Historic Storm frequencies increasing?

[tamarack]

There have been more 10" snowstorms for NYC recently...The decade breaksowns...

1870's...5

1880's...1

1890's...5

1900's...4

1910's...5

1920's...5

1930's...3

1940's...4

1950's...3

1960's...6

1970's...3

1980's...1

1990's...5

2000's...7

2010's...5

The 1960's had the most until the 2000's...the 2010's have five so far...

 

If one looks at 30-yr periods, the bump in 10"+ storms is surprisingly recent:

 

1870s-90s...11

1880s-00s...10

1890s-10s...14

1900s-20s...14

1910s-30s...13

1920s-40s...12

1930s-50s...10

1940s-60s...13

1950s-70s...12

1960s-80s...10

1970s-90s....9

1980s-00s...13

1990s-10s...17 and counting.

 

Just for grins, I tried the same thing for a local COOP station (Farmington, Maine) with somewhat fewer years of record (starts 1/1/1893) but far more 10"+ storms, 224 in 120 years vs NYC's 62 in over 140.  So far, the 2010s are wimping out with just 3 (largest 12.5, April 2011, and I'm confident this recent storm will be #4 with 11-12" but don't have the numbers yet) but the 2000s had 23, tied with 1900s for 2nd place behind the 1970s' 26.

 

1890s-10s...50

1900s-20s...52

1910s-30s...44

1920s-40s...46

1930s-50s...44

1940s-60s...51

1950s-70s...64

1960s-80s...67

1970s-90s...64

1980s-00s...61

1990s-10s...45 and counting.

 

Big bulge centered on the 1970s.  However, each decade 1960s thru 2000s has had at least 19, and prior to then only the 1900s had over 18.  Whether the 2010s come up to grade, or whether the biggies have moved south, we shall see.  

[Jonger]

lol, I bet you can which means what?  I didn't cherry pick, I gave examples of places during February that have warmed a lot in the 100yr 0.8C reference you gave as a straw-man argument.

 

 

Winter CONUS temps have warmed 0.91C since 1895. February has seen an increase of 1.8C, but January has seen a much more modest increase of 0.58C and December of 0.78C. The warming for the CONUS winter as a whole in the past 90 years is only about 0.45C or about half the warming of 1895-present. Not sure why only February would be cherry picked...probably because it had the greatest warming trend. I'm not sure what the numbers are for other mid-latitude regions.

 

 

 None of this proves that winter storms are getting worse however. Snowfall measuring techniques are different now than further back which makes it much easier to produce a top 10 total in large storms. Compaction of snow becomes a major issue in events over a foot. So we are not comparing apples to apples in a lot of these storms from further back to storms in the present. Its certainly possible that the warming is helping out with cold season cyclone enhancement, but we'd need better evidence than what we currently have. If anything, the warmer arctic would reduce the temp gradients we see to fuel these storms speaking strictly from a synoptic and thermodynamic standpoint.  

Measuring techniques today are a big part of it.... The board methods being used with intra storm clearing at set internals usually yield much higher results. I would be interested in knowing when the NWS certified their storm spotter methods.

[dabize]

NYC had 22.2" from 2/9-3/09...

Ah, yes, for NYC it would be less - they got only 16" in the Lindsay storm

[The_Global_Warmer]

Winter CONUS temps have warmed 0.91C since 1895. February has seen an increase of 1.8C, but January has seen a much more modest increase of 0.58C and December of 0.78C. The warming for the CONUS winter as a whole in the past 90 years is only about 0.45C or about half the warming of 1895-present. Not sure why only February would be cherry picked...probably because it had the greatest warming trend. I'm not sure what the numbers are for other mid-latitude regions.

 

 

 None of this proves that winter storms are getting worse however. Snowfall measuring techniques are different now than further back which makes it much easier to produce a top 10 total in large storms. Compaction of snow becomes a major issue in events over a foot. So we are not comparing apples to apples in a lot of these storms from further back to storms in the present. Its certainly possible that the warming is helping out with cold season cyclone enhancement, but we'd need better evidence than what we currently have. If anything, the warmer arctic would reduce the temp gradients we see to fuel these storms speaking strictly from a synoptic and thermodynamic standpoint.  

 

 

There is way to much variability on this planet throughout the seasons to use the entire CONUS as a barometer on AGW effecting winter storms.

