El Nino 2023-2024

[so_whats_happening]

17 minutes ago, griteater said:

Good link here for SST re-analysis - psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/printpage.pl

You can compare older years against its climate period.  Image below is Oct-Dec 1955 compared against 1930-1960...hardcore -PDO & La Nina

Wonderful! Thank you very much.

You can see how the pressure tendencies change with water temps.

[Typhoon Tip]

Good conversation ...

... I think some on both sides could stand to add a spice of 'relativity'.   Just a suggestion.   Not judging.  Not pointing fingers.  In fact, I'm not sure who all said what ... I was reading quickly thru the posts. 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

3 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Good conversation ...

... I think some on both sides could stand to a spice of 'relativity'.   Just a suggestion.   Not judging.  Not pointing fingers.  In fact, I'm not sure who all said what ... I was reading quickly thru the posts. 

 

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I'm sure there is simply less cold available in the absolute sense, but the pattern last year sucked and we also had some bad breaks.

[so_whats_happening]

27 minutes ago, griteater said:

Good link here for SST re-analysis - psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/printpage.pl

You can compare older years against its climate period.  Image below is Oct-Dec 1955 compared against 1930-1960...hardcore -PDO & La Nina

For DJF purposes this was the 1956 to their baseline climo as compared to 2023 compared to the default used. Tried to use a similar difference in comparison between the two.

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Well, that is a big leap that will certainly warrant much more time to confidently discern. We have yet to see one of those theories persevere, whether it be the warm blob in the north Pacific, or changes in the arctic....time will tell.

Not really. All these theories have played out in some way shape or form. The 500 mb pattern that produced the warm blob most likely had its roots in the WPAC warm pool at around 15N. While it turned out to be a two winter wonder in 13-14 and 14-15, it shifted seasonality after that point. Plenty of historic droughts, heatwaves, and ridges over the Western part of North America since then during the warm season.

As for the Arctic, many people were focused in on 2012. But the big shift to warmer and thinner sea ice occurred back in 2007. Some would say why haven’t we become ice free after 2012? Recent studies have identified the much younger ice packs as the culprit. This has lead to slower extent changes overall as this type of pack behaves differently. We are still waiting for the recovery to the pre-2007 Arctic to play out.

The question about small sample sizes and relative short duration for weather patterns to establish new trends is a good one. We know how the climatology community likes to look at longer term averages for trends. But sometimes this takes time for shorter term changes to register in the weather forecasting psyche. Many changes are only recognized while looking back in the rear view mirror. But using changes on shorter term time scales has proven effective in seasonal forecasting during recent years. So it can still be of value even before some of the longer term climate purists begrudgingly accept it. 
 

[40/70 Benchmark]

25 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Not really. All these theories have played out in some way shape or form. The 500 mb pattern that produced the warm blob most likely had its roots in the WPAC warm pool at around 15N. While it turned out to be a two winter wonder in 13-14 and 14-15, it shifted seasonality after that point. Plenty of historic droughts, heatwaves, and ridges over the Western part of North America since then during the warm season.

As for the Arctic, many people were focused in on 2012. But the big shift to warmer and thinner sea ice occurred back in 2007. Some would say why haven’t we become ice free after 2012? Recent studies have identified the much younger ice packs as the culprit. This has lead to slower extent changes overall as this type of pack behaves differently. We are still waiting for the recovery to the pre-2007 Arctic to play out.

The question about small sample sizes and relative short duration for weather patterns to establish new trends is a good one. We know how the climatology community likes to look at longer term averages for trends. But sometimes this takes time for shorter term changes to register in the weather forecasting psyche. Many changes are only recognized while looking back in the rear view mirror. But using changes on shorter term time scales has proven effective in seasonal forecasting during recent years. So it can still be of value even before some of the longer term climate purists begrudgingly accept it.

Well, I disagree. Its easy to blame every drought and heatwave on GW. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Anomalies have and always exist independent of CC.

[so_whats_happening]

1 hour ago, griteater said:

Good link here for SST re-analysis - psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/printpage.pl

You can compare older years against its climate period.  Image below is Oct-Dec 1955 compared against 1930-1960...hardcore -PDO & La Nina

So only issue I have with this is where are the anomaly ranges?

