March Medium/Long Range Discussion

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

36 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

This is exactly what I was talking about. Everytime I bring up a marginal event that went the wrong way someone brings up the reasons it wasn’t colder because every factor wasn’t perfect. We’ve snowed in a -NAO but flawed pac pattern before. The airmass wasn’t putrid in early Feb. There had been an injection of some attic air from brief cross polar flow in late January. It wasn’t a fresh arctic airmass by then but that setup has worked plenty of times. It worked in Feb 2010!!!  
 

Im not sure exactly what you’re point is. Are you denying it’s several degrees warmer now than it was?  Are you denying the fact that being warmer means some storms that would have worked and been a 32/33 degree snow before is rain now?  That seems a pretty simple and obvious conclusion. Our falling snow means bear it out. What’s more troubling is our median is dropping like a rock. The mean is being propped up some by an uptick (until recently) of big storms and big years. But the % of single digit snow years is way higher now than any past periods in records. 
 

Everytine I bring up a synoptic event that I feel should have been snow based on historical norms someone basically says “but it didn’t snow because it was too warm for this or that reason”. Well ya!  My point is but if it’s 3 degrees warmer now and it was a 36 degree rain event…well do the math!  Maybe instead of it being slightly too warm because of whatever imperfections you being up 50 years ago it was just cold enough to overcome it. The vast majority of past snow events in Baltimore were flawed and we had to overcome something not right about the pattern. We won’t snow often if we need a perfect setup. 

Agree...and good points again about the number of single-digit seasons in the DC area over time, with the mean being fluffed somewhat by the more extreme events.  Here's a question, though maybe you implied this in your discussion here:  How much of the "fewer marginal events" are due more to lower level BL temperatures above the surface?  Or even upwards of 850mb?  So maybe the surface would be OK for snow with good rates (33-35 degrees, say), but what would have previously been "cold enough" at, say, 925mb or a bit above is now "too warm" and you don't get as much snow (white rain, etc.).  That all kind of fits in with the general warming climate I believe.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

3 minutes ago, Weather Will said:

New thread is there… fingers crossed that everyone has a wintry Saturday!!!

Are snow maps welcome?? 

[anotherman]

2 minutes ago, Always in Zugzwang said:

Are snow maps welcome?? 

No, not that!

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

3 minutes ago, anotherman said:

No, not that!

[mappy]

59 minutes ago, stormtracker said:

ALWAYS works out.  We'll be fine.  I'.m 100% sure I will be getting 2 to 4 inches of snow in mid march in the afternoon.   Why are you so negative?!!?

because its not going to snow as much as these silly ass clown maps keep showing. and frankly, I don't want it. So I do not care. 

[TSSN+]

12z 3km Nam cause why not. 

[Maestrobjwa]

3 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

This is exactly what I was talking about. Everytime I bring up a marginal event that went the wrong way someone brings up the reasons it wasn’t colder because every factor wasn’t perfect. We’ve snowed in a -NAO but flawed pac pattern before. The airmass wasn’t putrid in early Feb. There had been an injection of some attic air from brief cross polar flow in late January. It wasn’t a fresh arctic airmass by then but that setup has worked plenty of times. It worked in Feb 2010!!!  
 

Im not sure exactly what you’re point is. Are you denying it’s several degrees warmer now than it was?  Are you denying the fact that being warmer means some storms that would have worked and been a 32/33 degree snow before is rain now?  That seems a pretty simple and obvious conclusion. Our falling snow means bear it out. What’s more troubling is our median is dropping like a rock. The mean is being propped up some by an uptick (until recently) of big storms and big years. But the % of single digit snow years is way higher now than any past periods in records. 
 

Everytine I bring up a synoptic event that I feel should have been snow based on historical norms someone basically says “but it didn’t snow because it was too warm for this or that reason”. Well ya!  My point is but if it’s 3 degrees warmer now and it was a 36 degree rain event…well do the math!  Maybe instead of it being slightly too warm because of whatever imperfections you being up 50 years ago it was just cold enough to overcome it. The vast majority of past snow events in Baltimore were flawed and we had to overcome something not right about the pattern. We won’t snow often if we need a perfect setup. 

With all due respect, I thougt I kinda stated my point: I question whether it's too soon to say it's gonna keep getting harder to snow. I bring up the mediocre periods of 5-7 years we saw at various points over the last 4-5 decades to compare it to now. Even you yourself said that your theory is more deductive reasoning--and I'm not knocking that method, btw. But in that method, of course...there are less hard data points for comparison. Thus, the reason I bring up previous mediocre periods to better see if what we are dealing with is something we've seen before or not.

