Just a matter of time.

[Buffalo Bumble]

Having lived in the lower GL’s and closely tracked lake effect snow for 30+ years, some of the thoughts being laid out here are tough to believe.  One of the biggest misconceptions I see every year from the general public in this area is warm lake heading into and through December equals huge lake effect snows coming.  Nope – we’ve had plenty of mild winters in WNY where the lake has stayed well above average the entire winter, never froze, and ended up way below normal snowfall.  As others have said, we need arctic outbreaks combined with moist cyclonic flow to generate lake effect snow events – they don’t just materialize because the lake temperature is above average.  The winters in WNY with the most prolific lake effect events and the highest snow totals occur when temperatures are well below normal and the lake freezes by the end of January (76/77, 77/78, 13/14). 

 

I also question linking the severity of lake effect events to AGW.  Again, severity is determined by negative temperature departure, fetch, and moisture.  If the lake is 1-2 degree warmer at the time of a severe event due to AGW, we’re probably talking a given area getting 50 inches instead of 48 inches, which is negligible in terms of sensible impacts.  

[michsnowfreak]

That should have posted on the onion

I agree!

And btw, synoptic snowfall is very noticeably increasing in the lower Lakes too, not just LES.

[skierinvermont]

Having lived in the lower GL’s and closely tracked lake effect snow for 30+ years, some of the thoughts being laid out here are tough to believe.  One of the biggest misconceptions I see every year from the general public in this area is warm lake heading into and through December equals huge lake effect snows coming.  Nope – we’ve had plenty of mild winters in WNY where the lake has stayed well above average the entire winter, never froze, and ended up way below normal snowfall.  As others have said, we need arctic outbreaks combined with moist cyclonic flow to generate lake effect snow events – they don’t just materialize because the lake temperature is above average.  The winters in WNY with the most prolific lake effect events and the highest snow totals occur when temperatures are well below normal and the lake freezes by the end of January (76/77, 77/78, 13/14). 

 

I also question linking the severity of lake effect events to AGW.  Again, severity is determined by negative temperature departure, fetch, and moisture.  If the lake is 1-2 degree warmer at the time of a severe event due to AGW, we’re probably talking a given area getting 50 inches instead of 48 inches, which is negligible in terms of sensible impacts.  

 

I don't think anybody has said that all you need is a warm lake. This entire thread has basically been spent talking about Delta-Ts.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of winters the lakes don't freeze that are just too warm or never have a good fetch to get good LES.

 

But answer me this:

 

Do you get more LES in winters where the lakes freeze early in winter or when they freeze late and/or not at all?

[Buffalo Bumble]

I don't think anybody has said that all you need is a warm lake. This entire thread has basically been spent talking about Delta-Ts.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of winters the lakes don't freeze that are just too warm or never have a good fetch to get good LES.

 

But answer me this:

 

Do you get more LES in winters where the lakes freeze early in winter or when they freeze late and/or not at all?

 

I used data from the NWS to investigate the correlation between Lake Erie freeze dates, # of lake effect events, and BUF snowfall (http://www.weather.gov/buf/lakeeffect).  Based on the following table, I don’t see any strong correlation between later or no freeze and higher number of lake effect events.  What does jump out to me is the low snowfall totals at BUF in years when the lake doesn’t freeze.  3 out of the 4 winters where this occurred had significantly below normal snowfall at BUF (05/06, 11/12, and 12/13).  In contrast, 2 of the 3 highest snowfall years at BUF during the sample period occurred when the lake froze during the 1 ^st week of January (00/01 and 13/14).

 

[WeatherRusty]

AGW is by definition a general circulation to synoptic scale issue. On that scale it can be determined that a general decrease in overall snowpack will decrease by ~16% per degree of temperature rise Celsius. Local variation will of course overwhelm the average. Snow lines elevate in the verticle and by latitude in the aggrigate of a warming world.

