Upstate/Eastern New York

[wolfie09]

1 hour ago, rochesterdave said:

I don’t even see a mechanism for this?

There is a wave just weak and no surface reflection..Euro does the same..

[SyracuseStorm]

 I live in BVille and this place has been cursed ever since I moved here 7 years ago.  South of us has finger lakes, higher elevation, etc..  This just is crazy and I don’t want to hear any mention of SW winds off the lakes whatsoever.  We need clippers with NW winds.  Too many ski resorts here struggling and sick of snowboarding on ice.

We had a nice dusting today and was appreciative that the Gods answered many kids prayers just to see snow.

Remember the days of getting a foot or more of snow from Lake Effect and sub zero temps that lasted a month.

Maybe Joe Biden can rejoin the Paris Climate Accord and things will change.  Actually, no, we just lost a President with a big mouth but one hell of a spine.  
 

Hopefully I will be crying uncle like I did a few years back when the cold and snow were relentless for 2 months.

Rant over and hope everyone had a safe and Merry Christmas.

 

 

 

[TugHillMatt]

1 minute ago, SyracuseStorm said:

 I live in BVille and this place has been cursed ever since I moved here 7 years ago.  South of us has finger lakes, higher elevation, etc..  This just is crazy and I don’t want to hear any mention of SW winds off the lakes whatsoever.  We need clippers with NW winds.  Too many ski resorts here struggling and sick of snowboarding on ice.

We had a nice dusting today and was appreciative that the Gods answered many kids prayers just to see snow.

Remember the days of getting a foot or more of snow from Lake Effect and sub zero temps that lasted a month.

Maybe Joe Biden can rejoin the Paris Climate Accord and things will change.  Actually, no, we just lost a President with a big mouth but one hell of a spine.  
 

Hopefully I will be crying uncle like I did a few years back when the cold and snow were relentless for 2 months.

Rant over and hope everyone had a safe and Merry Christmas.

 

 

 

Hey, your rant is fine. Helps me realize I am not alone. Hah

So Bville is just an awful location for snow, or has it just been a rough few years with crap patterns?

Did the dusting survive?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TugHillMatt]

It legit wraps around us...passes to the south and then works north once to Oneida county.The Cuse bubble lives on.

[Ericjcrash]

Snowing lightly after some may weather for the past 24 hours.

[Syrmax]

1 hour ago, TugHillMatt said:

Hey, your rant is fine. Helps me realize I am not alone. Hah

So Bville is just an awful location for snow, or has it just been a rough few years with crap patterns?

Did the dusting survive?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont think there's any deep meaning to our perceived local jinx going on, certainly not global warming / climate change...i think its more of a random distribution, almost chaos theory, especially on a micro level here.  Think of probabalistic  monte carlo analysis....or even simple coin flip testing....with enough iterations you come up with a representative outcome, an average result, a mean, a standard deviation, etc., but doesn't mean you can't flip heads 10x in a row.  Or roll 7 a dozen straight times on the craps table.  Over a large enough sample set, such streaks  gets washed out, or normalized, but with small sample sizes, large deviations can exist.  Most of us simply end up calling it "luck"...or "bad luck".  Sometimes it conveniently fits a narrative we have, or even bias confirmation. 

Years ago I used to marvel at how this immediate area used to sometimes scam snow out of nowhere.  Not the long duration single band monsters because we don't get those,  but smaller WNW snowfalls.  I've definately felt that we've been unlucky the past few years. Maybe reversion to mean going on...

[Vicarious]

in general people underestimate variance and one of the best things studying no limit holdem was teach me just how much variance you will experience and try to pick out flaws in your strategy vs the variance in outcomes. The sample size we see with winter events is pretty low which makes it insanely hard to try and separate any patterns 

[BuffaloWeather]

The unknown variance in winter is global warming.

[Syrmax]

38 minutes ago, BuffaloWeather said:

The unknown variance in winter is global warming.

Possibly, on a large enough scale and given enough time.   But that doesn-t account for the localized variability we are moaning about here. 

[BuffaloWeather]

Just now, Syrmax said:

Possibly, on a large enough scale.   But that doesn-t account for the localized variability we are moaning about here. 

I think it has a large impact. NW flow events are your guys bread and butter. To get those events you need consistent cold air that has been so hard to find the last few years.

[TugHillMatt]

Good discussion. Thanks for the response, @Syrmax.