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Well, I disagree. Its easy to blame every drought and heatwave on GW. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Anomalies have and always exist independent of CC.

I think of it more as changing background conditions leading to new probability distributions. Not that we can’t get the older patterns from time to time in the future. Just that the combinations  leading to warmer outcomes will have a greater chance of occurring now. Kinda of like playing with a loaded set of dice in a casino or using steroids in baseball to hit more home runs. So a warmer climate changes the character of the anomalies and extremes. Like power hitters will hit more and longer homers with steroids. Not that there would be no anomalies or home runs absent increased warming and steroid usage. So some of the very cold seasonal forecasts issued in recent years are overlooking the fact that the game is getting rigged in favor or warmer outcomes. 

[brooklynwx99]

in terms of snowfall, CC is just leading to more variance. when you bust, you bust, but in good winters it'll boom more than usual

2009-10 and 2014-15 are good examples of booms... 2022-23 and 2019-20 are good example of busts

[jm1220]

29 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

in terms of snowfall, CC is just leading to more variance. when you bust, you bust, but in good winters it'll boom more than usual

2009-10 and 2014-15 are good examples of booms... 2022-23 and 2019-20 are good example of busts

I agree with this pretty much. It probably does make a “fair dice” come up little/no snow more often than 40 years ago due to the background warming, and certain other things like fewer/no minor clippers anymore that would be good for a few inches are head scratchers. The background “perma-Nina” because of the piping hot W Pacific is something else that needs more study. In general Niña isn’t a good state south of New England although down to Philly it isn’t a kiss of death and we can get it to work out like in 17-18 or 10-11. Last season was just a combo of the worst possible factors like the record -PNA. That shouldn’t mean record snow for LA but that’s how insanely negative it was. That will never be good for most of the Northeast/Mid Atlantic. 

[ORH_wxman]

30 minutes ago, bluewave said:

I think of it more as changing background conditions leading to new probability distributions. Not that we can’t get the older patterns from time to time in the future. Just that the combinations  leading to warmer outcomes will have a greater chance of occurring now. Kinda of like playing with a loaded set of dice in a casino or using steroids in baseball to hit more home runs. So a warmer climate changes the character of the anomalies and extremes. Like power hitters will hit more and longer homers with steroids. Not that there would be no anomalies or home runs absent increased warming and steroid usage. So some of the very cold seasonal forecasts issued in recent years are overlooking the fact that the game is getting rigged in favor or warmer outcomes. 

I agree with the loaded dice comment....I think where you and I probably fundamentally disagree the most is how much weight we are putting on these shorter term patterns. I view most of them as natural variation that exist on top of an underlying warming trend which CC enhances or mutes....which means that when we get a canonical warm pattern, its REALLY warm and when we get a canonical cold pattern, it's not as cold as the previous ones. 

It's why I refer back to earlier proclamations of regime shifts that didn't stand up over time. The "new hot thing" back in the 2009-2014 years was the "warm arctic, cold continents" pattern in winter that CC had driven because of low sea ice. Several peer-reviewed papers were published on this topic. There was legit discussion about how these patterns might be paradoxically more common because of CC.....then it all shifted away from that theory quite quickly in the following 8-9 years. Prior to that, we had peer reviewed literature talking about a semi-permanent +NAO/AO based on the big increase in those patterns in the 1980s/1990s....and then the 2000s of course shifted the other way.

Now maybe CC has caused a near-permanent SE ridge which means 2016-2023 is the new normal....again, I would bet against that, but maybe this time it will stand the test of time unlike the previous shifts. I do think it's good to look at the effects of SST warming in regional spots....but at the same time, warming is not evenly distributed on a temporal/spacial scale and relative changes will cause certain areas to cool or warm differently than perhaps they did in the previous decade or two. Prior to the mid-2000s, the fastest warming region in the CONUS was the upper plains/Rockies....now they are the slowest warming region in the CONUS while New England and SE Canada are the fastest.

 

[griteater]

57 minutes ago, so_whats_happening said:

So only issue I have with this is where are the anomaly ranges?