 

Is the likelihood of LES near Buffalo enhanced by AGW? How is the local setup altered on average? We should expect greater variability in a destablized complex system while in a state of change from a physical standpoint. Entropy production is maximized. Stuff happens. Get used to it.

[ORH_wxman]

 

I used data from the NWS to investigate the correlation between Lake Erie freeze dates, # of lake effect events, and BUF snowfall (http://www.weather.gov/buf/lakeeffect).  Based on the following table, I don’t see any strong correlation between later or no freeze and higher number of lake effect events.  What does jump out to me is the low snowfall totals at BUF in years when the lake doesn’t freeze.  3 out of the 4 winters where this occurred had significantly below normal snowfall at BUF (05/06, 11/12, and 12/13).  In contrast, 2 of the 3 highest snowfall years at BUF during the sample period occurred when the lake froze during the 1 ^st week of January (00/01 and 13/14).

 

snow and ice stats.PNG

 

 

This is what I would have thought as well. Thanks for posting the stats.  

 

In warm winters, you are lacking the good cold airmasses necessary to create high delta-Ts...so your higher end events are going to occur in the colder winters, even if the lake freezes earlier. The airmasses necessary to freeze the lake early are going to generate high lake effect events before the freeze happens.

 

 

The warmer winters with unfrozen Lake Erie might produce events deeper into the winter, but the events are not very big because warmer airmasses don't produce high delta-Ts.

[left_gulley]

These authors in the Journal of Climate found an historical increase in LES:

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282003%29016%3C3535%3AIGLSDT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

 

From the abstract:

 

"Records of air temperature, water temperature, and lake ice suggest that the observed lake-effect snow increase during the twentieth century may be the result of warmer Great Lakes surface waters and decreased ice cover, both of which are consistent with the historic upward trend in Northern Hemispheric temperature due to global warming. Given projected increases in future global temperature, areas downwind of the Great Lakes may experience increased lake-effect snowfall for the foreseeable future."

 

 

 

Edit - my thoughts - Also, for the biggest LES years you'd want warmer than normal lake temps in the early fall and then plenty of cold air funneling over the lakes. This anomalously cold air (compared to recent temps) would also tend to cause an earlier freeze than would otherwise be the case due to background warming. Since early-season lake temperatures have been increasing faster than winter air temperatures this scenario has not been uncommon as of late. Obviously an unusually warm year which leads to a late freeze will produce relatively little LES, even if the lakes start out warmer than average.

[ORH_wxman]

That paper is at odds with other literature and it is a strange conclusion they come to considering that virtually all of the 20th century increase they show occurred from the 1930s-1970...a period of cooling winter temps.

Also, November lake temps don't warm faster than the air masses. It is actually the opposite in a warming world.

[tacoman25]

I think it's pretty obvious that the most significant factor is anomalously cold air masses. Followed by optimal wind and fetch. Not sure why some are still so stuck on the lake temperature.

[skierinvermont]

 

I used data from the NWS to investigate the correlation between Lake Erie freeze dates, # of lake effect events, and BUF snowfall (http://www.weather.gov/buf/lakeeffect).  Based on the following table, I don’t see any strong correlation between later or no freeze and higher number of lake effect events.  What does jump out to me is the low snowfall totals at BUF in years when the lake doesn’t freeze.  3 out of the 4 winters where this occurred had significantly below normal snowfall at BUF (05/06, 11/12, and 12/13).  In contrast, 2 of the 3 highest snowfall years at BUF during the sample period occurred when the lake froze during the 1 ^st week of January (00/01 and 13/14).

 

snow and ice stats.PNG

 

Could be a 3rd variable. Winters where it doesn't freeze at all might rarely have the right fetch and might just be too consistently warm. 

 

AGW would be a background warming, but with weather variability overlain on that. In our current climate, maybe the only way Erie doesn't freeze is if it it just stays consistently warm the whole winter. That would limit LES.

 

 

I mean, logically you can't get LES when the lake's totally frozen.