I guess that kinda summarizes my point:

1) Do we have enough evidence to definitvely say this will continue? Is 6-7 years really a big enough sample size? (now if you are referring to before 2016 my apologies if I missed that)

2) Have we seen this before in previous mediocre snow periods?

maybe a deep dive into the "intersnowy" periods, (as someone aptly titled a thread) may bear out what you say. Now I'm not sure...but are you

And I'm not saying you're definitely wrong (I respect your opinion)--and yeah I have an obvious bias of hoping you're NOT onto something, lol--but I'd like to see a little more--both time, and more hard comparisons to before (even if we go back just 30 years and look forward from there).

[anotherman]

1 hour ago, mappy said:

because its not going to snow as much as these silly ass clown maps keep showing. and frankly, I don't want it. So I do not care. 

It's only one more, and then spring will be fully sprung.  I'm going to enjoy whatever winter has left to share with us.

[mappy]

1 minute ago, anotherman said:

It's only one more, and then spring will be fully sprung.  I'm going to enjoy whatever winter has left to share with us.

as you should. dont let me stop you. 

[Bob Chill]

1 hour ago, Always in Zugzwang said:

Agree...and good points again about the number of single-digit seasons in the DC area over time, with the mean being fluffed somewhat by the more extreme events.  Here's a question, though maybe you implied this in your discussion here:  How much of the "fewer marginal events" are due more to lower level BL temperatures above the surface?  Or even upwards of 850mb?  So maybe the surface would be OK for snow with good rates (33-35 degrees, say), but what would have previously been "cold enough" at, say, 925mb or a bit above is now "too warm" and you don't get as much snow (white rain, etc.).  That all kind of fits in with the general warming climate I believe.

In my brain, I keep it pretty simple. To me, the trends look exactly like "climo lines creeping north". My yard today probably has winter wx far closer to Doswell, VA than the yards I grew up in in the 70s and 80s here. It's only a 90 minute drive but it makes a big difference. York PA winter weenies prob feel the same way just different reference points.

SNE hasn't been affected nearly as much because they usually have a lot of wiggle room. Especially on warm side of storms. Anywhere south of NYC all the way to Raleigh probably have similar thoughts to me.

OTOH- climo lines have been constantly moving waaaay before man was even around. I don't doubt our messy ways have affected the atmosphere. If everyone was being honest with themselves we wouldn't have "deniers". But how much? Who's to say we don't enter a cold period regardless of our bad habits? Watch and wait is all I can do. 

[WinterWxLuvr]

3 minutes ago, Bob Chill said:

If everyone was being honest with themselves we wouldn't have "deniers". But how much? Who's to say we don't enter a cold period regardless of our bad habits? Watch and wait is all I can do. 

I like this. I don’t consider myself a denier, but I’m also not sold on the notion that we “know” to what extent we are contributing. I know our contributions aren’t good. I also know that climate is in a constant state of flux and always has been. I bristle at the notion that “climate” can be evaluated on small time scales. 10 years isn’t climate. Heck 100 is nothing on planetary climate scales. Certainly snowfall data over 20 years is gonna provide a bunch of incorrect assumptions and deductions.

I can say this and feel absolutely certain of it … the status quo in climate is not attainable no matter what we do. I also say that we need to do everything we can to limit our impact on the planet. These things aren’t mutually exclusive. One thing I pray that humans can come to a realization of is that we are not in control. A big fear I have is that we are someday gonna convince ourselves that we can alter/control weather. We try that one and we may join the 99.9% of all species that have ever lived on this planet that are now extinct.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

10 minutes ago, Bob Chill said:

In my brain, I keep it pretty simple. To me, the trends look exactly like "climo lines creeping north". My yard today probably has winter wx far closer to Doswell, VA than the yards I grew up in in the 70s and 80s here. It's only a 90 minute drive but it makes a big difference. York PA winter weenies prob feel the same way just different reference points.

SNE hasn't been affected nearly as much because they usually have a lot of wiggle room. Especially on warm side of storms. Anywhere south of NYC all the way to Raleigh probably have similar thoughts to me.

OTOH- climo lines have been constantly moving waaaay before man was even around. I don't doubt our messy ways have affected the atmosphere. If everyone was being honest with themselves we wouldn't have "deniers". But how much? Who's to say we don't enter a cold period regardless of our bad habits? Watch and wait is all I can do. 