Yeah, that's really weird.  I don't recall seeing that in the past.  You can set your interval and range on the entry page...but not sure why the ranges are missing on the output

[brooklynwx99]

52 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

I agree with this pretty much. It probably does make a “fair dice” come up little/no snow more often than 40 years ago due to the background warming, and certain other things like fewer/no minor clippers anymore that would be good for a few inches are head scratchers. The background “perma-Nina” because of the piping hot W Pacific is something else that needs more study. In general Niña isn’t a good state south of New England although down to Philly it isn’t a kiss of death and we can get it to work out like in 17-18 or 10-11. Last season was just a combo of the worst possible factors like the record -PNA. That shouldn’t mean record snow for LA but that’s how insanely negative it was. That will never be good for most of the Northeast/Mid Atlantic. 

based on CC, NYC/BWI have the best chances they've ever had to see respective 70"/50" winters... but that comes with the added disadvantage of seeing a real dud, too. that dud happened last year

[bluewave]

49 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

It's why I refer back to earlier proclamations of regime shifts that didn't stand up over time. The "new hot thing" back in the 2009-2014 years was the "warm arctic, cold continents" pattern in winter that CC had driven because of low sea ice. Several peer-reviewed papers were published on this topic. There was legit discussion about how these patterns might be paradoxically more common because of CC.....then it all shifted away from that theory quite quickly in the following 8-9 years. Prior to that, we had peer reviewed literature talking about a semi-permanent +NAO/AO based on the big increase in those patterns in the 1980s/1990s....and then the 2000s of course shifted the other way.

The one NAO study that has really stood the test of time published back in 2009 was that NAO extremes have been found to increase along with the warming climate. Much larger amplitude and variation between positive and negative states since the Industrial Revolution as the climate has warmed. So a record number of both highs and lows. But one state hasn’t been favored over another. So in effect, the more negative state in 09-10 and 10-11 and more positive in the early 90s or even 11-12, 14-15, and 19-20 are both a function of a warmer atmosphere. The most violent NAO swings on record occurred shortly following the publication of this study. There were multiple seasons with very large swings with in about a month of each other like we saw from December 2015 to January 2016. Same goes for other years like 2017-2018. And other years since 2010. 

https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-release/study-links-swings-in-north-atlantic-oscillation-variability-to-climate-warming/

January 13, 2009

Using a 218-year-long temperature record from a Bermuda brain coral, researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) have created the first marine-based reconstruction showing the long-term behavior of one of the most important drivers of climate fluctuations in the North Atlantic.

The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a wide-ranging pressure seesaw that drives winter climate over much of North America, Europe and North Africa. Past reconstructions of the NAO have relied mainly on terrestrial, or land-based records, such as tree ring chronologies combined with ice cores and historical climate data. Those records do not fully capture oceanic processes linked to NAO variability, and short instrumental records from relatively few locations limit the understanding of ocean–atmosphere dynamics with regard to NAO behavior.

“By analyzing the coral, we were able to look at changes in the ocean relative to changes on land,” said Nathalie Goodkin, lead author of the study published in the December issue of the journal Nature Geoscience. “Because they are slow growing and have long life-spans, corals can provide high resolution records that are well dated and centuries long.”

As they grow, corals accrete seasonal and annual growth layers, similar to tree rings.  The proportions of trace elements versus the major element (calcium) found in the layers of the skeleton largely depend on the temperature of the seawater in which it was formed.  By analyzing the strontium to calcium ratio in the Bermuda brain coral, Goodkin and colleagues — WHOI scientists Konrad Hughen, Scott Doney and William Curry — were able to reconstruct monthly changes in ocean temperatures and evaluate variability of the NAO during both cold and warm periods from the Little Ice Age (1800–1850) to modern day.

The research team found the variability of the NAO decade-to-decade (multi-decadal scale) has been larger, swinging more wildly, during the late twentieth century than in the early 1800s, suggesting that variability is linked to the mean temperature of the Northern Hemisphere. This confirms variability previously reported in past terrestrial reconstructions.

“When the Industrial Revolution begins and atmospheric temperature becomes warmer, the NAO takes on a much stronger pattern in longer-term behavior,” said Goodkin. “That was suspected before in the instrumental records, but this is the first time it has been documented in records from both the ocean and the atmosphere.”

