Just a matter of time.

[CoastalWx]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/11/19/lake_effect_snow_in_buffalo_climate_change_is_making_snowstorms_more_extreme.html

[FPizz]

That should have posted on the onion

[Hoosier]

I was going to say that I could've sworn that I had read something previously that stated that lake effect snow would decrease with climate change.  At least they addressed that part by specifying short term vs long term.  I still wonder though about these predictions for decades from now...if the lakes slowly warm on average, then airmasses won't have to be as cold aloft to produce lake effect snow.  Unless it gets so extreme that Buffalo takes on the climate of Florida or something, then I'm kinda skeptical.  Regional predictions regarding temperatures/precipitation decades into the future have enough uncertainty but then you're throwing in mesoscale events...ehh. 

[ORH_wxman]

Well they can't blame the recent event that just happened on warming...an unusually cold airmass went over Great Lakes that were generally running below normal in temps (they've been running below average most of the year after late ice out and cool summer)

 

[Juliancolton]

Holthaus is out-of-control. Complete detriment to the science.

[CoastalWx]

Exactly Will. Just more misinformation.

[GaWx]

Well they can't blame the recent event that just happened on warming...an unusually cold airmass went over Great Lakes that were generally running below normal in temps (they've been running below average most of the year after late ice out and cool summer)

 

  Except the alarmists will say that the unusually cold airmass and the below normal Great Lakes are also from global warming. It has become a farce what these people are saying about individual events with regard to GW. A farce.

[valkhorn]

It's difficult to attribute a single storm/event to AGW, but I can kind of see how AGW will effect every storm for a while since broad changes in the climate will play a role in every single event.

 

I think the biggest question is not IF global warming is changing extreme events (or all events), but how.

 

If you recall, it may not be the lake temperatures that are the reason this was so bad, it could be the unusually cold/persistent wind that was pushed down thanks to a super typhoon that turned into one of the strongest storms ever recorded in the Bering sea earlier this month.

 

We also had a very strong high elevation snowstorm thanks to the remants of a pacific hurricane that went all the way to Canada then back down south to the lower Apps.

 

Even if it's sunny and 72F outside in the middle of March, that could still have something to do with AGW. If global heat content in the oceans is rising, temperatures in the air and on land are rising, then things are changing. Changing climate changes storms. All storms have something to do with the climate that you're in, even something extreme.

 

More heat is more volatility. More volatility is more extreme weather. So, it would make sense that more heat in the atmosphere globally would yield to more extreme weather. It doesn't mean the extreme weather is guaranteed, it just means the potential for what it can do is higher.

 

This is the reason why we may not have seen many hurricanes lately, but we have seen a few extremely powerful typhoons in another part of the world where the upper air patters were favorable even if they weren't in the Atlantic despite warm ocean temps.

 

Anyway, that's my two cents.

[JBG]

That should have posted on the onion

Agreed. I guess that no typhoon ever recurved north during November, kicking off cold air while the lake was extremely warm before.

 Give me a break.

 

I'm an extremely liberal Democrat and I don't fall for this garbage.

[Msalgado]

Well they can't blame the recent event that just happened on warming...an unusually cold airmass went over Great Lakes that were generally running below normal in temps (they've been running below average most of the year after late ice out and cool summer)

 

 

Its an unusually cold air mass but that doesn't mean the background isn't effected by global warming.  In fact its impossible for the background to be occurring outside of global warming.  It would be one thing if this cold air wasn't being offset by warm air elsewhere in the NH but that just isn't the case.  The NH is still well above the norms for temperature.

 

The point that future arctic outbreaks would cause greater lake effect snowfalls should they occur over lakes that have a higher temperature is logical and surely shouldn't be simply dismissed out of hand because its a cold weather event.

