Winter Banter & General Discussion/Observations

[powderfreak]

10 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

One mans misery is another's glory although I surmise even this would be too much for you.

http://squawalpine.com/explore/blog/operations-update-feb-22-23

Holy sh*t!  I hadn't seen that.  Yeah that's a bit much and a very busy couple days for Ops teams.

[Lava Rock]

8 minutes ago, metagraphica said:

That's an insane amount of snow.  Love it!!

Is that 199mph wind speed right?

[Ginx snewx]

4 minutes ago, Lava Rock said:

Is that 199mph wind speed right?

apparently being investigated as a new state record, they have so many sensors in the Sierras and many were gusting 180 plus at the same time so probably close

[tamarack]

1 hour ago, psv88 said:

What? I got plenty of snow this winter, i am already above average, has nothing to do with that. I have no problem with snow when its cold, and warm when its not snowing. Perfect in my book. 

3 months in a row of +8 temp departures, after least years +13 for December is not "short term." 

NYC has like 20 months in a row of + temp departures, its not short term. 

But keep sticking your head in the sand. 

Have not seen anyone on these past few pages arguing that the temperatures are not warming, least of all Ginxy.  20 consecutive AN months are more likely in our warmer climate, though it might be interesting to peek at NYC records for the early 1930s or late '40s to see if they've ever had a similar string. 

What gets irksome is when folks declare that every AN temp/big rainstorm "proves" global warming.  This is mainly done by MSM - how often do we hear "broke the high temp record set 122 years ago" or some such as "proof".   A couple years back Britain had some very heavy rains - "greatest rain event in 63 years (I may have the number wrong) thanks to climate change", and my obvious reaction was, what caused the even bigger rain back then?  The longer term records strongly support that temps are warming and big rain events are increasing - for example, the nearby Farmington co-op has 124 years of record, and half of their calendar days with 4"+ rainfall have occurred in the past 20 years, the other half over the previous 104.  There's plenty of good long-term data supporting a warmer, wetter climate; we don't need to use shorter term weather for that purpose.

[Ginx snewx]

Just now, tamarack said:

Have not seen anyone on these past few pages arguing that the temperatures are not warming, least of all Ginxy.  20 consecutive AN months are more likely in our warmer climate, though it might be interesting to peek at NYC records for the early 1930s or late '40s to see if they've ever had a similar string. 

What gets irksome is when folks declare that every AN temp/big rainstorm "proves" global warming.  This is mainly done by MSM - how often do we hear "broke the high temp record set 122 years ago" or some such as "proof".   A couple years back Britain had some very heavy rains - "greatest rain event in 63 years (I may have the number wrong) thanks to climate change", and my obvious reaction was, what caused the even bigger rain back then?  The longer term records strongly support that temps are warming and big rain events are increasing - for example, the nearby Farmington co-op has 124 years of record, and half of their calendar days with 4"+ rainfall have occurred in the past 20 years, the other half over the previous 104.  There's plenty of good long-term data supporting a warmer, wetter climate; we don't need to use shorter term weather for that purpose.

Yes

[psv88]

11 minutes ago, tamarack said:

Have not seen anyone on these past few pages arguing that the temperatures are not warming, least of all Ginxy.  20 consecutive AN months are more likely in our warmer climate, though it might be interesting to peek at NYC records for the early 1930s or late '40s to see if they've ever had a similar string. 

What gets irksome is when folks declare that every AN temp/big rainstorm "proves" global warming.  This is mainly done by MSM - how often do we hear "broke the high temp record set 122 years ago" or some such as "proof".   A couple years back Britain had some very heavy rains - "greatest rain event in 63 years (I may have the number wrong) thanks to climate change", and my obvious reaction was, what caused the even bigger rain back then?  The longer term records strongly support that temps are warming and big rain events are increasing - for example, the nearby Farmington co-op has 124 years of record, and half of their calendar days with 4"+ rainfall have occurred in the past 20 years, the other half over the previous 104.  There's plenty of good long-term data supporting a warmer, wetter climate; we don't need to use shorter term weather for that purpose.

But you are saying that an extreme event, aka a 4"+ rainfall, is indicative of climate change...so you are using extreme events as part of your data set, albeit to indicate the increased frequency of said events, but still using the events nonetheless, so one extreme event forms the part of a trend, therefore the individual extreme events naturally, must be, still indicative of climate change...

[HoarfrostHubb]

Not for nothing, but there is, I believe, a whole chunk of this forum dedicated to climate change...

