Just a matter of time.

[ORH_wxman]

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.

 

 

Right...I didn't even mention the geographical aspects that you are mentioning....I was solely focusing on atmospheric/water temp variables.

[valkhorn]

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.

I didn't see any links from you in that post.

Edit: I found the links but I'll need to read them.

[AvantHiatus]

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.

Yeah but if you subscribe to "wavy-jet" mindset, it all makes sense with early season PV intrusions and what not. There is good evidence for the AGW argument here.

[tacoman25]

Yeah but if you subscribe to "wavy-jet" mindset, it all makes sense with early season PV intrusions and what not. There is good evidence for the AGW argument here.

 

The "wavy-jet" theories have gained steam in recent years because that's what we've seen more.

 

I'm getting tired of people claiming everything that happens makes sense and fits the expectations for AGW. There are enough theories out there about how AGW could affect the climate that pretty much anything that happens or any trend we see could support at least one of those theories.

[CoastalWx]

The "wavy-jet" theories have gained steam in recent years because that's what we've seen more.

 

I'm getting tired of people claiming everything that happens makes sense and fits the expectations for AGW. There are enough theories out there about how AGW could affect the climate that pretty much anything that happens or any trend we see could support at least one of those theories.

 

These events also have happened before. Feb 2007, Dec 1995, December 2001. events in the 60s and 70s (in a very cold period)..they have all occurred before and will occur again. Even with a tiny area of above normal SSTs, the residence time likely wouldn't even be enough to have much if any effect.

[friedmators]

Shouldn't we be able to mathematically calculate the massflow into the snowgrowth regions in the atmosphere over Buffalo from the contributions of the moisture removal from the lake? X fetch Y speed Z SST kinda stuff? 

[Jonger]

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. 

 

Ok.... but there was extremely heavy LES over all of the great lakes, the other 4 lakes were all below normal as well.

 

This had more to do with a perfect wind direction and keeping it there.

 

Grand Rapids just set its record for the most snow EVER recorded in November, and with a below normal Lake Michigan. 

 

GREATEST 3-DAY SNOWFALL FOR GAYLORD:

RANK SNOWFALL ENDING DATE

1 29.6 11/20/2014

2 24.5 01/26/1990

3 21.8 12/11/2009

4 21.5 01/11/1969

5 21.2 03/24/1955

[skierinvermont]

Ok.... but there was extremely heavy LES over all of the great lakes, the other 4 lakes were all below normal as well.

 

This had more to do with a perfect wind direction and keeping it there.

 

Grand Rapids just set its record for the most snow EVER recorded in November, and with a below normal Lake Michigan. 

 

GREATEST 3-DAY SNOWFALL FOR GAYLORD:

RANK SNOWFALL ENDING DATE

1 29.6 11/20/2014

2 24.5 01/26/1990

3 21.8 12/11/2009

4 21.5 01/11/1969

5 21.2 03/24/1955

 

Again.. weather is 99.9% of what is going on most of the time. Climate change is like .1% contribution. Those lakes may have been below normal.. but they would have been more below normal without climate change. 

 

As long as it is still cold enough to snow, climate change warming increases snowfall. A lake of 54F and atmosphere of 14F is a snowier set up than a lake of 52F and an atmosphere of 12F. More moisture. 

 

And when climate change is the difference between a frozen lake and a melted lake, it makes an even bigger difference. 

 

It's been pretty obvious and logical to me that LES, especially mid to late winter LES when the lakes used to freeze more, would become more intense and frequent, with warming. A slightly warmer planet than we currently have is optimal for LES on the great lakes. 20th climate is less than optimal because the lakes typically freeze. 

 

The empirical data even supports this. There's been a significant increase in LES in Buffalo. Why? Because Great Lake ice cover has declined pretty majorly.

[skierinvermont]

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.

 

One does not even need to show that SSTs were above average. They would have been more below average without climate change. So would the air. You are probably right that the air long-term will warm faster than the lakes reducing the delta-T. However, in the short term even if the Delta T is slightly less (let's say the air warmed .2F faster than the water than it would have w/o CC) an event at 14F might still be more intense than an event at 12F even with the slightly lower delta-T. Maybe not - I don't know how to calculate that. I'm guessing it's close to a wash.

 

So maybe CC has little net-effect in the short-term on November-December LES. In the long-term, it decreases it because of slightly reduced delta-Ts and less frequent sub-freezing airmasses. You are probably right that it decreases November LES. December might be a wash.

 

However, it's just a simple obvious fact that CC increases mid to late winter LES. The lakes used to freeze. Now they freeze much less. You don't get LES when the lakes are frozen. Overall, it would amount to an increase. The climate is just too cold for LES now. The period of sub-freezing air and un-frozen lakes is too short right now (basically late November and December for lake Erie is prime LES season). In a slightly warmer world, maybe late November is no longer prime, but you gain the months of January and February as prime season because the lake doesn't freeze as often except in the cold winters. 

