? Another distinction when discussing "100 year storms" is not just tropical versus Nor'easters, but also formation versus effects. I wouldn't call the formation of the October snowstorm a 100-year event, but I would call the time of year/effects a 100 year event.

Agreed

[TerryM]

The charts for Hudson Bay show we'd have to go back to 1993 to get more than 30% ice on the week of the storm, in Foxe Basin however as recently as 2004 we had 90% coverage.

Both bounce around - a lot - but the decline, especially in Foxe Basin is quite steep.

Anybody notice the 951 low south west of Greenland earlier today?

Terry

[SVT450R]

The charts for Hudson Bay show we'd have to go back to 1993 to get more than 30% ice on the week of the storm, in Foxe Basin however as recently as 2004 we had 90% coverage.

Both bounce around - a lot - but the decline, especially in Foxe Basin is quite steep.

Anybody notice the 951 low south west of Greenland earlier today?

Terry

You can see here the lines represent 1980's average sea ice edges in extent so you are incorrect to believe Hudson bay would be frozen over around that time frame.

[TerryM]

STV450R

This board doesn't accept .png graphics & Enviro Canada has switched to this format. I suppose I could transfer the charts to some other graphic extension and then post them but it sounds like a pain. The direct links end with a password required screen unless you follow the links one by one from their home page.

The figures I gave above were copied directly from the Environment Canada site & I'm frankly not willing to jump through whatever hoops are required to post the charts here.

Hudson Bay has been extremely chaotic in freeze up during the week ending 11/5, seldom exceeding 30% The south and central areas are usually ice free while the north end and Foxe Basin used to be frozen over to a great extent. Regionally (which includes the eastern coast of Labrador) we had ice cover of <30% at times in the 80's.while this year we're around 2%. The further north from James Bay one heads, the better the chance of ice during this week looking back in time until in Foxe Basin we're running into 90% figures.

More and more graphics seem to be using the .png format - will this board at some time accept them?

Terry

BTW - Miss your formerly daily charts. Hope you're not still having Sandy related difficulties.

[salbers]

Interesting thread with WxRusty's comment about Greenland gravity being related to east coast sea level rise. Any references for that? I'll try to post a global map (image) of sea level rise once it becomes publically available via Science On a Sphere.

Also an interesting coincidence that the tide gauge rise at the Battery is about 3mm/year, same as the global average. How then can we say it is 3 times the global average earlier in this thread?

I'll have to check the Greenland thread, but the melt from Greenland in 2012 could be showing up in the global sea level short-term rise we now see?

[skierinvermont]

The charts for Hudson Bay show we'd have to go back to 1993 to get more than 30% ice on the week of the storm, in Foxe Basin however as recently as 2004 we had 90% coverage.

Both bounce around - a lot - but the decline, especially in Foxe Basin is quite steep.

Anybody notice the 951 low south west of Greenland earlier today?

Terry

The storm happened 10/28 not 11/5. Hudson Bay is pretty much ice free even in the 80s at that time, Foxe usually around half.

[TerryM]

The storm happened 10/28 not 11/5. Hudson Bay is pretty much ice free even in the 80s at that time, Foxe usually around half.

Enviro Canada posts weekly not daily - week ending 11/5 started 10/29 - the day Sandy touched down.

That said the hurricane certainly hooked before that date, and the conditions that caused it to back to the west were in place before then. If the Greenland block had not been in place Sandy would have ended by steaming east so your point is well taken.

To show that Sandy was normal event all that's required is to show the frequency of October hurricanes that have veered west in the past. If this happened with some regularity, then regardless of landfall Sandy was a normal event that could be expected with or without AGW influence. The higher sea levels are a given, but if the atmospheric conditions are being influenced by AGW we should expect more of the same in the future.

Salbers

I think the Battery records are being averaged since 1856? while global sea level rise at 3 mm is quite recent. Would the global rise drop if shown as a linear trend since that time?

Terry