 

I used those examples to show at different times some places have seen major climate changes.  So those places expcially coastal cities by the warmer Atlantic Ocean may be effect more than Little Rock Arkansas that has been steadier.

 

And like I already said I didn't cherry pick February, I used it because the storm causing this topic was in February.  And other regions that may not have warmed as fast are again irrelevant.  If they haven't warmed as fast they may experience less change. 

 

Winter (Dec-Feb) Temperature

Minneapolis-St.Paul, MN

 

Winter (Dec-Feb) 1895 - 2012 Average = 16.31 degF

Winter (Dec-Feb) 1895 - 2012 Trend = 0.40 degF / Decade

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonger]

There is way to much variability on this planet throughout the seasons to use the entire CONUS as a barometer on AGW effecting winter storms.

 

I used those examples to show at different times some places have seen major climate changes.  So those places expcially coastal cities by the warmer Atlantic Ocean may be effect more than Little Rock Arkansas that has been steadier.

 

And like I already said I didn't cherry pick February, I used it because the storm causing this topic was in February.  And other regions that may not have warmed as fast are again irrelevant.  If they haven't warmed as fast they may experience less change. 

 

Winter (Dec-Feb) Temperature

Minneapolis-St.Paul, MN

 

Winter (Dec-Feb) 1895 - 2012 Average = 16.31 degF

Winter (Dec-Feb) 1895 - 2012 Trend = 0.40 degF / Decade

 

 

 

Minnesota and North Dakota have had the largest warming in the CONUS.

 

You cherry picked it... Look at that red coloring over MSP.

 

 

 

States are much more likely to show the usual 0.10 to 0.15/ Decade warming...

[bluewave]

http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/increasing-great-lake-effect-snowfall-during-twentieth-century-regional-response-global-warming/#

 

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/storm101206.html

[TerryM]

FWIW I left Southern Ontario for California at 17 in 1963 without ever hearing of "thunder snow" & I've experienced it on 2 occasions since my return in 2004.

As far as Jung's concerns about weather reportage back in the dark ages. Small rural farming communities had local radio stations who's weather reports provided a topic of conversation to the benighted folk who couldn't discuss the latest Southpark episode, nor feign outrage over the most recent wardrobe malfunction. Weather has always been of more import to a farmer than to a city dweller & the discussion of it was so prevalent as to warrant the cliche for small talk.

 

Terry

[Jonger]

FWIW I left Southern Ontario for California at 17 in 1963 without ever hearing of "thunder snow" & I've experienced it on 2 occasions since my return in 2004.

As far as Jung's concerns about weather reportage back in the dark ages. Small rural farming communities had local radio stations who's weather reports provided a topic of conversation to the benighted folk who couldn't discuss the latest Southpark episode, nor feign outrage over the most recent wardrobe malfunction. Weather has always been of more import to a farmer than to a city dweller & the discussion of it was so prevalent as to warrant the cliche for small talk.

 

Terry

 

True, but those local events were taken to the grave for the most part. This comment I'm typing now will be traceable in some form for years upon years. Storm reports to the NWS will be archived for potentially hundreds or thousands of years. This is the root of many skeptics positions... We have a very technologically advanced system of weather forecasting and data recording taking place, backed up against a far more primitive era. The questions are over how accurate or complete those primitive era records are. Potter and many others want to puff up the quality of records and statistics, when we know they are most likely incomplete and probably inaccurate.

[bluewave]

We have seen more NESIS  snowstorms over the last 20 years compared to each previous 20 year intervals going back to 1954.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/rsi/nesis

 

1954-1973....15 

 

 

 

 

1974-1993...9

 

 

 

 

1994-2013....22

 

 

[TerryM]

Jong

 

I've read the extant local account of a team of horses that injured their hooves by breaking through ice in June 1815. Unusual weather was recorded and the records have been passed down. I suppose it's a natural thing to assume that proper record keeping didn't begin until you came of age, but in fact, those that had a pecuniary reason to note and record weather have been doing so accurately for a very long time.

 

Farmers and sailors - particularly the British Navy & Lloyds of London, had huge investments in weather tabulation dating back hundreds of years. Sailing ships were far more dependent on fair winds than any commercial vessels of this era & the summer that never was in 1815 (prior to artificial freezing) caused food riots throughout the northern hemisphere.

 

It's a mistake to believe that weather is taken more seriously in these times when we've developed so many technologies to mitigate against the extremes. Today a farmer that guesses wrong and looses a crop to inclement weather is compensated by crop insurance. Prior to that a farmer might have to take out a loan that could jeopardize his ownership of the land and before that a bad year might mean starvation for the community.

