January 12-13 Thread the Needle Snow Event

[Powerball]

lol

[michsnowfreak]

20 minutes ago, beavis1729 said:

I clearly said that "I'm not suggesting that today's measurements are purposely overinflated".  I'm just saying it was different 50-100 years ago.  Why is that so controversial?  People use stats in misleading ways all the time, whether intentionally or not.  Measurements of average Chicago snowfall over the years have been distorted by changes in measuring techniques (probably didn't used to measure every 6 hours or be extremely precise on minor dustings) and changes in location...which suggests that the low-snowfall winters in the early-mid 20th century would have probably had higher totals if they were measured at ORD and using today's measuring techniques.  It's not a difficult concept or thought process, and it's not intended to personally insult anyone.  It's simply something for people to keep in mind when throwing numbers around.  

It's ironic that you say, "people use stats in misleading ways all the time, whether intentionally or not" when one of your biggest soap boxes is to use the period of record that is BY FAR Chicago's coldest of the entire climate record as the baseline (and you often make that even colder than numbers indicate). But I just want to know where you are getting this idea that dustings didn't count in the old days lol. I mean there's literally zero proof of that, not to mention as myself and hoosier already pointed out, since records started there have been 0.1" snowfalls. Actually, some of the oldest weatherbooks are fascinating to look at if you ever take a trip to the NWS. They would put detailed narratives of the weather.

[Hoosier]

8 minutes ago, beavis1729 said:

I clearly said that "I'm not suggesting that today's measurements are purposely overinflated".  I'm just saying it was different 50-100 years ago.  Why is that so controversial?  People use stats in misleading ways all the time, whether intentionally or not.  Measurements of average Chicago snowfall over the years have been distorted by changes in measuring techniques (probably didn't used to measure every 6 hours or be extremely precise on minor dustings) and changes in location...which suggests that the low-snowfall winters in the early-mid 20th century would have probably had higher totals if they were measured at ORD and using today's measuring techniques.  It's not a difficult concept or thought process, and it's not intended to personally insult anyone.  It's simply something for people to keep in mind when throwing numbers around.  

This seems like it would be pretty difficult to sort out.  In early season, a more inland location like ORD would have an advantage over downtown/lakeside when winds are onshore due to the mild water temps.  But downtown/lakeside would have an advantage with something occurring later in the season or a very cold early season event with onshore winds via a boost from the lake.  

Downtown would've outsnowed ORD in some years.  Maybe not a majority of years, but probably not a particularly unusual occurrence.

[beavis1729]

10 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

This seems like it would be pretty difficult to sort out.  In early season, a more inland location like ORD would have an advantage over downtown/lakeside when winds are onshore due to the mild water temps.  But downtown/lakeside would have an advantage with something occurring later in the season or a very cold early season event with onshore winds via a boost from the lake.  

Downtown would've outsnowed ORD in some years.  Maybe not a majority of years, but probably not a particularly unusual occurrence.

Possibly for some lake enhanced events…but, overall, I think downtown (either due to melting on contact due to the urban jungle or marine influence early in the season) has materially less snow than ORD throughout the historical record. 
 

And I know many of us are on a short fuse these days. Look at the AmWx forum overall, it’s a disaster. Boston, NYC, PHL, and DC have had zero snow all season. I know that’s not unprecedented in DC…but this is getting pretty ridiculous for all locations east of the Mississippi and south of 45N. Sure, Buffalo and Watertown are exceptions…but their rapid melting following two large events is sad in its own way. 

[Danny8]

On 1/11/2023 at 11:53 AM, Jackstraw said:

That 200 mile long lake enhanced streamer off of lake Michigan is flabbergasting lol

So is that a lake-enhanced streamer really hitting Indianapolis area now?

 

[Hoosier]

Number of days with exactly 0.1" of snow in Chicago by decade.  Started this list in 1900 as snowfall records for Chicago didn't begin until 1884, and a number of years in the 1890s have missing daily data.  Data set is almost complete from the 1900s onward, with the exceptions being the year 1900 and a small part of the 1990s.

1900-1909:  53

1910-1919:  53

1920-1929:  48

1930-1939:  31

1940-1949:  57

1950-1959:  47

1960-1969:  38

1970-1979:  55

1980-1989:  46

1990-1999:  24

2000-2009:  54

2010-2019:  46

[Hoosier]

21 minutes ago, beavis1729 said:

Possibly for some lake enhanced events…but, overall, I think downtown (either due to melting on contact due to the urban jungle or marine influence early in the season) has materially less snow than ORD throughout the historical record. 
 

And I know many of us are on a short fuse these days. Look at the AmWx forum overall, it’s a disaster. Boston, NYC, PHL, and DC have had zero snow all season. I know that’s not unprecedented in DC…but this is getting pretty ridiculous for all locations east of the Mississippi and south of 45N.

As an example, I'd be confident that downtown got more snow than ORD in winter 2020-21, largely courtesy of this event:

 

Now how many times has it occurred throughout history? Who knows.