[PhillipS]

Well they can't blame the recent event that just happened on warming...an unusually cold airmass went over Great Lakes that were generally running below normal in temps (they've been running below average most of the year after late ice out and cool summer)

 

 

Eastern Lake Erie has a positive anomaly (as your graphic shows).  Isn't that the relevant body of water for lake effect snows in Upstate New York?  Why would the cooler temperature of Lake Superior be significant?  And the article linked to in the OP points out that there was a 50 F difference in temps between the warm humid air rising off the lake and the cold air coming from the north.  Isn't that a recipe for heavy lake effect snow?

 

I agree with Valkhorn that while it's tough to attribute a single weather event to AGW, it's equally hard to say that AGW had NO influence on the weather, good or bad.  We're changing the underlying climatic conditions by dumping gigatons of GHGs into the air, so it seems inevitable that we're also changing the weather that occurs in the changed climatic conditions.

[skierinvermont]

Agreed. I guess that no typhoon ever recurved north during November, kicking off cold air while the lake was extremely warm before.

 Give me a break.

 

I'm an extremely liberal Democrat and I don't fall for this garbage.

 

You're not a liberal democrat. Your posts on here and things nzucker's told me about you indicate you're a raging conservative. 

[skierinvermont]

I'm quite convinced that global warming leads to more lake effect snow and have believed so for a long time. 

 

It's actually pretty simple. Erie used to freeze over almost every winter and Ontario in many winters. Now not so much with a dramatic decline in ice cover over recent decades. 

 

Lake effect snow occurs when the lakes are not frozen. Lake effect snow does not occur when they are frozen.

 

So, quite logically, if the lakes are not freezing as much anymore, then there will be more lake effect snow.

 

 

Natural variability is overlain upon this background trend and cold winters when the lakes freeze will still occur (like last winter) but have been and will be occurring less frequently. 

 

 

Also, I believe ORH is incorrect about Erie being below average prior to this event. The Slate article shows that temperatures in the eastern part of the lake near Buffalo were as high as 54. The western part of the lake may have been below average. The anomaly graph by ORH shows this too but it is hard to see. 

 

 

Without global warming the lake would be a couple degrees colder although still not frozen. The air would be a couple degrees colder too so the gradient would not be more. But I think snows would be slightly heaver with a 14 vs 54 vertical temperature gradient vs a 12 vs 52. 

[AvantHiatus]

AGW leads to enhanced warming of warm-season GL SST. What I don't understand is that recent summers were cooler than average in the region.

[The_Global_Warmer]

AGW leads to enhanced warming of warm-season GL SST. What I don't understand is that recent summers were cooler than average in the region.

Just weather patterns.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I'm quite convinced that global warming leads to more lake effect snow and have believed so for a long time.

It's actually pretty simple. Erie used to freeze over almost every winter and Ontario in many winters. Now not so much with a dramatic decline in ice cover over recent decades.

Lake effect snow occurs when the lakes are not frozen. Lake effect snow does not occur when they are frozen.

So, quite logically, if the lakes are not freezing as much anymore, then there will be more lake effect snow.

Natural variability is overlain upon this background trend and cold winters when the lakes freeze will still occur (like last winter) but have been and will be occurring less frequently.

Also, I believe ORH is incorrect about Erie being below average prior to this event. The Slate article shows that temperatures in the eastern part of the lake near Buffalo were as high as 54. The western part of the lake may have been below average. The anomaly graph by ORH shows this too but it is hard to see.

Without global warming the lake would be a couple degrees colder although still not frozen. The air would be a couple degrees colder too so the gradient would not be more. But I think snows would be slightly heaver with a 14 vs 54 vertical temperature gradient vs a 12 vs 52.

How much does depth of warm water play a role?

[ORH_wxman]

I pretty much disagree with everything skier posted. There's literature that shows if anything, lake effect snow will become less in a warmer world. Not more. This is especially true for the southern belts like Lake Erie.

http://web2.geo.msu.edu/glra/PDF_files/Regional%20Summary/03-F_lake_effect.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0380133002706035

Blaming a small portion of above average water on the southeast portion of Lake Erie when much of the rest of the fetch was below normal along with an exceptionally cold airmass in late November (which should also become less frequent) on global warming is a stretch in attribution. In addition, global warming should warm the mid-levels faster than the near-surface. This would make delta-Ts from 850 to sfc lower in a warming world. Not higher.