 

Temperatures, precipitation, barometric pressure, wind speed and direction even hydrometers were available prior the 18th century and all were recorded in the hope that good outcomes could be repeated & disastrous losses avoided. If you haven't accessed these records, don't assume they don't exist.

 

Terry 

[Jonger]

Jong

 

I've read the extant local account of a team of horses that injured their hooves by breaking through ice in June 1815. Unusual weather was recorded and the records have been passed down. I suppose it's a natural thing to assume that proper record keeping didn't begin until you came of age, but in fact, those that had a pecuniary reason to note and record weather have been doing so accurately for a very long time.

 

Farmers and sailors - particularly the British Navy & Lloyds of London, had huge investments in weather tabulation dating back hundreds of years. Sailing ships were far more dependent on fair winds than any commercial vessels of this era & the summer that never was in 1815 (prior to artificial freezing) caused food riots throughout the northern hemisphere.

 

It's a mistake to believe that weather is taken more seriously in these times when we've developed so many technologies to mitigate against the extremes. Today a farmer that guesses wrong and looses a crop to inclement weather is compensated by crop insurance. Prior to that a farmer might have to take out a loan that could jeopardize his ownership of the land and before that a bad year might mean starvation for the community.

 

Temperatures, precipitation, barometric pressure, wind speed and direction even hydrometers were available prior the 18th century and all were recorded in the hope that good outcomes could be repeated & disastrous losses avoided. If you haven't accessed these records, don't assume they don't exist.

 

Terry 

Those accounts are interesting and shouldn't be completely discounted, but in an attempt to decipher the small margins of change that has occurred, they aren't useful. I'm not using this opinion toward all sections of climate change, just those that would be poorly recorded or lack prior observational methods that would be accurate.

[tamarack]

"I've read the extant local account of a team of horses that injured their hooves by breaking through ice in June 1815. Unusual weather was recorded and the records have been passed down. I suppose it's a natural thing to assume that proper record keeping didn't begin until you came of age, but in fact, those that had a pecuniary reason to note and record weather have been doing so accurately for a very long time."

No doubt, and we know that people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, among others, kept detailed daily weather records. However, there was little standardization in how those records were taken. Temperatures were often recorded only at three predetermined times during the day, so that maximums/minimums might or might not be captured. Snowfall was often described qualitatively, by its effect on people's lives - interesting and useful, but difficult to compare directly to the numbers from our (somewhat) more standardized records of the past 140 years or so. Farmers would be a lot more interested in frost and freeze dates than snow depth (beyond its effect on livestock), and in growing season rainfall than in snowfall, at least in the eastern US where snowpack water is a relatively minimal player in summer soil moisture. Others may think differently, but IMO it's nearly impossible to quantitatively compare severe events from the mid-19th century and earlier to those of today. Do we have any real idea of how much snow fell in that series of storms in 1717? Amazing anecdotes/facts, but little in the way of hard numbers.

[dabize]

"I've read the extant local account of a team of horses that injured their hooves by breaking through ice in June 1815. Unusual weather was recorded and the records have been passed down. I suppose it's a natural thing to assume that proper record keeping didn't begin until you came of age, but in fact, those that had a pecuniary reason to note and record weather have been doing so accurately for a very long time."

No doubt, and we know that people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, among others, kept detailed daily weather records. However, there was little standardization in how those records were taken. Temperatures were often recorded only at three predetermined times during the day, so that maximums/minimums might or might not be captured. Snowfall was often described qualitatively, by its effect on people's lives - interesting and useful, but difficult to compare directly to the numbers from our (somewhat) more standardized records of the past 140 years or so. Farmers would be a lot more interested in frost and freeze dates than snow depth (beyond its effect on livestock), and in growing season rainfall than in snowfall, at least in the eastern US where snowpack water is a relatively minimal player in summer soil moisture. Others may think differently, but IMO it's nearly impossible to quantitatively compare severe events from the mid-19th century and earlier to those of today. Do we have any real idea of how much snow fell in that series of storms in 1717? Amazing anecdotes/facts, but little in the way of hard numbers.

Point taken, but snow depth measurements after a heavy windy snowfall (such as the recent NE storm) may not be that much better than telling the story of the houses in Medford that were so completely buried in 1717 that they could only be located by watching for chimney smoke.