[vortex95]

There is a flaw with this articles reasoning.  Of course you'd have warmer water on the

NE side of the lake, b/c the prevailing flow is from the W, and it was stiff SW during

the LES.

 

https://twitter.com/ScottSabolFOX8/status/535012924646227968/photo/1

 

The article says:

 

"In Tuesday’s storm, that difference approached a whopping 50 degrees Fahrenheit—with a

pool of warmer-than-average water in Lake Erie joining forces with near-record-low

temperatures in the lower part of the atmosphere."

 

The graphic says nothing about SST anomalies.

 

Also, if you are going to get a record LES event, early in the season, like Nov, would be

the time to do it.  Since the lakes temps are still mild, and really cold outbreaks can occur

in November, which is nothing new in itself.  Just because there has been nothing like

a cold outbreak in the CONUS in recent decades is not beyond what can happen.  Very cold

outbreaks in Nov have occurred before, but from limited period of record, it seems at least

right now, several decades go in between events.

 

It can get very cold in the CONUS in Nov...look at the below.

 

11/29/1896

The mercury plunged to 51 degrees below zero at Havre, Montana.
It marked the culmination of a two week long cold wave caused
by a stagnant high pressure area similar to those found over
Siberia during the winter.  During the month of November
temperatures across Montana and the Dakotas averaged 15 to 25
degrees below normal.

 

Short summary from MWR on the cold during this event.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/024/mwr-024-11-0414.pdf

 

 

11/17/1955

An early season cold snap finally came to an end throughout
Montana.  Helena experienced 138 consecutive hours of subzero
temperatures, including a reading of 29 degrees below zero,
which surpassed the previous record low for the month by 7
degrees.

 

Same time period and look at how cold it was.  This has sfc and

upper air maps...the frigid upper low bodily came into the CONUS and

covered the Central and Northern Rockies.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/083/mwr-083-11-0279.pdf

 

So before anyone thinks, "how can it be this cold so early?", think again!

 

In longer term, a warmer climate would lead to lakes less freezing over, but at the same

time, overall absolute intensity of big cold outbreaks would decrease since the the baseline

temp is that much higher.  You can't have it both ways and be right.

 

Another caveat, I don't think detailed and reliable LES records go back more than 40-50

years.  Certainly not as detailed with observations like we have had the last few decades.

Give the mesoscale nature of these kind of events, such intense Nov LES has very likely

occurred before in the last century.

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. 

[vortex95]

LCL=LFC which is essentially 0 meters!

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

 

[vortex95]

This is spot on.  Nearly wx event, really "extreme" or not, gets passed off as "proof" of GW/CC.

 

One thing that is a major problem...people confuse *impact* with what is going on in the atmosphere

meteorologically.  What do I mean by that?  Take Hurricane Irene, meteorologically, it was nothing special.

Fairly average hurricane for track and intensity, and it weakened as it got out of the tropics (again, that is

"normal").  It actually weakened more than one would think once N of the Outer Banks given the time

of year, its speed, and the fact that the atmosphere was already pretty tropical in place all the way to

New England.  So it didn't even make landfall as a min hurricane, and look at the *impact*.  The flooding

in VT was the real story, but look at how many people lost power, for what...gale force winds?  And look

at the all the affects on business commerce.  Yes, the impact was big, but that doesn't make it a historic

storm by meteorological standards (i.e. what the atmosphere is really capable of).

 

The point is when you keep adding people and infrastructure, of course the *impacts* of even relatively

minor storms considering what the limits are going to be huge.  This has nothing to do with the

climate itself, it is a social issue.

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.

[vortex95]

So this graph starts at 1973.  This is much too short of a period to indicate a real trend.  Also,

1976-1977 was I believe by far the coldest winter in many locations in the East (climate stations in

WV recorded temp departures for Jan -17 to -19 F!!), and the following two winters continued very cold. 