Apparently the only variable alarmists want to focus on is a small portion of the lake that was above normal and ignore the airmass which should be less common in a warming world and ignore the delta-T which would lower in a warming world.

[CoastalWx]

Well said. 

[Ottawa Blizzard]

I'm quite convinced that global warming leads to more lake effect snow and have believed so for a long time. 

 

It's actually pretty simple. Erie used to freeze over almost every winter and Ontario in many winters. Now not so much with a dramatic decline in ice cover over recent decades. 

 

Lake effect snow occurs when the lakes are not frozen. Lake effect snow does not occur when they are frozen.

 

So, quite logically, if the lakes are not freezing as much anymore, then there will be more lake effect snow.

 

 

Natural variability is overlain upon this background trend and cold winters when the lakes freeze will still occur (like last winter) but have been and will be occurring less frequently. 

 

 

Also, I believe ORH is incorrect about Erie being below average prior to this event. The Slate article shows that temperatures in the eastern part of the lake near Buffalo were as high as 54. The western part of the lake may have been below average. The anomaly graph by ORH shows this too but it is hard to see. 

 

 

Without global warming the lake would be a couple degrees colder although still not frozen. The air would be a couple degrees colder too so the gradient would not be more. But I think snows would be slightly heaver with a 14 vs 54 vertical temperature gradient vs a 12 vs 52. 

Actually, Lake Ontario has almost never frozen over. The closest it came was in February 1934.

 

Also, Lake Erie rarely freezes as early as your seem to make out. In fact, people were surprised when it froze unusually early in 1976.

[PhillipS]

I pretty much disagree with everything skier posted. There's literature that shows if anything, lake effect snow will become less in a warmer world. Not more. This is especially true for the southern belts like Lake Erie.

http://web2.geo.msu.edu/glra/PDF_files/Regional%20Summary/03-F_lake_effect.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0380133002706035

Blaming a small portion of above average water on the southeast portion of Lake Erie when much of the rest of the fetch was below normal along with an exceptionally cold airmass in late November (which should also become less frequent) on global warming is a stretch in attribution. In addition, global warming should warm the mid-levels faster than the near-surface. This would make delta-Ts from 850 to sfc lower in a warming world. Not higher.

Apparently the only variable alarmists want to focus on is a small portion of the lake that was above normal and ignore the airmass which should be less common in a warming world and ignore the delta-T which would lower in a warming world.

 

If the water vapor that produced eight feet or so of snow in Buffalo didn't come from the warm eastern side of Lake Erie, then where did it come from?

[PhillipS]

Many of you have probably seen this video clip of moisture rising off Lake Erie near Buffalo:

 

[JBG]

If the water vapor that produced eight feet or so of snow in Buffalo didn't come from the warm eastern side of Lake Erie, then where did it come from?

Lake Huron. Lake Erie is probably too small to create that effect. Too small, too little moisture.

[valkhorn]

Lake Huron. Lake Erie is probably too small to create that effect. Too small, too little moisture.

 

I was watching the radar of that event off and on for several days. You have no idea what you are talking about. The fetch of moisture was entirely thanks to Lake Erie.

[ORH_wxman]

If the water vapor that produced eight feet or so of snow in Buffalo didn't come from the warm eastern side of Lake Erie, then where did it come from?

 

The most important aspect in LES is a long fetch and delta-T...the water right near BUF isn't the main driver. If it was, then we'd see intense LES bands on a due north wind off Lake Erie to the south of BUF...but we don't see that...because the fetch is too short.