 

1717 was arguably a bigger storm than the one last week - dunno by how much, though

[Jonger]

Point taken, but snow depth measurements after a heavy windy snowfall (such as the recent NE storm) may not be that much better than telling the story of the houses in Medford that were so completely buried in 1717 that they could only be located by watching for chimney smoke.

 

1717 was arguably a bigger storm than the one last week - dunno by how much, though

 

Very possible. The only problem is that we don't know how widespread it was either, it might have been a perfect deformation band that pivoted over the area and left places 100 miles away with nothing notable.

[WeatherRusty]

Winter CONUS temps have warmed 0.91C since 1895. February has seen an increase of 1.8C, but January has seen a much more modest increase of 0.58C and December of 0.78C. The warming for the CONUS winter as a whole in the past 90 years is only about 0.45C or about half the warming of 1895-present. Not sure why only February would be cherry picked...probably because it had the greatest warming trend. I'm not sure what the numbers are for other mid-latitude regions.

 

 

 None of this proves that winter storms are getting worse however. Snowfall measuring techniques are different now than further back which makes it much easier to produce a top 10 total in large storms. Compaction of snow becomes a major issue in events over a foot. So we are not comparing apples to apples in a lot of these storms from further back to storms in the present. Its certainly possible that the warming is helping out with cold season cyclone enhancement, but we'd need better evidence than what we currently have. If anything, the warmer arctic would reduce the temp gradients we see to fuel these storms speaking strictly from a synoptic and thermodynamic standpoint.  

 

On the other hand, the water vapor content in the warm sector of these storms will be disproportionatly greater than the linear change in temperature differential. That means greater latent heat energy and higher PW.

 

What is more important, potentially reduced vorticity due to a lessening temperature gradient, or latent heat release driving increased convective potential? Remember, the highest snowfall totals are occuring where banding sets up.

[donsutherland1]

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/storm101206.html

For those interested in historical weather events (and this is not a comment on the climate change issue), there was an earlier event that was of a similar magnitude, though of longer duration. Areas downwind of Lake Ontario were hardest hit. During the October 4-6, 1836 timeframe, parts of New York State were buried under 2 feet of snow.

 

From the October 12, 1836 edition of the Auburn Journal:

 

On Tuesday night [October 4] of last week, snow commenced falling in this vicinity. It continued throughout Wednesday and the following night, with very little abatement; and up to Thursday morning is supposed to have fallen to the depth of at least 24 or 26 inches. Although thawing very fast, during the whole time, yet on Thursday morning a friend of ours took the pains to ascertain its depth, in an open level field, which proved to be from 13 to 14 inches.

[donsutherland1]

Point taken, but snow depth measurements after a heavy windy snowfall (such as the recent NE storm) may not be that much better than telling the story of the houses in Medford that were so completely buried in 1717 that they could only be located by watching for chimney smoke.

 

1717 was arguably a bigger storm than the one last week - dunno by how much, though

The Great Snow of 1717 was actually the result of four storms that occurred in the February 27-March 7 timeframe. Two were relatively light, but two were major.

[bobbutts]

That's not the point Friv. The point is HOW is AGW effecting blizzards. More or less common or no change. 

 

I want numbers. None in this thread yet.

 

 

 

IMO it would probably hinge mostly on how AGW effects blocking and amplification of the jet stream. 

 

 

The "more moisture = more blizzards" argument doesn't hold water IMO (pun intended) because the climate zones just shift northwards. Major snow storms occur in a climate zone of a particular constant temperature which simply shifts northward with warming. 

 

The climate zone for blizzards could probably be defined as something like locations with an average January high between 10-45F. Below that, not enough moisture, above that not cold enough for snow.

 

As the world warms, this zone doesn't warm. It simply shifts northwards. If the temperature is constant, moisture content is also likely fairly unchanged. 

 

I believe this is not simple at all as you state.  Every coast is unique and has a major influence on weather, so it's not just latitude.  If we are discussing New England Blizzards specifically, then it may very well matter quite a bit.  There's a cold air source to our NW and ocean to our S & E.  Go north 200 miles and you are in inland Canada.  Follow the coast and you're in the Maritimes, both totally different geography that will have a major effect on blizzards.  