So you have a sig peak in the late 70s.  Well, regression to the mean works both ways...of course you

will have a downward trend in a short time frame.  Also, did we forget the near record or record extent

of ice coverage on the Great Lakes late winter earlier this year?

Data can be manipulated easy and subtle to get a particular agenda/mindset across.
 

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.

 

[nzucker]

 

So this graph starts at 1973.  This is much too short of a period to indicate a real trend.  Also,

1976-1977 was I believe by far the coldest winter in many locations in the East (climate stations in

WV recorded temp departures for Jan -17 to -19 F!!), and the following two winters continued very cold. 

So you have a sig peak in the late 70s.  Well, regression to the mean works both ways...of course you

will have a downward trend in a short time frame.  Also, did we forget the near record or record extent

of ice coverage on the Great Lakes late winter earlier this year?

Data can be manipulated easy and subtle to get a particular agenda/mindset across.

 

 

January 1977 was the coldest month for many in the East since February 1934.

[michsnowfreak]

I LOVE graphs that start in the 1970s! Just love them. The 1970s were the coldest winters on record in the Great Lakes since records began, so what a great starting point!

[PhillipS]

I LOVE graphs that start in the 1970s! Just love them. The 1970s were the coldest winters on record in the Great Lakes since records began, so what a great starting point!

 

To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield - We do science with the data we have, not the data we want.  

 

If the data series starts in the 1970s then that's the data to use.  If you don't like that then contribute a better dataset.

[vortex95]

To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield - We do science with the data we have, not the data we want.  

 

If the data series starts in the 1970s then that's the data to use.  If you don't like that then contribute a better dataset.

I disagree.  Limited data sets are just that, come with lots of caveats, and some should not be

used to set definitive trends or make radical decisions.  In the same vein, would one use the

U.S. annual tornado count 1950-present to establish tornado trends?  Not even close, given

our detection and documentation has improved greatly over time, esp. in the last 25 years. 

We have a much better idea of the annual Atlantic TC count, given the nature of TCs (large and

long lasting) and the hurricane re-analysis project, so this actually has practical use, as we

have had several ups and downs of activity to get some sort of a trend/pattern.

 

We have had only two well-documented super outbreaks of tornadoes in the U.S in modern

times...1974 and 2011.  That's only two data points 37 years apart.  We know large tornado

outbreaks have occurred earlier in the 20th century, but the documentation is very incomplete

when it comes to shear number of tornadoes.  You can't come to any real conclusion as to a

trend either way as to frequency of such outbreaks since the data set is so limited.

[michsnowfreak]

 

I disagree.  Limited data sets are just that, come with lots of caveats, and some should not be

used to set definitive trends or make radical decisions.  In the same vein, would one use the

U.S. annual tornado count 1950-present to establish tornado trends?  Not even close, given

our detection and documentation has improved greatly over time, esp. in the last 25 years. 

We have a much better idea of the annual Atlantic TC count, given the nature of TCs (large and

long lasting) and the hurricane re-analysis project, so this actually has practical use, as we

have had several ups and downs of activity to get some sort of a trend/pattern.

 

We have had only two well-documented super outbreaks of tornadoes in the U.S in modern

times...1974 and 2011.  That's only two data points 37 years apart.  We know large tornado

outbreaks have occurred earlier in the 20th century, but the documentation is very incomplete

when it comes to shear number of tornadoes.  You can't come to any real conclusion as to a

trend either way as to frequency of such outbreaks since the data set is so limited.

 

The number of mild winters from the 1930s-1950s in this region speaks for itself. Ice coverage records may not exist, but plenty of other records DO, and its fairly easy to connect the dots. And I TOTALLY disagree about the whole "we do science with the data we have". I seem to recall a graph being posted on here somewhere before that showed a decrease in below zero days for various cities in the midwest.....it started in 1970. Because, you know, if it started the graph 100 years earlier (when records BEGAN) it would show how the 1970s were such an anomaly, and the graph would not serve its dramatic purpose.