[Chicago Storm]

1 hour ago, beavis1729 said:

I clearly said that "I'm not suggesting that today's measurements are purposely overinflated".  I'm just saying it was different 50-100 years ago.  Why is that so controversial?  People use stats in misleading ways all the time, whether intentionally or not.  Measurements of average Chicago snowfall over the years have been distorted by changes in measuring techniques (probably didn't used to measure every 6 hours or be extremely precise on minor dustings) and changes in location...which suggests that the low-snowfall winters in the early-mid 20th century would have probably had higher totals if they were measured at ORD and using today's measuring techniques.  It's not a difficult concept or thought process, and it's not intended to personally insult anyone.  It's simply something for people to keep in mind when throwing numbers around.  

if you want to make that weak argument, let's look at a few random RFD climate periods...

Snowfall average for 1901-1930 climate period: 22.8"

Snowfall average for 1931-1960 climate period: 31.6"

Snowfall average for 1991-2020 climate period: 37.1"

[michsnowfreak]

39 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

Number of days with exactly 0.1" of snow in Chicago by decade.  Started this list in 1900 as snowfall records for Chicago didn't begin until 1884, and a number of years in the 1890s have missing daily data.  Data set is almost complete from the 1900s onward, with the exceptions being the year 1900 and a small part of the 1990s.

1900-1909:  53

1910-1919:  53

1920-1929:  48

1930-1939:  31

1940-1949:  57

1950-1959:  47

1960-1969:  38

1970-1979:  55

1980-1989:  46

1990-1999:  24

2000-2009:  54

2010-2019:  46

You prompted me to look it up for Detroit as this is a stat I've never looked up lol. As you can see, plenty of 0.1s since the records began. Of course every season also has dozens of traces.
1880s- 70
1890s- 62
1900s- 74
1910s- 74
1920s- 76
1930s- 73
1940s- 60
1950s- 75
1960s- 83
1970s- 81
1980s- 64
1990s- 43
2000s- 68
2010s- 72

[beavis1729]

4 minutes ago, Chicago Storm said:

if you want to make that weak argument, let's look at a few random RFD climate periods...

Snowfall average for 1901-1930 climate period: 22.8"

Snowfall average for 1931-1960 climate period: 31.6"

Snowfall average for 1991-2020 climate period: 37.1"

Thanks for digging up the numbers...and the RFD observing site hasn't changed locations materially (as far as I'm aware).  So, in the old days, either RFD observers simply reported snowfall totals based on the depth after settling/compaction (resulting in lower snowfall totals vs. today's measuring guidelines)...or RFD's snow climo is incredibly horrendous and this is one of the most shocking data points I've ever seen on this board.  If it's the latter, then I really don't know what to say.  It would be one more in an extremely long list of data points which shows how horrible winter climo is in N IL.

How can RFD only average 22.8" of snow over a 30-year period??  Hell, even one year of 22.8" is unacceptable.  If this is really true and we're eventually going to regress to the mean, then there's no point in hoping for sustained winter in these parts.  And I thought 40" per season was bad...  

[roardog]

I think we can all agree that the bottom line is that Bevis just has unrealistic expectations for where he lives. Northern Minnesota would be a better place for him to live. I’m not sure even the UP of Michigan would work because it doesn’t get cold enough there. 

[mimillman]

I love beavis. Keep it up 

[cyclone77]

38 minutes ago, mimillman said:

I love beavis. Keep it up 

Beavis for moderator?

[bowtie`]

7 hours ago, Danny8 said:

So is that a lake-enhanced streamer really hitting Indianapolis area now?

 

Sorry to be so late, but yes. The roofs and grass are white but the roads are not. So the winter weenies probably would not call this being hit by anything. And this does happen from time to time. When the flow is just right and there is a disturbance or weakness in just the right place it can snow here and not closer to the lake.

[beavis1729]

2 hours ago, cyclone77 said:

Beavis for moderator?

Bring it on - then of course I would drive everyone crazy and they’ll ban me. 

[RogueWaves]

On 1/9/2023 at 4:22 PM, IWXwx said:

Congrats ORD/DTW Quebec

Cold rain with wraparound mood flakes for DTW, per usual.

FYP

On 1/9/2023 at 7:06 PM, mimillman said:

ORD. This is for DTW

Haha! I wish

On 1/10/2023 at 10:42 PM, Hoosier said:

Always count on DTW to score if it's not MSP.

Haha! Wrong again! 

Soooo glad I only invested about 2 mins on this one.

Next SEMI turd already in the pipeline

[Hoosier]

1 hour ago, RogueWaves said:

FYP

Haha! I wish

Haha! Wrong again! 

Soooo glad I only invested about 2 mins on this one.

Next SEMI turd already in the pipeline

Re:  the next storm...

The dominant trend on systems overall has been south/east as they get closer.  The problem is if that occurs, then it would probably be a weaker system for your area. 

[Hoosier]

I guess the other concern is that the se trend has a way of not showing up when you need it.