I don't really care if you folks discuss it here, but just sayin' 

pack still intact here, but way down...I am surprised I still have snow on the roof of my house

[codfishsnowman]

I think global warming is happening at an alarming rate. Every year the sun feels stronger and it seems warmer and warmer getting into my car even during the coldest of days when the sun angle is weakest (dec/jan)

I spend quite a bit of time outside, the sun feels stronger all the time and much more so than 10-15 years ago. Also when anyone brings up the cold weather in Feb/ March a couple years ago, please remember that while we were freezing, most of the rest of the world was on fire

There are more bugs more active for longer periods of time every year

There is no doubt in my mind we are warming at an alarming rate

[CoastalWx]

The sun on your face has nothing  to do with CC.  

[CoastalWx]

CC is good because it's increase snow averages to the south and east. 

[Damage In Tolland]

Why are we talking about Cape Cod, Ma?

[ORH_wxman]

59 minutes ago, psv88 said:

But you are saying that an extreme event, aka a 4"+ rainfall, is indicative of climate change...so you are using extreme events as part of your data set, albeit to indicate the increased frequency of said events, but still using the events nonetheless, so one extreme event forms the part of a trend, therefore the individual extreme events naturally, must be, still indicative of climate change...

No. You need more than one and it needs to be over a long enough sample. One alone or two alone or even 5 isn't "because of climate change". They still occurred without it. That's the problem these ignorant MSM headlines don't understand. An event or even multiple events over a short span (as in less than a decade) doesn't have the statistical confidence to make that type of attribution. That's just the way mathematics and statistics work. We've seen erroneous claims already get smacked back in their face...remember when climate change caused huge -NAO blocks because of the trend between the late 1990s and 2009-2010? Don't hear much about that anymore now that we can't buy huge -NAO blocks. Remember when they claimed hurricanes would run rampant after 2004 and especially 2005? Well, that looks pretty dumb now...especially in light of Landsea's literature a few years later, nevermind the utter lack of hurricanes since those seasons. 

The headlines should really say something like "climate change has made the 4"+ rain events more likely than previously." Not that climate change caused the event...especially if said events happened before climate change existed. (Which in this case, they did)

 

 

[Hoth]

Can't say the relative strength of the sun on my face over the course of years is the sort of thing I'd bother to commit to long term memory, but to each his own. 

[eekuasepinniW]

2 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

No. You need more than one and it needs to be over a long enough sample. One alone or two alone or even 5 isn't "because of climate change". They still occurred without it. That's the problem these ignorant MSM headlines don't understand. An event or even multiple events over a short span (as in less than a decade) doesn't have the statistical confidence to make that type of attribution. That's just the way mathematics and statistics work. We've seen erroneous claims already get smacked back in their face...remember when climate change caused huge -NAO blocks because of the trend between the late 1990s and 2009-2010? Don't hear much about that anymore now that we can't buy huge -NAO blocks. Remember when they claimed hurricanes would run rampant after 2004 and especially 2005? Well, that looks pretty dumb now...especially in light of Landsea's literature a few years later, nevermind the utter lack of hurricanes since those

 

It was on the move today.

[ORH_wxman]

Just now, Hoth said:

Can't say the relative strength of the sun on my face over the course of years is the sort of thing I'd bother to commit to long term memory, but to each his own. 

The sun is actually slightly weaker than it was during the 1980s and 1990s solar cycles. 

[ORH_wxman]

2 minutes ago, eekuasepinniW said:

 

It was on the move today.

Nice. That's what I was looking for. 

[Hoth]

1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said:

The sun is actually slightly weaker than it was during the 1980s and 1990s solar cycles. 

Interesting. Does that correlate with the lack of sunspot activity recently?

[powderfreak]

1 hour ago, Ginx snewx said:

apparently being investigated as a new state record, they have so many sensors in the Sierras and many were gusting 180 plus at the same time so probably close

Yeah the more I look into it, it seems as though multiple spots were gusting high 100's for wind speed.  That's gnarly.  I mean, that's true high end stuff.  Like being in the 300mb jet streak.

[ORH_wxman]

12 minutes ago, Hoth said:

Interesting. Does that correlate with the lack of sunspot activity recently?

Yeah our minimums have been quieter and our maximums not as robust. 

[powderfreak]

40 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

CC is good because it's increase snow averages to the south and east. 

God dammit!  Seems to be decreasing north and west. 

 

I always think that climate change should increase snowfall everywhere with increased moisture (in the sense that warmer temperatures can hold more water) but then hits a certain point where it would decrease sharply.  Sort of like a gradual increase in snowfall until the whole system becomes overwhelmed and that mean temperature rises above freezing and snowfall just drops off a cliff.