 

I tend to stay out of much of the climate change discussion that occurs, because it is way out of my league, and I certainly dont deny the earth is warming. But when it involves something LOCAL I speak up...not only because I have a ton of knowledge of past climate of MI and the Lakes in general, but also because I have followed stories on the LOCAL effects of climate change since the '90s, and the the backtracking and changing of predictions has become laughable. Coming off of our record winter last year, you wont hear this line (at least for a bit), but who HASN'T heard the line "Winters arent what they used to be" or something along those longs? Well those people are DEAD ON. Winters arent what they used to be. They are more severe (mainly from a snow aspect, but they arent warming either).

[JBG]

I LOVE graphs that start in the 1970s! Just love them. The 1970s were the coldest winters on record in the Great Lakes since records began, so what a great starting point!

Statistics don't lie but liars use statistics. Taht rule includes warmistas.

[JBG]

I moved a discussion from Winter 2014-15 Medium Term to here to make it less off-topic. Here goes.

This. A warm winter in 1855 doesn't mean that winters now aren't consistently milder due to anthropogenic climate change.

Let's keep the climate change discussion for that forum.

1855 wasnt a warm winter. They were saying 1855-56 started warm the first 2-3 weeks of December then turned very cold for the rest of the winter.

The reference was about a string of very mild winters in the midwest in the 1820s. And I also agree this isnt the thread nor forum for this discussion, but since its been brought up....Winters are NOT consistently milder here (at least in this part of the midwest).

michsnowfreak gets it. My point is that there have been frequent strings of mild winters, similar to those of the 1980's and early 1990's that triggered the latest panic.

[Ottawa Blizzard]

I moved a discussion from Winter 2014-15 Medium Term to here to make it less off-topic. Here goes.

michsnowfreak gets it. My point is that there have been frequent strings of mild winters, similar to those of the 1980's and early 1990's that triggered the latest panic.

This. The difference today is that we have a 24 hour news cycle along with social media that reports on everything the moment it happens. We also live in a time when people are convinced that everything is a catastrophe in the making, something that is also promoted by the 24 hour news cycles and their sensational "breaking news" alerts. Our ancestors had it a lot tougher than we do, particularly in an age without central heating and A/C.

[michsnowfreak]

I moved a discussion from Winter 2014-15 Medium Term to here to make it less off-topic. Here goes.

michsnowfreak gets it. My point is that there have been frequent strings of mild winters, similar to those of the 1980's and early 1990's that triggered the latest panic.

I have browsed climate data fairly extensively for a LOT of areas (the data is so readily available online these days), but I know Detroits like the back of my hand. Every area seems to have different eras that were extra good or extra bad, but obviously when someone discusses the midwest/Great Lakes...thats right up my alley.

 

First and foremost...there has NEVER been a time period when every winter was similar (be it mild or cold). It always varies from year to year....but when you look at the big picture, you tend to see trends in each decade. Now, Im not saying that the weather follows a neatly decadal trend...it doesnt...but theres already so many numbers and decimal points in weather statistics, Id say separating it by decade is the easiest way to do it.

 

Staying away from statistics and giving a general synopsis of the decade can perhaps give a bigger glimpse into the trends for the Great Lakes region.

 

One thing I will say...the winters of 1881-82, 1918-19, 1931-32, 1936-37, & 1952-53....they were SO baren of snow on the ground (and 1881-82 and 1931-32 are the two warmest winters on record) that I can honestly say I have never seen anything CLOSE to it in my lifetime.

 

1870s - Records began in 1874, so I only have basically half of this decade, and snowfall data was incomplete (though there were a few huge storms). This decade was apparently one of wild extremes, as ALL FIVE WINTERS (1874-75 thru 1878-79) currently rank in either Detroits top 20 warmest winters (1875-76, 1877-78) or top 20 coldest winters (1874-75, 1876-77, 1878-79).