[skierinvermont]

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.

 

 

You've had a brain fart I think and got it backwards. If the air warms faster than water bodies w/ CC, it reduces delta-Ts. We want the air to be much colder than the water. If the air warms faster, it reduces the delta-T. It's the same reason that hurricanes aren't really projected to increase. Even with rising SSTs, delta-Ts are reduced because the air warms more. 

[skierinvermont]

These events also have happened before. Feb 2007, Dec 1995, December 2001. events in the 60s and 70s (in a very cold period)..they have all occurred before and will occur again. Even with a tiny area of above normal SSTs, the residence time likely wouldn't even be enough to have much if any effect.

 

Yes they have happened before. But the data plainly shows they are happening more. That alone is enough to rest the case.

 

It makes sense too. The lakes used to freeze a lot more than they do now. LES doesn't occur when the lakes are frozen.

 

ORH might be right that November LES will decrease. I wonder if the data shows that already? That would go against attribution in this particular case. 

[ORH_wxman]

Skier, I agree that mid and especially late winter LES would increase...however, two points on that...one of which you already conceded:

 

1. It is irrelevant to the discussion about attributing this latest BUF event

 

2. You need to show that overall snowfall is greater in the warming scenario....i.e. that the increase in Jan/Feb snowfall would offset the decrease in Nov/Dec snowfall. This might be a lot more likely for LES belts in the north such as Lake Superior. One of the papers I linked concluded that Erie was too far south to benefit.

[CoastalWx]

Yes they have happened before. But the data plainly shows they are happening more. That alone is enough to rest the case.

 

It makes sense too. The lakes used to freeze a lot more than they do now. LES doesn't occur when the lakes are frozen.

 

ORH might be right that November LES will decrease. I wonder if the data shows that already? That would go against attribution in this particular case. 

 

That might be true, but the original article was relating GW to this event. I just don't see how you can do that. 

[Jonger]

That might be true, but the original article was relating GW to this event. I just don't see how you can do that.

There are agenda driven individuals with a keyboard attempting to capitalize on any large scale event. They could make the same arguement in February during a 6 inch LES event, but that wouldn't draw much interest.

This event was the result of a perfect wind direction and air temperature, nothing more.

[AvantHiatus]

Like I was saying, enjoy it while you can. The next couple decades will likely peak in the snowfall climatology for 40N regions.

[left_gulley]

All the record cold and snow events this November over the US are part of a classic

 Warm Arctic-Cold Continents pattern. You can't view this historic LES event in 

isolation anymore than you can the South Carolina historic snow or record

Colorado cold. So the question to answer down the line is do you believe this

is natural variability or has an AGW component?

 

Right, and I think that Skier has a good point that without climate change the lakes would tend to be colder than they are now, whatever their temperature happens to be.

 

A recipe for anomalously large early-season lake-effect snow events would include 1) lakes that are near/above average temperature and 2) late-fall air masses that are unusually cold.

 

These two conditions have been relatively common the past 15 years. Climate change is almost certainly contributing to condition #1, and possibly leading to a greater likelihood of condition #2 (at least these air masses might be colder than they otherwise would be in a warming world). Obviously condition #2 is much more up for debate and we're not going to solve this question here, but there seems to be at least some evidence supporting the warm arctic/cold continents/wavy jet/climate change idea (there's a long list of papers on the topic at the bottom of this article - http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2665).

 

Obviously with enough warming LES will become less common eventually, but based on the above discussion and the fact that the lakes should tend to freeze over a bit more slowly overall as Skier mentioned (since they're starting out a bit warmer, etc.) LES could possibly increase a bit overall for some time.

[ORH_wxman]

November has been one of the fastest warming months in the CONUS...there is zero evidence that November cold is becoming more common because of AGW.

 

If you want to pick a month to argue the arctic blocking having a real influence on temps in terms of mitigating the underlying warming, you should pick January...that month has had almost no change in temperatures over the CONUS.

[left_gulley]

November has been one of the fastest warming months in the CONUS...there is zero evidence that November cold is becoming more common because of AGW.

 

If you want to pick a month to argue the arctic blocking having a real influence on temps in terms of mitigating the underlying warming, you should pick January...that month has had almost no change in temperatures over the CONUS.

 

Makes sense, but what about for anomalously cold fall events in the Lakes region, and not just monthly averages for the CONUS? There's been quite a few of these early-season cold outbreaks the past few years, but I'm not sure how it relates to the average number of October to December cold-air intrusions in that region.

 

And anyone have data for January LES the past 10 or 15 years compared to average?