 

Yes, there was definitely some contribution of that water, but you can't just point to that as the cause of this event being as intense as it was. The single largest reason the event was prolific was how frigid the airmass was and the sustained WSW fetch along the entire length of Lake Erie...of which a chunk of it was below average.

 

 

In order to attribute these types of events becoming more intense as AGW occurs, you need to show:

 

1. Delta-Ts 850-sfc increase as the world warms.

2. Long fetch across Lake Erie with winds >12-14mph are more frequent in a warming world

 

Both points have been shown in the literature to actually become less intense/frequent in a warming world. Not more. Especially point number 1.

 

 

This particular event occured in an airmass that is supposed to become less frequent due to AGW. Lake Erie had slightly above normal temps right near BUF and slightly below normal temps across much of the central and western part of the lake, so it is difficult to make any conclusions about SSTs being a factor.

 

 

So as I said above...this is quite a stretch for attribution.

[valkhorn]

In order to attribute these types of events becoming more intense as AGW occurs, you need to show:

 

1. Delta-Ts 850-sfc increase as the world warms.

2. Long fetch across Lake Erie with winds >12-14mph are more frequent in a warming world

 

Both points have been shown in the literature to actually become less intense/frequent in a warming world. Not more. Especially point number 1.

 

 

Citation needed because that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. In a warming world, ocean/water temps would be higher. They are overall. Ocean temps change much more slowly than air temps, so the odds for a large temp delta between ocean temps and very cold air is more likely, not less.

 

For point two, that's harder to attribute since it relies on a direction of wind, not a speed. But wind speed would increase in a warming world, so if the conditions were right (the right wind speed direction) then yes the event would be enhanced.

 

I follow the climate science literature pretty well and I don't think it at all claims what you're claiming it does - nor would it make sense for it to.

 

Take hurricane potential. The argument is that the POTENTIAL for stronger hurricanes is there (and has increased since 2005). But if the conditions above the warm water aren't ripe, the potential isn't tapped. When the potential is tapped, then you see historical events (like Sandy), or even more dramatically, Wilma.

 

EDIT:

 

I did some more research into this and land temps are not rising as rapidly as ocean heat content, which means that the change in delta temps is increasing overall - and I cannot find anywhere in the climate science literature that says this is unexpected.

[ORH_wxman]

Citation needed because that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. In a warming world, ocean/water temps would be higher. They are overall. Ocean temps change much more slowly than air temps, so the odds for a large temp delta between ocean temps and very cold air is more likely, not less.

 

For point two, that's harder to attribute since it relies on a direction of wind, not a speed. But wind speed would increase in a warming world, so if the conditions were right (the right wind speed direction) then yes the event would be enhanced.

 

I follow the climate science literature pretty well and I don't think it at all claims what you're claiming it does - nor would it make sense for it to.

 

Take hurricane potential. The argument is that the POTENTIAL for stronger hurricanes is there (and has increased since 2005). But if the conditions above the warm water aren't ripe, the potential isn't tapped. When the potential is tapped, then you see historical events (like Sandy), or even more dramatically, Wilma.

 

EDIT:

 

I did some more research into this and land temps are not rising as rapidly as ocean heat content, which means that the change in delta temps is increasing overall - and I cannot find anywhere in the climate science literature that says this is unexpected.

 

 

I already linked the two papers above...did you read them? I doesn't sound to me like you did. I'm not sure why you are talking about OHC...that is irrelevant in Lake Effect snows...this isn't a hurricane over the open ocean. It's only the top few feet of water that matter...so SSTs in this case.

 

Land temps are warming faster than SSTs, so I'm not sure where you are going with this. If anything, this would reduce the delta-T as the airmasses are warming faster than the water.

[tacoman25]

It's difficult to attribute a single storm/event to AGW, but I can kind of see how AGW will effect every storm for a while since broad changes in the climate will play a role in every single event.

 

I think the biggest question is not IF global warming is changing extreme events (or all events), but how.