 

1880s - No decade saw more violent swings than this ones, as there were a few unprecedentedly brutal winters and likewise some unprecedentedly warm, snowless ones.

 

1890s - This decade had a lean towards cold winters with overall normal snowfall

 

1900s - This decade had cold, snowy winters overall, complete with the coldest Februarys on record

 

1910s - A pretty decent balance of cold and mild winters, but leaning towards cold. Snowfall was fairly normal overall, though 1918-19 was a mind-bogglingly snowless winter.

 

1920s - A pretty decent balance of cold and mild winters, though in the end snowfall ended up above the longterm normal

 

1930s - an unusual number of very warm, bare winters. A few bitter cold ones too, but mild dominated. Snowfall overall below normal. In fact, this decade not only contains Detroits least snowy winter on record (1936-37) but also its top 2 "barest" winters on record (1931-32 & 1936-37). No decade from 1870s to now saw warmer Januarys than the 1930s.

 

1940s - an unusual number of ice storms, a mix of mild and cold winters, with a slight lean towards mild. The thing that stood out was VERY LOW snowfall. By far the least snowiest decade on record. There were NO snowy winters the entire decade, and only ONE of the ten years saw snowfall over the longterm mean.

 

1950s - Though snowfall picked up a bit from the previous decade (still below the longterm avg), the mildness is what stood out. In fact, this decade had an even more steady trend towards very mild winters. No decade in Detroit has seen LESS subzero days than the 1950s.

 

1960s - This decade featured SHARPLY colder (still a few mild ones), whiter winters than the previous 3 decades. However, snowfall itself was quite light, in fact only the 1940s saw less snow of any decade on record. It was pretty much one of those things where snowcover was present often but rarely deep.

 

1970s - The decade that has lived in infamy. Winters were brutally cold, snowy, and snowcovered overall, however the beginning of the decade featured a few winters with very light snowfall (which were certainly all but forgotten by the time the calendar turned to 1980). This is not only by far the coldest winters of any decade on record, its also BY FAR the most subzero days of any decade.

 

1980s - An interesting mix of mild and cold winters, but snowfall generally remained above normal. It wasnt that there were a ton of huge storms, but it seemed that this was a decade of clippers.

 

1990s - Winters turned much milder, in fact, both Decembers and Februarys are the warmest of any decade, but Januarys were cold and the snowiest of any decade! Snowcover overall was quite puny this decade, and snowfall itself was below normal, but not terribly so (sort of on par with the 1950s).

 

2000s - A complete about face, as winters turned colder (not without some mild ones) but the most noticeable thing was increasingly heavy snowfall and large snowfall seasons.

 

2010s - Two mild and two brutally cold so far, and snowfall is falling at an unprecedentedly heavy clip. The winter of 2013-14 blew away anything in Detroits record books for severity of a winter from all aspects.

 

Top 20s....when you take away the trends and just look at the extremes, you get fair dispersment. These are the top 20 for Detroit since records began in 1874.

Of VERY interesting note....its a shame records dont exist pre 1874. Because one trend that was undeniable was the WILD variations of winters from the 1870s and 1880s. That has not been matched since. Since records began in 1874, THE FIRST 8 WINTERS ON RECORD TO THIS DAY still rank in either the top 20 warmest (1875-76, 1877-78, 1879-80, 1881-82) or top 20 coldest (1874-75, 1876-77, 1878-79, 1880-81) winters on record!