[Syrmax]

21 minutes ago, BuffaloWeather said:

I think it has a large impact. NW flow events are your guys bread and butter. To get those events you need consistent cold air that has been so hard to find the last few years.

I realize that its tempting to ascribe everything that happens weather-wise to AGW.  I'm not going to argue the veracity of that here.  Given enough time and thereby sample size, it could be a contributing factor.  But it doesn't have much to do with our local "underperformance" of late and, by inspection, couldn't possibly explain why it seems to snow "all around us" but not here. 

[wolfie09]

Rgem with a nice look for Mon night/Tues, band should drop south as the system progresses east..

[wolfie09]

We'll see how this keeps evolving as we go day by day lol

[Syrmax]

2 hours ago, Vicarious said:

in general people underestimate variance and one of the best things studying no limit holdem was teach me just how much variance you will experience and try to pick out flaws in your strategy vs the variance in outcomes. The sample size we see with winter events is pretty low which makes it insanely hard to try and separate any patterns 

That's an interesting point and well taken. It was one of the key arguments that was hotly debated in the UN IPCC's Year 2000/2001 (?) Climate Report, which was the first to ascribe a "discernable"  human influence in global temperature trends...and hence AGW was more formally born, or emerged from being almost crackpot theory.  Since then it's been rebranded as Climate Change because....that's a whole 'nuther story.

At the time, drawing on my experience an electrical engineer and mathematics background, I could see the crux of the argument, which was...if you understand instrument uncertainty and its component factors in the equation, it's usually impossible to determine exactly why (say a pressure switch setpoint) As Found setpoint varies between calibration intervals. Could be any one of several factors that amount to random variance or possibly a bias. But all we can (usually) know is that "it" changed.

The UN report concluded that temperature trends were explainable, essentially, as a bias factor (Anthropogenic Global Warming). Its not quite the same thing as an instrument setting calculation but a reasonable comparison. Back then, I never thought the UN analysis could withstand a rigorous 95/95 confidence examination (esp given underlying data quality concerns and hand waving arguments - that still exist) but i stopped following the issue rigorously once politics got more seriously involved and everyone's emotions flared.  It's become a matter of almost faith, a litmus test on both sides now. I have people regularly tell me climate is changing and they don't know a millibar from a candybar. And life's too short to deal with that kind of idiocy. 

[Syrmax]

12 minutes ago, wolfie09 said:

We'll see how this keeps evolving as we go day by day lol

If that solution was about 50-100 miles west you know it would be locked in!

[Vicarious]

15 minutes ago, Syrmax said:

That's an interesting point and well taken. It was one of the key arguments that was hotly debated in the UN IPCC's Year 2000/2001 (?) Climate Report, which was the first to ascribe a "discernable"  human influence in global temperature trends...and hence AGW was more formally born, or emerged from being almost crackpot theory.  Since then it's been rebranded as Climate Change because....that's a whole 'nuther story.

At the time, drawing on my experience an electrical engineer and mathematics background, I could see the crux of the argument, which was...if you understand instrument uncertainty and its component factors in the equation, it's usually impossible to determine exactly why (say a pressure switch setpoint) As Found setpoint varies between calibration intervals. Could be any one of several factors that amount to random variance or possibly a bias. But all we can (usually) know is that "it" changed.

The UN report concluded that temperature trends were explainable, essentially, as a bias factor (Anthropogenic Global Warming). Its not quite the same thing as an instrument setting calculation but a reasonable comparison. Back then, I never thought the UN analysis could withstand a rigorous 95/95 confidence examination (esp given underlying data quality concerns and hand waving arguments - that still exist) but i stopped following the issue rigorously once politics got more seriously involved and everyone's emotions flared.  It's become a matter of almost faith, a litmus test on both sides now. And life's too short to deal with that kind of idiocy.

Well I always looked at global warming through this lens of "uh guys we are literally changing the earths atompshere with compounds that we can scientifically show their effect". Take humans out of the equation and it makes more sense. I just really hate how the science tends to get lost behind the politics with thing like global warming. We honestly can't look at just temp trends because of the tiny sample size so we have to look at other data try and separate the variance as much as possible

[Syrmax]

10 minutes ago, Vicarious said:

Well I always looked at global warming through this lense of "uh guys we are literally changing the earths atompshere with compounds that we can scientifically show their effect". Take humans out of the equation and it makes more sense 

I get it and it makes sense.  Change the makeup of a closed volume and you are changing its response. It's also one of the hand waving arguments that gets thrown around. It could be right, to more or less extent. I have no way of knowing for certain. We rely on modeling to project the future state and from what I understand of that, there's a lot of uncertainty in results, which is to be expected. Where I have concern is in willful misrepresentation of results as they are being used to formulate public policy (and spending of $).  Simply put, do I spend $1 to address the issue or $1,000?  That gets to be a subjective discussion pretty quickly (especially when i don't really have the $ in my account and/or have to reshuffle what i spend on).