[Jonger]

I believe this is not simple at all as you state.  Every coast is unique and has a major influence on weather, so it's not just latitude.  If we are discussing New England Blizzards specifically, then it may very well matter quite a bit.  There's a cold air source to our NW and ocean to our S & E.  Go north 200 miles and you are in inland Canada.  Follow the coast and you're in the Maritimes, both totally different geography that will have a major effect on blizzards.  

 

Well, he is stating a potential fact.... but winter snowcover charts don't indicate this happening.

 

[ORH_wxman]

On the other hand, the water vapor content in the warm sector of these storms will be disproportionatly greater than the linear change in temperature differential. That means greater latent heat energy and higher PW.

 

What is more important, potentially reduced vorticity due to a lessening temperature gradient, or latent heat release driving increased convective potential? Remember, the highest snowfall totals are occuring where banding sets up.

 

 

Which is largely a function of mid-level frontogenesis in large Nor' Easters...something temp differential would have an impact on. It is probably a very complex set of variables that would have to be measured in order to determine just how much a warming climate enhances or mitigates snowfall. I def agree that increased PWAT feeding in would enhance, but decresed temp gradient hampers a lot of thermodynamic processes that produce heavy snowfall in these storms as well. Isn't convective potential decreased anyway with the mid-upper levels warming faster than the sfc?

[The_Global_Warmer]

I believe this is not simple at all as you state. Every coast is unique and has a major influence on weather, so it's not just latitude. If we are discussing New England Blizzards specifically, then it may very well matter quite a bit. There's a cold air source to our NW and ocean to our S & E. Go north 200 miles and you are in inland Canada. Follow the coast and you're in the Maritimes, both totally different geography that will have a major effect on blizzards.

I agree there is a potential in your region for enhancement. Because of water can land.

[bluewave]

 

 

 

 

 

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/618/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10584-012-0441-5.pdf?auth66=1362146849_a3d0f0c5923bf2bb44435a381a875458&ext=.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[scottmartin49]

At one point I had access to almost 100 years worth of the 'New England Farmer'. Local reporters faithfully recorded large storms and weather conditions- my favorite was the date 'good sledding' would arrive- and report objective crop data,allowable as inferential data similar to dendritic ring analysis.

You can't claim that it's 'not there', or irrelevent, just incompletely tabulated. It stops being as valuable after the advent of radio, when people began accepting more generalized data drawn from less nearby sources.

When it comes right down to it, I'd trust a maple tree more than a scientist. Whether the data it records is pro or con, you don't have to worry who's filling its pockets.

Does anyone know any grad students looking for a thesis?

[Jonger]

 

More precip... more flooding..

 

But this.

 

Nothing more annoying than covering all your bases.

[bluewave]

More precip... more flooding..

 

But this.

 

Nothing more annoying than covering all your bases.

 

You realize that the two can coexist right?

 

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dlh/?n=june2012_duluth_flood

 

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/01/25/record-setting-rains-flood-north-texas-video-included/

[PhillipS]

You realize that the two can coexist right?

 

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dlh/?n=june2012_duluth_flood

 

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/01/25/record-setting-rains-flood-north-texas-video-included/

 

You make a very good point - drought and flooding can coexist.  A fact that anyone who's watched a flash flood in the desert can appreciate.

 

I think that it is important to understand that precipitation alone won't end a drought.  It is overly simplistic to just look at rainfall totals without considering how it is falling.  For example, a downpour that drops 3 inches of rain in 2 hours does very little little to mitigate a drought because most of that water runs off, and it also can erode a lot of dry and friable topsoil.  But that same amount of rain falling over a 24 hour period sinks in with little runoff and raises soil moisture.

 

If AGW is causing more extreme precipitation events as well as longer dry spells there will be serious (aka expensive) consequences for both agriculture and urban infrastructure.

[bluewave]

You make a very good point - drought and flooding can coexist.  A fact that anyone who's watched a flash flood in the desert can appreciate.

 

I think that it is important to understand that precipitation alone won't end a drought.  It is overly simplistic to just look at rainfall totals without considering how it is falling.  For example, a downpour that drops 3 inches of rain in 2 hours does very little little to mitigate a drought because most of that water runs off, and it also can erode a lot of dry and friable topsoil.  But that same amount of rain falling over a 24 hour period sinks in with little runoff and raises soil moisture.

 

If AGW is causing more extreme precipitation events as well as longer dry spells there will be serious (aka expensive) consequences for both agriculture and urban infrastructure.

 

Yeah, that part of the interview with Gerald Meehl from NCAR is about 7 minutes in. 