Thanks, Bob.  Appreciate your comments and I agree with most everything you say here.  I certainly believe humans have impacted the climate, evidence shows that, and it's happened over a relatively short period of time relative to the scale of eras and whatnot.  To what extent or how much it will affect future climate conditions, I don't know exactly.  Besides any "climate" concerns, I strongly feel it's a very good idea for us folks to do what we can to take care of things just for our own health and existence.  I've felt for some time that we eventually really need to get off our dependence on dead dinosaurs for energy.

You mention the climo lines creeping north, and it made me think of something, though this is anecdotal.  My home town of Cleveland and northeast Ohio is well north of that "creeping line" (at least for awhile!) compared to here.  What I've noticed is that they seem to get more juicy winter events compared to what I grew up with; not to mention lake effect.  I think this is reflected in their average snowfall, which has gone up over the years.  KCLE averaged about the mid-50" range for snow annually when I was growing up...it's now like 60" or so.  I think that's a result of what you mentioned.  New England I guess is perhaps in a similar place in that regard.

[psuhoffman]

2 hours ago, Always in Zugzwang said:

Agree...and good points again about the number of single-digit seasons in the DC area over time, with the mean being fluffed somewhat by the more extreme events.  Here's a question, though maybe you implied this in your discussion here:  How much of the "fewer marginal events" are due more to lower level BL temperatures above the surface?  Or even upwards of 850mb?  So maybe the surface would be OK for snow with good rates (33-35 degrees, say), but what would have previously been "cold enough" at, say, 925mb or a bit above is now "too warm" and you don't get as much snow (white rain, etc.).  That all kind of fits in with the general warming climate I believe.

The boundary is being affected most, especially with UHI effects...but the warming is affecting all levels to some degree.  I think just from anecdotal observation the events being hurt the most are boundary layer issue events...where its just cold enough at mid and upper levels but we need the surface to cool...and its just not.  But its affecting other events too...if the 850's end up 1 degree too warm!  And what we can't measure are how many events where the whole boundary is sensitive to minor changes and so the whole storm ends up 100 miles further north than it would have been 50 years ago!  That's really hard to quantify.  But its easier IMO to see an event where the surface took a perfect track, the mid and upper levels were just cold enough...and the surface simply ended up 3 degrees too warm, and in that case to say...yea this probably would have worked out 50 years ago.  

[psuhoffman]

1 hour ago, Maestrobjwa said:

With all due respect, I thougt I kinda stated my point: I question whether it's too soon to say it's gonna keep getting harder to snow. I bring up the mediocre periods of 5-7 years we saw at various points over the last 4-5 decades to compare it to now. Even you yourself said that your theory is more deductive reasoning--and I'm not knocking that method, btw. But in that method, of course...there are less hard data points for comparison. Thus, the reason I bring up previous mediocre periods to better see if what we are dealing with is something we've seen before or not.

I guess that kinda summarizes my point:

1) Do we have enough evidence to definitvely say this will continue? Is 6-7 years really a big enough sample size? (now if you are referring to before 2016 my apologies if I missed that)

2) Have we seen this before in previous mediocre snow periods?

maybe a deep dive into the "intersnowy" periods, (as someone aptly titled a thread) may bear out what you say. Now I'm not sure...but are you

And I'm not saying you're definitely wrong (I respect your opinion)--and yeah I have an obvious bias of hoping you're NOT onto something, lol--but I'd like to see a little more--both time, and more hard comparisons to before (even if we go back just 30 years and look forward from there).

Our snow mean and median were dropping before this recent period.  I do think its likely we are in a periodic minimum and the pattern will get more snowy at some point.  God I pray that is right at least!  But even if that is true...it doesn't invalidate my point that we are losing some snow along the margins.  I do not know and cant quantify exactly which events are affected and by exactly how much.  That's a debatable thing...but the fact its snowing less is not.  

[psuhoffman]

50 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

I like this. I don’t consider myself a denier, but I’m also not sold on the notion that we “know” to what extent we are contributing.

Just want to make it clear my points have nothing to do with who or what is causing the warming.  I have my own opinions but this is not the place.  I am simply making observations on our changing snow climo, regardless of what the cause or fault of those changes are!  

[WesternFringe]

15 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

We know that snowfall is decreasing in DC and Baltimore. What’s harder to quantify is exactly what impact warming is having on specific events. It’s impossible to calculate because temps don’t act in isolation. Change the global thermal profile and the whole pattern changes and the storm isn’t even there at all anymore. But common sense would reason that it’s hurting us with marginal events most of all. I would bet your stats will show snow is being hurt most along that fringes of where its typically cold enough to snow. Like here!   Get far enough north and averages might even go up as warming causes more precip and it’s still cold enough. 