 

Warmest winters

1870s - 2

1880s - 2

1890s - 1

1900s - 1

1910s - 1

1920s - 1

1930s - 2

1940s - 1

1950s - 3

1960s - 0

1970s - 0

1980s - 1

1990s - 2

2000s - 1

2010s - 2

 

Coldest winters

1870s - 3

1880s - 1

1890s - 1

1900s - 2

1910s - 2

1920s - 1

1930s - 1

1940s - 1

1950s - 1

1960s - 1

1970s - 4

1980s - 1

1990s - 0

2000s - 0

2010s - 1

 

Least snowy winters

1880s - 2

1890s - 1

1900s - 0

1910s - 1

1920s - 0

1930s - 2

1940s - 4

1950s - 2

1960s - 3

1970s - 0

1980s - 2

1990s - 1

2000s - 2

2010s - 0

 

Snowiest winters

1880s - 2

1890s - 2

1900s - 2

1910s - 1

1920s - 2

1930s - 1

1940s - 0

1950s - 1

1960s - 0

1970s - 2

1980s - 1

1990s - 0

2000s - 4

2010s - 2

[Rainman]

 

I disagree.  Limited data sets are just that, come with lots of caveats, and some should not be

used to set definitive trends or make radical decisions.  In the same vein, would one use the

U.S. annual tornado count 1950-present to establish tornado trends?  Not even close, given

our detection and documentation has improved greatly over time, esp. in the last 25 years. 

We have a much better idea of the annual Atlantic TC count, given the nature of TCs (large and

long lasting) and the hurricane re-analysis project, so this actually has practical use, as we

have had several ups and downs of activity to get some sort of a trend/pattern.

 

We have had only two well-documented super outbreaks of tornadoes in the U.S in modern

times...1974 and 2011.  That's only two data points 37 years apart.  We know large tornado

outbreaks have occurred earlier in the 20th century, but the documentation is very incomplete

when it comes to shear number of tornadoes.  You can't come to any real conclusion as to a

trend either way as to frequency of such outbreaks since the data set is so limited.

 

 

There's too much complaining about limited sets of marginally relevant data.  Much like evolution can stand on its own two feet without fossils, so too can climate science without a surface temperature record of some arbitrary length.

[ORH_wxman]

I am disappointed at the bad science in the climate section of these forums, mainly in this thread.  A lot of people think that because they are meteorologists that they have credibility when it comes to climate science and they absolutely do not.  In the met forums, meteorologists are experts.  In this forum, not so much.  You should come here willing to learn from experts just like weather enthusiasts and weenies do in the met forums, not to preach on behalf of a group of scientists that do not want your voice associated with them.

 

 

I don't think anything overly unreasonable has been stated by any mets in this thread WRT Lake Effect Snowfall and the attribution of events to AGW.

 

You'll notice how most of the claims of an event like Buffalo are not supported by literature in the science...but rather, a media-induced hype that is eager to make a story and sensationalize climate change. The onus is on them to prove attribution, not the other way around.

[Rainman]

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.

 

The "wavy jet theories" have long been a legitimate part of the scientific discussion.  There is nothing the scientific community can do to keep "people" (your word not mine) from acting like it's new information.  And there is also nothing they can do to keep people like you, who get their science from non-science sources, from thinking that scientific information is necessarily new because "people" have begun to talk about it.  We saw the media destroy public perception of the polar vortex last winter, and yet you seem to think that they haven't equally destroyed multiple aspects of other fields of science.

 

Also, what exactly is it that you expect longwaves to do when hemispheric baroclinicity decreases?  Why wouldn't they grow?

[Rainman]

I don't think anything overly unreasonable has been stated by any mets in this thread WRT Lake Effect Snowfall and the attribution of events to AGW.

 

You'll notice how most of the claims of an event like Buffalo are not supported by literature in the science...but rather, a media-induced hype that is eager to make a story and sensationalize climate change. The onus is on them to prove attribution, not the other way around.

 

My bad then.  I will say that I don't think it's very productive or useful to talk about the media, but I didn't give this thread a thorough read either.  They sensationalize everything.  If they can make it about global warming, then they will, so that is not surprising.  It's not because they are a "liberal media" with an "agenda", it's because they are evil and don't care about anything but ratings.  Introducing media madness into what ought be a more scientific discussion blurs the lines between science and entertainment and results in people who have dedicated their lives to understanding AGW being called "alarmists", etc.

