Upstate/Eastern New York

[Thinksnow18]

3 minutes ago, BuffaloWeather said:

With no cold high, might be rain/mix. Something to track at least. 

True but with the second one, at least in that scenario on this run, the 528 line is very near by. Plus if it's dynamic enough that could be enough to produce its iwn cold air. Definitely something to watch.

[PaulyFromPlattsburgh]

NAVGEM FWIW shows some sort of retrograding low big hit on days 5-6. Maybe other models will folllow suit. Split flow pattern ahead looms like. -NAO holding on

[SouthBuffaloSteve]

Finally a SW flow and it’s freaking freezing drizzle... yuck.


URGENT - WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
National Weather Service Buffalo NY
638 PM EST Thu Nov 14 2019

NYZ001-002-007-010>012-085-150745-
/O.NEW.KBUF.WW.Y.0036.191114T2338Z-191115T1400Z/
Niagara-Orleans-Jefferson-Northern Erie-Genesee-Wyoming-
Southern Erie-
Including the cities of Niagara Falls, Medina, Watertown,
Buffalo, Batavia, Warsaw, Orchard Park, and Springville
638 PM EST Thu Nov 14 2019

...WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY IN EFFECT UNTIL 9 AM EST FRIDAY...

* WHAT...Mixed precipitation. Additional snow accumulations of
an inch or less and ice accumulations of a few hundredths of
an inch.

* WHERE...Niagara, Orleans, Jefferson, Erie, Genesee, and
Wyoming counties.

* WHEN...Until 9 AM EST Friday.

* IMPACTS...Plan on slippery road conditions. The hazardous
conditions could impact the morning commute.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

Periods of light snow or freezing light rain and drizzle will
result in slippery roads and limited visibilities. Slow down and
use caution while driving.

Submit snow and ice reports through our website or social media.


.

[rochesterdave]

I was doing a bit of Simple math today and the last few winters have been pretty astonishing in their duration. In Rochester, we’ve begun sometime in early November and continued well into April- leaving us with 5 plus months of actual winter. Not just cool but with accumulating snows. That’s nearly six months! Half of the year for all intents and purposes. 
This isn’t a political statement as I fully believe in climate change (the global trends are hardly debatable) but it certainly hasn’t shortened my favorite season in this part of the world. Kind of crazy. 

[tim123]

Climate always changes. The debate is it caused bye humans. On a micro level urban heat effect yes. In a global scale no way. 

[tim123]

The data is highly misleading N manipulated for taxes and control. Classic elite game of never let a crisis go to waste. 

[rochesterdave]

3 minutes ago, tim123 said:

The data is highly misleading N manipulated for taxes and control. Classic elite game of never let a crisis go to waste. 

But the elites aren’t doing the research. It’s scientists and students doing their doctorates. Nerdy academics doing dry research pulling ice cores and studying migratory patterns.  People who operate under high levels of ethical standards. To believe it’s all fake you have to accept that it’s a conspiracy, involving thousands of complicit academics throughout the world and what is their devious motivation? 
I’d venture heat islands are of minimal impact but are still problematic. 
Besides, it’s time to move on from coal- it’s a dirty, finite resource that’s subsidized to hide it’s true cost. Coal wil continue to decline despite being Trumps favorite, yet disingenuous, pet project. 

Anyhow, that’s all, I don’t wanna get into political debate about GW. Personally, I’m apt to defer to scientific consensus as I know I’m a rube. Point was WNY winters are long as hell! 

[tim123]

Who you think the scientists get money from?

[tim123]

Follow the money. 

[tim123]

Ice cores show co2 is a byproduct of warming it's a flowing indicator. Not a leading indicator 

[BuffaloWeather]

lol

[CNY_WX]

45 minutes ago, tim123 said:

Who you think the scientists get money from?

So you think scientists have no ethical standards?

[BuffaloWeather]

[BuffaloWeather]

I was once a climate change denier. Go do a few months of research and come back. The climate is constantly changing, but the rate of warmth the earth has experienced in the last 100 years and the increase in CO2 (which warms the atmosphere) cannot happen naturally. I'm too lazy to explain it, but it's a fact humans are and have had a huge impact on our climate.

[WNash]

2 hours ago, tim123 said:

Who you think the scientists get money from?

There’s far more money coming from fossil fuel extraction and dependent technologies than from the handful of grant-funding agencies who underwrite climate research. Scientists whose motivation is making as much money as possible work for Exxon Mobil or Saudi Aramco or Koch Industries or Schlumberger, not for SUNY Cortland or Michigan State. 

[WNash]

1 hour ago, BuffaloWeather said:

I was once a climate change denier. Go do a few months of research and come back. The climate is constantly changing, but the rate of warmth the earth has experienced in the last 100 years and the increase in CO2 (which warms the atmosphere) cannot happen naturally. I'm too lazy to explain it, but it's a fact humans are and have had a huge impact on our climate.

My dad, a very conservative engineer and a very smart guy, had a similar mentality in the last six months or so before he died. He had a strong belief in the free market as the most efficient way to allocate resources and was very skeptical that carbon release could have an effect on climate that was greater than natural variation. He also felt that climate scientists produced models that were unreliable and not useful for projecting global temp rise, sea level rise, etc. But he looked at the data and realised that even imperfect modeling has capably predicted unprecedented global temp change. He became very concerned about the long term consequences of imminent climate change — that it would have both direct and indirect effects and would likely significantly lower living standards with little benefit for anyone except people who were already very rich. He told me he was kept up at night worrying about the world his granddaughter would grow up in. He passed away a couple of years ago, and I think he would be even sadder about the fact that we are not only failing to make progress, but things are getting worse in other ways.