[rochesterdave]

23 minutes ago, Syrmax said:

That's an interesting point and well taken. It was one of the key arguments that was hotly debated in the UN IPCC's Year 2000/2001 (?) Climate Report, which was the first to ascribe a "discernable"  human influence in global temperature trends...and hence AGW was more formally born, or emerged from being almost crackpot theory.  Since then it's been rebranded as Climate Change because....that's a whole 'nuther story.

At the time, drawing on my experience an electrical engineer and mathematics background, I could see the crux of the argument, which was...if you understand instrument uncertainty and its component factors in the equation, it's usually impossible to determine exactly why (say a pressure switch setpoint) As Found setpoint varies between calibration intervals. Could be any one of several factors that amount to random variance or possibly a bias. But all we can (usually) know is that "it" changed.

The UN report concluded that temperature trends were explainable, essentially, as a bias factor (Anthropogenic Global Warming). Its not quite the same thing as an instrument setting calculation but a reasonable comparison. Back then, I never thought the UN analysis could withstand a rigorous 95/95 confidence examination (esp given underlying data quality concerns and hand waving arguments - that still exist) but i stopped following the issue rigorously once politics got more seriously involved and everyone's emotions flared.  It's become a matter of almost faith, a litmus test on both sides now. I have people regularly tell me climate is changing and they don't know a millibar from a candybar. And life's too short to deal with that kind of idiocy. 

It’s not your point but haven’t we gotten a lot more data sets, since 2001, that can more firmly point in that direction though? Wouldn’t that reversion to mean have started to occur? 

I wish politics weren’t involved but it was inevitable. I see similarities with the vaccine stuff. 

I do agree that most of our belly-aching is just random variance. Possibly with one or two exceptions. If you hit black on the roulette wheel for 3 straight, your chances of hitting on black for the fourth spin are still 50/50. Even though it doesn’t seem fair- surely red is due! 
 

[Syrmax]

21 minutes ago, rochesterdave said:

It’s not your point but haven’t we gotten a lot more data sets, since 2001, that can more firmly point in that direction though? Wouldn’t that reversion to mean have started to occur? 

Yeah I think so. We do see interesting changes.  I suspect we are seeing, on large scales, changes that correlate (sea ice etc.). Some does not. The Antarctic isn't warming  like the Arctic etc.  I do read some on the issue still, both sides. Something gets published and I look at the other side to see which one seems to hold water best but i have too many other interests to spend the time I used to on it.

My concern is that I'm fairly certain that interests on both sides are well entrenched and predisposed to certain positions for various reasons. Its damn near impossible for the layperson to discern truth from Agenda-driven distortions.  And that's not just this issue. 

I tend to default to the idea that we are conducting a bit of a science project on ourselves with CO2.  Not all outcomes will be as dire as some hysterical projections (some could actually be good on a local or regional scale, depending on your viewpoint).  Look at the medieval warm period...life was better! Serfs were slogging around in 50 degree mud versus 45 degree mud! Bring out your dead...

[cleetussnow]

there is a coastal hugger coming in at hr. 210.  Goes right up the Hudson.  I where do I sign?  

[96blizz]

Fool me once...

[Ericjcrash]

40 minutes ago, 96blizz said:

Fool me once...

Yeah I expect more flooding, not 10" of snow on a frontal passage 

[rochesterdave]

I’d rather have it here knowing the indices and our record. 

[wolfie09]

We finally have the para back on PW, updates 4 times a day as well..

[wolfie09]

Farther west at 12z..

[rochesterdave]

The problem with these anafrontal lows is that their snowfall is so narrow. You get like two counties wide in snow spread. That’s impossible to forecast. 
And I don’t care what anyone says, after the front passes everything shuts off. There is NEVER post frontal snow accumulations unless you’re in traditional lake belts. 

[rochesterdave]

Just now, wolfie09 said:

Farther west at 12z..

Another cutter. 

[rochesterdave]

Sure......

[cleetussnow]

10 minutes ago, rochesterdave said:

Sure......

Lotta sleet.