But it makes  sense that it would increase snowfall in places that get the bulk of their average annual snow from fewer events that tend to be larger in nature.  A place that gets its annual average of 30-50" in like 6 snow events over 4 months seems like it would increase as storms get bigger with increased baroclinicity and higher moisture levels, while the places that need like 20-30 different events to reach their annual snowfall might struggle if a few more of those tend to be rainers.  Definitely in a lower snow climo area a trend towards less frequent but bigger events would seem to be a plus relative to annual averages. 

 

[Lava Rock]

Ugh 48 f.

[HIPPYVALLEY]

3 hours ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

Not for nothing, but there is, I believe, a whole chunk of this forum dedicated to climate change...

I don't really care if you folks discuss it here, but just sayin' 

pack still intact here, but way down...I am surprised I still have snow on the roof of my house

You and I and the banned poster from W Chesterfield, will have snow longer than most in SNE.  I'll take pics in the morning but 70% of the yard (and neighborhood) is still packed with several inches of dense.

37/35 off a high of 62F

[Damage In Tolland]

Just now, HIPPYVALLEY said:

You and I and the banned poster from W Chesterfield, will have snow longer than most in SNE.  I'll take pics in the morning but 70% of the yard (and neighborhood) is still packed with several inches of dense.

37/35 off a high of 62F

53.1/ 51 currently 

[HIPPYVALLEY]

2 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

53.1/ 51 currently 

Jeezus!   Elevation ftw and ftl sometimes.  Don't forget, I am in an radiator delight spot but I sacrifice any chance of exciting wind.

[HoarfrostHubb]

48.1/47 attm. 63.7 was the high.  Saw 68 in ORH.  

[HIPPYVALLEY]

14 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

48.1/47 attm. 63.7 was the high.  Saw 68 in ORH.  

Digital and mercury at 37F with clear skies atm so we"ll see if I can somehow tickle below freezing tonight but doubtful.

[psv88]

3 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

No. You need more than one and it needs to be over a long enough sample. One alone or two alone or even 5 isn't "because of climate change". They still occurred without it. That's the problem these ignorant MSM headlines don't understand. An event or even multiple events over a short span (as in less than a decade) doesn't have the statistical confidence to make that type of attribution. That's just the way mathematics and statistics work. We've seen erroneous claims already get smacked back in their face...remember when climate change caused huge -NAO blocks because of the trend between the late 1990s and 2009-2010? Don't hear much about that anymore now that we can't buy huge -NAO blocks. Remember when they claimed hurricanes would run rampant after 2004 and especially 2005? Well, that looks pretty dumb now...especially in light of Landsea's literature a few years later, nevermind the utter lack of hurricanes since those seasons. 

The headlines should really say something like "climate change has made the 4"+ rain events more likely than previously." Not that climate change caused the event...especially if said events happened before climate change existed. (Which in this case, they did)

 

 

Read what I wrote again. 

[weathafella]

1 hour ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

You and I and the banned poster from W Chesterfield, will have snow longer than most in SNE.  I'll take pics in the morning but 70% of the yard (and neighborhood) is still packed with several inches of dense.

37/35 off a high of 62F

Even after today the shady side of the street here has full cover.

[DavisStraight]

11 minutes ago, weathafella said:

Even after today the shady side of the street here has full cover.

My street still has pretty solid cover too, I thought it would be gone by now except for my snowblowed pile.

[OceanStWx]

4 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

No. You need more than one and it needs to be over a long enough sample. One alone or two alone or even 5 isn't "because of climate change". They still occurred without it. That's the problem these ignorant MSM headlines don't understand. An event or even multiple events over a short span (as in less than a decade) doesn't have the statistical confidence to make that type of attribution. That's just the way mathematics and statistics work. We've seen erroneous claims already get smacked back in their face...remember when climate change caused huge -NAO blocks because of the trend between the late 1990s and 2009-2010? Don't hear much about that anymore now that we can't buy huge -NAO blocks. Remember when they claimed hurricanes would run rampant after 2004 and especially 2005? Well, that looks pretty dumb now...especially in light of Landsea's literature a few years later, nevermind the utter lack of hurricanes since those seasons. 

The headlines should really say something like "climate change has made the 4"+ rain events more likely than previously." Not that climate change caused the event...especially if said events happened before climate change existed. (Which in this case, they did)

But that's no fun. Nobody clicks on the link if you say extreme rainfall events are more likely or record highs are more likely than record lows. Likewise, it breeds inaction with lawmakers when you talk probabilities and not specific outcomes (just ask Kevin about probabilities). 

Locally I think those two things (extreme precip and high temp records) are most noticeable. You need a -4 SD air mass to pull Feb 2015, but only +2 to do what we did today.