I ran the linear regression for DC annual snowfall. 

Using 1888 as the starting point, the equation is:

Annual snowfall in DC = -0.07 X # of years past 1888 + 22.9

So, on average DC is seeing 0.07" less snow per year since 1888.  The R squared value is 6%, which means that 6% of the variability from year to year is a function of the passing of time.  Another way to look at this number is that 94% of the variability from year to year is random.

 

Using 1969 as the starting point, the equation is:

Annual snowfall in DC = -0.03 X # of years past 1969 + 18.4

So, on average DC is seeing 0.03" less snow per year since 1969.  The R squared value is 0.2%, which means that 0.2% of the variability from year to year is a function of the passing of time.  Another way to look at this number is that 99.8% of the variability from year to year is random.

 

Using 1984 as the starting point, the equation is:

Annual snowfall in DC = +0.17 X # of years past 1984 + 22.9

So, on average DC is seeing 0.17" more snow per year since 1984.  The R squared value is 0.4%, which means that 0.4% of the variability from year to year is a function of the passing of time.  Another way to look at this number is that 99.6% of the variability from year to year is random.

 

Conclusion:

Annual snowfall In DC has declined on average 0.07" per year since 1888.

Annual snowfall In DC has declined on average 0.03" per year since 1969.

Annual snowfall In DC has increased on average 0.17" per year since 1984.

The vast majority of the variability (94% up to 99.8%, depending on the time period observed) from year to year is statistical noise, or random.

[SnowenOutThere]

4 minutes ago, WesternFringe said:

I ran the linear regression for DC annual snowfall. 

Using 1888 as the starting point, the equation is:

Annual snowfall in DC = -0.07 X # of years past 1888 + 22.9

So, on average DC is seeing 0.07" less snow per year since 1888.  The R squared value is 6%, which means that 6% of the variability from year to year is a function of the passing of time.  Another way to look at this number is that 94% of the variability from year to year is random.

 

Using 1969 as the starting point, the equation is:

Annual snowfall in DC = -0.03 X # of years past 1969 + 18.4

So, on average DC is seeing 0.03" less snow per year since 1969.  The R squared value is 0.2%, which means that 0.2% of the variability from year to year is a function of the passing of time.  Another way to look at this number is that 99.8% of the variability from year to year is random.

 

Using 1984 as the starting point, the equation is:

Annual snowfall in DC = +0.17 X # of years past 1984 + 22.9

So, on average DC is seeing 0.17" more snow per year since 1984.  The R squared value is 0.4%, which means that 0.4% of the variability from year to year is a function of the passing of time.  Another way to look at this number is that 99.6% of the variability from year to year is random.

 

Conclusion:

Annual snowfall In DC has declined on average 0.07" per year since 1888.

Annual snowfall In DC has declined on average 0.03" per year since 1969.

Annual snowfall In DC has increased on average 0.17" per year since 1984.

The vast majority of the variability (94% up to 99.8%, depending on the time period observed) from year to year is statistical noise, or random.

Assuming you coded it, what language and environment did you use? Could you also try and make the graph have a visual component, I understand that depending on how its written that might not be possible. 

[psuhoffman]

27 minutes ago, WesternFringe said:

I ran the linear regression for DC annual snowfall. 

Using 1888 as the starting point, the equation is:

Annual snowfall in DC = -0.07 X # of years past 1888 + 22.9

So, on average DC is seeing 0.07" less snow per year since 1888.  The R squared value is 6%, which means that 6% of the variability from year to year is a function of the passing of time.  Another way to look at this number is that 94% of the variability from year to year is random.

 

Using 1969 as the starting point, the equation is:

Annual snowfall in DC = -0.03 X # of years past 1969 + 18.4

So, on average DC is seeing 0.03" less snow per year since 1969.  The R squared value is 0.2%, which means that 0.2% of the variability from year to year is a function of the passing of time.  Another way to look at this number is that 99.8% of the variability from year to year is random.

 

Using 1984 as the starting point, the equation is:

Annual snowfall in DC = +0.17 X # of years past 1984 + 22.9

So, on average DC is seeing 0.17" more snow per year since 1984.  The R squared value is 0.4%, which means that 0.4% of the variability from year to year is a function of the passing of time.  Another way to look at this number is that 99.6% of the variability from year to year is random.

 

Conclusion:

Annual snowfall In DC has declined on average 0.07" per year since 1888.

Annual snowfall In DC has declined on average 0.03" per year since 1969.