 

[PhillipS]

Yeah, that part of the interview with Gerald Meehl from NCAR is about 7 minutes in. 

 

 

That's a great video.  Thank you for sharing it.

 

An observation from here in central Texas is that our topsoil can get so dry that water drops simply bead up on it instead of being absorbed. 

[WXheights]

Do this for me... Anyone. How many trained observers are there today versus 25 years ago. I bet there are at least 100 times as many. How did the average person have any contact with the NWS 25 years ago? Weather radio.... Point made...

 

I disagree. I think trained observer -- Certified observer when they switched over from FAA Flight Service stations (human) there were more in the 90s than there are now. The art actually is pretty lost, and the data sets for snow frankly suck-- I.E ASOS can not measure snow) only snow precip amount. If you are talking spotters that's different or even COOP Observers which do not record thunder.

 

But I would echo what others have said at least in Northern New England cold season. There are anecdotal more cold season thunderstorms and thunder snows, not to be picayune but probably more snow pellet thunder-snows.  During the 1993 blizzard at KMPV we recoded 3 hours I believe of thundersnows with snowfall rates around 3 to 4" an hour straight - it was special!!!

[WXheights]

It is true, storms are just cold enough to produce these major snowstorms. We are seeing thermal gradients in the winter time like nothing before. Either caused by the record warm SSTs off the Atlantic, or record SE temperatures meeting up with arctic outbreaks caused by record arctic blocking displacing the colder air, meanwhile the Arctic torches. That is why we are seeing a noticable increase in thundersnow events because the convection with these storms since the 1993 superstorm is incredible. Yes there were thundersnows before, but I guarantee if someone did a case study, I bet they would find a correlation between AGW and thundersnow events increasing. We are seeing snowstorms increasing with snowfall rates than we have before, setting new 24hr daily snowfall totals. Even the convective nature of Lake Effect snow is increasing with the lake temperatures warmer than before. Heck even instability as a whole is increasing in the winter months, places are seeing severe thunderstorms that never have in the north in January! Places south of Buffalo, NY had CG thunderstorms in January, unheard of. Weather events are related to AGW more than what people think, as Friv has said it has to, the more energy a working system has to work with there has to be some kind of long term implications in our weather events. Yes weather is cyclical and weather patterns show a distribution pattern, but these distribution patterns are more amplified than before due to the increase in extreme weather events. Yes eventually with a warming world, there will be a threshold crossed where major snowstorms will just be major rainstorms as just cold enough air to feed these massive snowstorms becomes increasing difficult to obtain, thus is why you are seeing an overall trend of lower seasonal snowfall totals at the majority of observation locations, BUT and increase of extreme weather events ie 1-2 day totals. But even in a more advanced warming world, extreme cold air out breaks can still happen, and when they do if hooked up with a more wetter world, there will be even greater storms in the future than what we are seeing. Eventually yes if AGW isn't addressed and we seeing continuous warming, I fully expect even extreme weather events to eventually cross a thresshold to the point where the thermal gradients will no longer be enough to drive the extreme type storms. But even in the decline of extreme weather events eventually, there will still be the potential for very very extreme weather events mainly focused during the winter timeframe mainly because cold air will still always be present near the globes during the normal low solar insolation time frame. So if I were to make a prediction now, places that normally don't see 2-4" QPF storms in the winter time period, I expect Quebec and Ontario to shatter records in the future for snowevents, as places south torch under the WAA ie Northeast.

I think you are spot on.  Not only that - ask your nearest Utility about "wet snow loading present vs. past" !!! notably northern New England, never mind gradient wind events, also a huge uptick where I forecast for VT Utilities over the last decade.

 

It is totally related to warming, higher water vapor.  Jay Peak Ski area set their all time 24 hour record a couple years back (it was good data) with a huge juiced WAA high PWAT Frontal plume, rain for most areas, just cold enough for all snow higher elevation - it was unreal.

 

What I'm noticing is higher PW's in southerly flow whether big synoptic Nor'easter or those little intermediate sub-tropical southern warm air advection fetch plumes out of the GOM. What I'm also noticing, is interior continental flow even with Great Lake effect  interestingly is becoming much more contrasting.  Clippers are no biggy compared to higher PWAT from source regions with warm SST's (GOM OB of NC. Gulf Stream) south source regions are juicing things up synoptically for winter time events with thermal baroclinc contrast increased in recent years owing to huge part of this I think.