 

If you recall, it may not be the lake temperatures that are the reason this was so bad, it could be the unusually cold/persistent wind that was pushed down thanks to a super typhoon that turned into one of the strongest storms ever recorded in the Bering sea earlier this month.

 

We also had a very strong high elevation snowstorm thanks to the remants of a pacific hurricane that went all the way to Canada then back down south to the lower Apps.

 

Even if it's sunny and 72F outside in the middle of March, that could still have something to do with AGW. If global heat content in the oceans is rising, temperatures in the air and on land are rising, then things are changing. Changing climate changes storms. All storms have something to do with the climate that you're in, even something extreme.

 

More heat is more volatility. More volatility is more extreme weather. So, it would make sense that more heat in the atmosphere globally would yield to more extreme weather. It doesn't mean the extreme weather is guaranteed, it just means the potential for what it can do is higher.

 

This is the reason why we may not have seen many hurricanes lately, but we have seen a few extremely powerful typhoons in another part of the world where the upper air patters were favorable even if they weren't in the Atlantic despite warm ocean temps.

 

Anyway, that's my two cents.

 

The thing is, the major factors that are required for any extreme event to occur are meterological and don't change based on a slightly warmer climate. The reasons that this lake effect snow event rose to the extreme level it did were due to these specific factors coming together just right, and there's no evidence that a warmer atmosphere played a meaningful role. The devil is in the details, as they say, and global warming is a very broad influence, very much NOT about the details of how weather works.

 

In this specific case, the extreme part of the weather pattern was the very cold air mass for this time of year. Saying "more heat is more volatility" explains nothing here, as both the air mass and the water were actually cooler than normal.

[tacoman25]

I'm quite convinced that global warming leads to more lake effect snow and have believed so for a long time. 

 

It's actually pretty simple. Erie used to freeze over almost every winter and Ontario in many winters. Now not so much with a dramatic decline in ice cover over recent decades. 

 

Lake effect snow occurs when the lakes are not frozen. Lake effect snow does not occur when they are frozen.

 

So, quite logically, if the lakes are not freezing as much anymore, then there will be more lake effect snow.

 

 

Natural variability is overlain upon this background trend and cold winters when the lakes freeze will still occur (like last winter) but have been and will be occurring less frequently. 

 

 

Also, I believe ORH is incorrect about Erie being below average prior to this event. The Slate article shows that temperatures in the eastern part of the lake near Buffalo were as high as 54. The western part of the lake may have been below average. The anomaly graph by ORH shows this too but it is hard to see. 

 

 

Without global warming the lake would be a couple degrees colder although still not frozen. The air would be a couple degrees colder too so the gradient would not be more. But I think snows would be slightly heaver with a 14 vs 54 vertical temperature gradient vs a 12 vs 52. 

 

The heaviest lake effect snows have almost always occurred early in the season, when the lakes are still relatively warm and unfrozen. The main ingredient, as you point out, is an extreme difference in temperature, and it's almost always been an extremely cold air mass early in the season that sets off the heaviest snows.

 

In fact, one of the most comparable events to this one happened in November 1916. You know, back when the world was a degree cooler. The common factor was, once again, a record-breaking cold air mass that poured into the middle of the country and then spilled over the lakes.

[tacoman25]

Just weather patterns.

 

Uh huh. Also the main large-scale cause behind extreme events.

[LakeEffectKing]

The most important aspect in LES is a long fetch and delta-T...the water right near BUF isn't the main driver. If it was, then we'd see intense LES bands on a due north wind off Lake Erie to the south of BUF...but we don't see that...because the fetch is too short.

Actually Will the most important aspect that drove these incredible rates is probably more due to be parallel shorelines that are parallel to the wind causing extreme frictional convergence into the major axis of either lake Erie or Ontario. you just don't get 5,6,7 inch per hour rates off the other lakes irregardless of instability parameters or fetch length.that said those are important parameters to consider when determining lake effect snow is position and intensity but to a lesser degree than those I've mentioned above.