Annual snowfall In DC has increased on average 0.17" per year since 1984.

The vast majority of the variability (94% up to 99.8%, depending on the time period observed) from year to year is statistical noise, or random.

This is excellent but I’d love to see this done with median! 

[WesternFringe]

5 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

This is excellent but I’d love to see this done with median! 

You read my mind!  I am going to take each decade's median and run another linear regression to find the line of best fit.

 

25 minutes ago, SnowenOutThere said:

Assuming you coded it, what language and environment did you use? Could you also try and make the graph have a visual component, I understand that depending on how its written that might not be possible. 

I just did it in Google Sheets rather than Excel since I am on a Chromebook.  I will share a link to the document and graphs when I get a little further on.

[stormtracker]

So...after tomorrow, we done?

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

16 minutes ago, stormtracker said:

So...after tomorrow, we done?

Yup, I think we wrap up the quest after tomorrow...until next winter!

[Maestrobjwa]

1 minute ago, Always in Zugzwang said:

Yup, I think we wrap up the quest after tomorrow...until next winter!

Ah but the next quest will now begin...for Niño 2022-23! 

[CAPE]

3 hours ago, stormtracker said:

So...after tomorrow, we done?

Welcome, Spring.

 

[Ji]

Welcome, Spring.

 

I keep reading Judah and the pv split later this month. I mean who cares now but he seems excited by it

[87storms]

On 3/10/2022 at 12:59 PM, WesternFringe said:

I ran the linear regression for DC annual snowfall. 

Using 1888 as the starting point, the equation is:

Annual snowfall in DC = -0.07 X # of years past 1888 + 22.9

So, on average DC is seeing 0.07" less snow per year since 1888.  The R squared value is 6%, which means that 6% of the variability from year to year is a function of the passing of time.  Another way to look at this number is that 94% of the variability from year to year is random.

 

Using 1969 as the starting point, the equation is:

Annual snowfall in DC = -0.03 X # of years past 1969 + 18.4

So, on average DC is seeing 0.03" less snow per year since 1969.  The R squared value is 0.2%, which means that 0.2% of the variability from year to year is a function of the passing of time.  Another way to look at this number is that 99.8% of the variability from year to year is random.

 

Using 1984 as the starting point, the equation is:

Annual snowfall in DC = +0.17 X # of years past 1984 + 22.9

So, on average DC is seeing 0.17" more snow per year since 1984.  The R squared value is 0.4%, which means that 0.4% of the variability from year to year is a function of the passing of time.  Another way to look at this number is that 99.6% of the variability from year to year is random.

 

Conclusion:

Annual snowfall In DC has declined on average 0.07" per year since 1888.

Annual snowfall In DC has declined on average 0.03" per year since 1969.

Annual snowfall In DC has increased on average 0.17" per year since 1984.

The vast majority of the variability (94% up to 99.8%, depending on the time period observed) from year to year is statistical noise, or random.

this is good stuff.  i think the R^2 would probably stay low regardless of the variance since we're not talking about huge shifts in the average (though enough to be obvious).  what's more concerning is the median which is lower since '84 even with the increase in average during that time span (i just quickly ran some numbers).  the variability is definitely still there, but what may happen if temps continue to trend upward is less snow days, but when it does, larger totals (which for now, seems to be offsetting things when the data is spread out over several winters).

[Ji]

GFS a little wetter for us city folk.  I'm surrounded in here by mountain folks.  Wake up you mofos

Are you high...and in the wrong thread?

[stormtracker]

9 minutes ago, Ji said:

20 minutes ago, stormtracker said:

GFS a little wetter for us city folk.  I'm surrounded in here by mountain folks.  Wake up you mofos

Are you high...and in the wrong thread?

Yes.  Clearly I am high.  The first thing I do while and after I smoke up is come to a weather board to talk about the GFS.

[Bob Chill]

3 hours ago, stormtracker said:

Yes.  Clearly I am high.  The first thing I do while and after I smoke up is come to a weather board to talk about the GFS.

I do the opposite. I come to this forum, start considering jabbing ice picks in my eyeballs, THEN it gets really really REALLY haaaaaazy uppin dacrib

[vastateofmind]

3 hours ago, Bob Chill said:

I do the opposite. I come to this forum, start considering jabbing ice picks in my eyeballs, THEN it gets really really REALLY haaaaaazy uppin dacrib

Already used earlier this week in reference to AmPol, but perhaps applicable here:

[Weather Will]

If it were not late March.. 12Z ensembles CMC and EPS,