 

EDIT: Good article on the topic here with some papers that find an increase in LES the past few decades: http://timkovach.com/wp/2014/03/20/global-warming-will-cause-lake-effect-snow/

 

Interesting graph below from the article too (from NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory). Based off the graph it would seem that the drop in ice cover may be overwhelming any effect of rising temperatures overall, whether or not cold-air outbreaks are becoming more common in certain months.

 

[Msalgado]

November has been one of the fastest warming months in the CONUS...there is zero evidence that November cold is becoming more common because of AGW.

 

If you want to pick a month to argue the arctic blocking having a real influence on temps in terms of mitigating the underlying warming, you should pick January...that month has had almost no change in temperatures over the CONUS.

 

I don't think that you need need more November cold.  What you would need is warmer November lakes when the cold does come.

[Jonger]

I don't think that you need need more November cold.  What you would need is warmer November lakes when the cold does come.

 

Sure, but the OP story was an attempt to tie the recent Buffalo event to AGW.

 

AGW has affected all weather events, so it's easy to make the claim, but this particular Buffalo event was the result of historic cold and a PERFECT wind direction being maintained for a long duration.

[valkhorn]

You've had a brain fart I think and got it backwards. If the air warms faster than water bodies w/ CC, it reduces delta-Ts. We want the air to be much colder than the water. If the air warms faster, it reduces the delta-T. It's the same reason that hurricanes aren't really projected to increase. Even with rising SSTs, delta-Ts are reduced because the air warms more.

Thanks. It's not my first brain fart and won't be my last

[ORH_wxman]

I don't think that you need need more November cold.  What you would need is warmer November lakes when the cold does come.

 

The November cold is becoming warmer though...that is the point. You can't just say the lakes are warming and ignore that that the cold outbreaks and airmasses are becoming warmer too. These should actually be warming faster, which reduces the delta-Ts.

 

 

In this particular case that happened last week, both factors were probably negligible since the lake Erie temperatures weren't all that anomalous in a historical context and the cold was exceptional. An event that should be becoming less frequent.

[Ginx snewx]

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)

cold on cold equal warm

[left_gulley]

Another interesting graph. This measure of Lake Erie water temperatures at Buffalo has been rising an average of 0.285 degrees C per decade since 1960, which is faster than the rate that air temperatures have been warming, particularly in winter. If surface temperatures have behaved (at least somewhat) similarly in winter then the gradient has increased on average there since 1960, no?

 

From: http://ohioclimate.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/more-on-lake-erie-temperature-trends-gardening-in-the-great-lakes-region/

 

[tacoman25]

I don't think that you need need more November cold.  What you would need is warmer November lakes when the cold does come.

 

Nope, the major cold air masses are a more significant cause of extreme LES events early in the season.

[skierinvermont]

I don't think that you need need more November cold.  What you would need is warmer November lakes when the cold does come.

 

November's a marginal month where cold outbreaks are probably more of a limiting factor than warm water.

[LithiaWx]

And here I thought the extreme totals were due to cold air blowing in an exact trajectory for hours on end caused everything, the main factor is wind vectors with a cold airmass streaming in at the exact direction and duration needed for a massive event. I find little attribution to AGW here. I tend to agree with skier though. Perhaps the water is a bit warmer than it would have been 100 years ago with the same setup but that's it.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Another interesting graph. This measure of Lake Erie water temperatures at Buffalo has been rising an average of 0.285 degrees C per decade since 1960, which is faster than the rate that air temperatures have been warming, particularly in winter. If surface temperatures have behaved (at least somewhat) similarly in winter then the gradient has increased on average there since 1960, no?

 

From: http://ohioclimate.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/more-on-lake-erie-temperature-trends-gardening-in-the-great-lakes-region/

 

 

 

Fantastic find.

[Msalgado]

The November cold is becoming warmer though...that is the point. You can't just say the lakes are warming and ignore that that the cold outbreaks and airmasses are becoming warmer too. These should actually be warming faster, which reduces the delta-Ts.

 

 

In this particular case that happened last week, both factors were probably negligible since the lake Erie temperatures weren't all that anomalous in a historical context and the cold was exceptional. An event that should be becoming less frequent.

 

Fair enough.

[chrisf97212]

The "wavy-jet" theories have gained steam in recent years because that's what we've seen more.

 

I'm getting tired of people claiming everything that happens makes sense and fits the expectations for AGW. There are enough theories out there about how AGW could affect the climate that pretty much anything that happens or any trend we see could support at least one of those theories.

 

In the end these after-the-fact claims jade the public, making a real change in public policy all the more unlikely.  People are actually rooting for the hiatus to end in a big way, so that the alarms will be justified.  

 

There are genuine long term trends that are probably GW related, like the California drought.  The Buffalo LES isn't one of them.