[vortmax]

https://www.americanwx.com/bb/forum/18-climate-change/

Back to regularly scheduled programming... 

[wolfie09]

[wolfie09]

This forecast period starts out on Monday with a complicated split
flow upper level pattern from the mid CONUS to the eastern Seaboard.
One southern stream wave will be supporting stronger low pressure
system riding northeast just off the East Coast while another
southern stream upper level trough dives across the southeast CONUS.
Finally a northern stream trough will be sliding across the Upper
Great Lakes. Though the initial system off the East Coast should
stay east of here into northeast New England through Monday night,
the ECMWF and Canadian indicate as other two systems slide toward
the Lower Great Lakes and northeast CONUS that precip in the form of
mixed precip may try to expand over at least our eastern areas from
Rochester and Wellsville on to the east and north into the North
Country. Sfc temps look right on the edge for rain/snow and based on
warm nose with max Tw aloft staying above 0c, there may be some
sleet mix in as well east of Lake Ontario. All the while, latest GFS
keeps second southern stream too far east of here to produce much if
any precip late Monday into Monday night. Kept main mention of
precip on Monday night and mostly east of Rochester. Will need to
keep eye on this time though for possible mixed precip. Too much
uncertainty to mention in the HWO though at this point

[Buckeyes_Suck]

Rochester going to run away with the golden snowball with that track. Buffalo gets nothing

[Syrmax]

9 hours ago, CNY_WX said:

So you think scientists have no ethical standards?

You haven't met some of the scientists i know.  At least at the bar. 

[Syrmax]

1 hour ago, wolfie09 said:

I can't buy this.  Undoubtedly because my a** is still chapped from the last bait n switch storm here in CNY...;)

[BuffaloWeather]

3 hours ago, vortmax said:

https://www.americanwx.com/bb/forum/18-climate-change/

Back to regularly scheduled programming... 

That is for talking about climate change across the entire forum. You're allowed to talk about it in here as well. Most sub-forums have several discussions through the year about it. It directly affects us in upstate and is interesting to get different viewpoints/data on it. 

[BuffaloWeather]

The long range has been trending colder and colder each run. Quite the opposite of the last 2 years. We're going to have a much below normal November, but thinking slightly above average December. 

[BuffaloWeather]

22 minutes ago, Syrmax said:

I can't buy this.  Undoubtedly because my a** is still chapped from the last bait n switch storm here in CNY...;)

I think you'll make it up with fake snow this year. 

[Syrmax]

10 hours ago, BuffaloWeather said:

I was once a climate change denier. Go do a few months of research and come back. The climate is constantly changing, but the rate of warmth the earth has experienced in the last 100 years and the increase in CO2 (which warms the atmosphere) cannot happen naturally. I'm too lazy to explain it, but it's a fact humans are and have had a huge impact on our climate.

My $0.02...the data shows that sfc temps have warmed.  I don't think that's debatable. There are questions as to how much and concerns about data manipulation etc. but sfc has warmed a degree or two in last 100 yrs.  Why that's happened, is theoretical.  CO2 likely the biggest driver.   Likely.  Beyond that, and especially regarding "climate change" it's all speculation and a lot of bloviating.  Anyone familiar with measurement uncertainty theory and the application of it in engineering / science, should instinctively sense that there is a whole lot of blah blah blah being oversold or misrepresented as actual scientific facts, for a variety of reasons and by people (including scientists) who are out of their depth.

[BuffaloWeather]

4 minutes ago, Syrmax said:

My $0.02...the data shows that sfc temps have warmed.  I don't think that's debatable. There are questions as to how much and concerns about data manipulation etc. but sfc has warmed a degree or two in last 100 yrs.  Why that's happened, is theoretical.  CO2 likely the biggest driver.   Likely.  Beyond that, and especially regarding "climate change" it's all speculation and a lot of bloviating.  Anyone familiar with measurement uncertainty theory and the application of it in engineering / science, should instinctively sense that there is a whole lot of blah blah blah being oversold or misrepresented as actual scientific facts, for a variety of reasons and by people (including scientists) who are out of their depth.

Do you think scientists have any incentive to lie about the data and their research? They make pennies compared to what they could make in the private sector with phds. 

[Syrmax]

4 minutes ago, BuffaloWeather said:

Do you think scientists have any incentive to lie about the data and their research? They make pennies compared to what they could make in the private sector with phds. 

For the most part no, with caveats.  There have been well founded concerns expressed about data manipulation in s couple of instances however, by certain scientists.  Having read both sides,  I still think that's an open question.  But the overall data, depending on your timeframe, show we have warmed in the industrial age.  I don't think that's debatable.  The literature on this subject over the past 30 years is however replete with examples of research that is directed in a particular way that doesn't always seem to rigorously conform with the scientific method.  And its peer reviewed, which is even more disturbing.   I think this is mainly a problem when you get further away from the climate guys and into peripheral subjects.  As far as making pennies compared to private industry, that's true.  But don't discount that in their world, continued access research funding is quite likely dependent on having the "right" conclusion to a study.  This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.   This isn't the first time where the politics inside of science distort, or are perceived to distort, conclusions.  

[tim123]

There are periods in our climate that have been way warmer in past. and you know what happens life flourished. So even if there is warming its definitely not a omg we are all going to die thing as alot of politicians would have you believe. 

[tim123]

Plus this satellite data thing is only 40 years ago. Hardly a good sample size in terms of climate. Either way Rochester's snow has increased in past 100 years so whatever I am happy with that.