[vortex95]

There's too much complaining about limited sets of marginally relevant data.  Much like evolution can stand on its own two feet without fossils, so too can climate science without a surface temperature record of some arbitrary length.

There is complaining because it is a valid issue.  There is an old saying, GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.  If your data

set is incorrect or inadequate then your predictions/results can and will suffer, often severely.  When you are dealing with

a vastly complex system, such as the Earth, the little things can manifest themselves in big ways eventually.  Sure, just

about all of us agree as accept that pumping more CO2 in the atmosphere is not a good thing.  The problem lies in the net

sensible weather and climate effects, which are all over the map and of considerable debate.  Warming should occur, not

much question about that, but that is large scale.  What about the small scale, like tornadoes?  Not so cut and dry.  Yet I

see all too often that the default position is climate change summarily equals *everything* getting "worse", whether it is

tornadoes, tropical cyclones, floods, heat/cold waves, etc.   I find that more of a human nature issue than climate, as we

tend to fear the unknown, and often get obsessed with worst case scenarios.

 

I wouldn't call or imply tornado activity "marginally relevant data" either.  First of all, tornadoes are one of the poster childs for

AGW, and any time a big outbreak occurs these days, the inevitable connection to AGW comes up with often simplistic

2+2=4 "theories" and the like.  So pointing out the issues with the data set used now are very important, as many do not look

under the surface, not realizing the flaws at all, or deliberately ignore it all to get the the results they want.  Too often data

sets are looked at "as is" with little or no questioning of any of it.  That is not good science.  Second, the U.S. is by far the most

active tornado area in the world, so looking here for subtle trends in these type of phenomena is a good place to start.  Any

subtle trends though have been overwhelmed by our much better detection and documentation over the years, which has

nothing to do with the climate itself.  So it is not just about limited data sets, it is also about how the science has changed

over time...what we know and understand, and most importantly, how we measure.  If this is not taken into account, then

future predictions are going to have issues.

[vortex95]

My bad then.  I will say that I don't think it's very productive or useful to talk about the media, but I didn't give this thread a thorough read either.  They sensationalize everything.  If they can make it about global warming, then they will, so that is not surprising.  It's not because they are a "liberal media" with an "agenda", it's because they are evil and don't care about anything but ratings.  Introducing media madness into what ought be a more scientific discussion blurs the lines between science and entertainment and results in people who have dedicated their lives to understanding AGW being called "alarmists", etc.

The media is relevant though.  It sways popular opinion, which in turns influences politicians, who in turn make policy.  This

of course, is not good science, as science is not a democracy.  Just because a lot of people think one way does not mean it

is a scientific fact!

 

The biggest issue I see with the way weather and climate is handled today is that proper context and perspective is all too

often lacking.

[tacoman25]

The "wavy jet theories" have long been a legitimate part of the scientific discussion.  There is nothing the scientific community can do to keep "people" (your word not mine) from acting like it's new information.  And there is also nothing they can do to keep people like you, who get their science from non-science sources, from thinking that scientific information is necessarily new because "people" have begun to talk about it.  We saw the media destroy public perception of the polar vortex last winter, and yet you seem to think that they haven't equally destroyed multiple aspects of other fields of science.

 

Also, what exactly is it that you expect longwaves to do when hemispheric baroclinicity decreases?  Why wouldn't they grow?

 

1. I know the wavy jet theories have been part of the discussion for awhile. Like I said, there are a lot of theories out there about how AGW could affect the climate. I simply said they've gained steam in recent years, and I don't think the fact that we've seen more high latitude blocking recently is a coincidence.

 

2. You assume I get my science from "non-science" sources, but you really shouldn't assume like that. Not very scientific of you. I'm not simply referring to the media here.

 

3. There is evidence that longwaves have been greater in previous eras, without the aid of AGW. Do we know there is a direct relationship? That has yet to be proven.