The North Atlantic Oscillation is described by the NAO index, calculated as a weighted difference between the polar low and the subtropical high during the winter season. In a positive phase, both the low-pressure zone over Iceland and high pressure over the Azores are intensified, resulting in changes in the strength, incidence, and pathway of winter storms crossing the Atlantic. In a negative phase, a weak subtropical high and a weak Icelandic low results in fewer and weaker winter storms crossing on a more west-east pathway.

The NAO index varies from year to year, but also exhibits a tendency to remain in one phase for intervals lasting more than a decade. An unusually long period of positive phase between 1970-2000 led to the suggestion that global warming was affecting the behavior of the NAO.

“Anthropogenic (human-related) warming does not appear to be altering whether the NAO is in a positive or negative phase at multi-decadal time scales,” said WHOI paleoclimatologist Konrad Hughen. “It does seem to be increasing variability. Clearly, this has implications for the future.”

“As temperatures get warmer, there’s potential for more violent swings of the NAO — the phases becoming even more positive and even more negative,” Hughen added. “If the NAO locks more into these patterns, intense storms will become more intense and droughts will become more severe.”

The climatic influence of the NAO extends from the eastern United States to Western Europe, impacting human activities such as shipping, oil drilling, fisheries, hydroelectric power generation and coastal management. Improving the ability to predict shifts in the phase and intensity of the NAO is a prerequisite to mitigating the economic impacts of future climate change.

While additional modeling and palaeoclimatic studies are needed, a broad distribution of marine records could advance our knowledge of NAO variability and serve to improve future projections, said Goodkin, now an assistant professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Hong Kong.

A WHOI Ocean and Climate Change Institute Fellowship, and grants from the National Science Foundation and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution supported this work.

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is a private, independent organization in Falmouth, Mass., dedicated to marine research, engineering, and higher education. Established in 1930 on a recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences, its primary mission is to understand the oceans and their interaction with the Earth as a whole, and to communicate a basic understanding of the oceans’ role in the changing global environment.

 

[GaWx]

4 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Exactly. GW is a very polarizing issue....many folks just can't distinguish between someone how feels as though there is rampant overattributing, like myself, from someone who is denying that it exists. It is possible to acknowledge the reality of GW while feeling that it becomes a convenient excuse for everything and anything...whether it be consciously, or unconsciously.

 I agree with you on this 100%. I believe that rampant over-attributing actually backfires rather than helps educate the ignorant on AGW, which I like you acknowledge is real. This causes straw-men to be created. These straw-men then lead to AGW skeptics having increased doubt that AGW exists.

 Somewhat related to this is the sensationalism surrounding the 101F water temperature that was measured by a buoy in 5 foot deep water in July barely offshore S FL. Numerous media outlets reported on this 101F as if it were a legit world record SST and they still won't stop. First of all, that wasn't even the hottest ever at that buoy as it hit 102 last decade. But not only that, it more importantly wasn't even a legit SST in the normal sense. What the media didn't report was that the waters there are very shallow with a dark bottom that can be seen from above. That dark bottom absorbs extra heat. The tides have a large effect due to the shallowness. Also, that same buoy had a morning low SST of 91 and it cooled to 84F within just 2.5 days due to increased clouds/rainfall. Even Dr. Masters warned others that it isn't legit. Look at this chart:

 

Did the media report that it cooled 17F within 2.5 days? Of course not.

 So, what happened is that many AGW skeptics were attacking the straw-man of the 101F water temp as not legit, which is true. But then they go a step further and use that to claim AGW isn't real, which is false. 
 The low 90s SSTs at Key West much of this summer were legit and (near) record SSTs for there, and this lead to severe coral bleaching nearby. The low 90s were likely mainly due to AGW in combo with a very dry pattern. Without AGW, that same dry pattern may have resulted in only, say, upper 80s instead of low 90s. Thus, the coral wouldn't have suffered nearly as much. So, there was a legit problem around the Keys made much worse by AGW. The KW buoy isn't in super shallow water. Thus the low 90s were legit SSTs. But repeatedly talking about a non legit 101 SST hurts the recognition of the problem more than it helps because it sounds like BS.

 I'm concerned that there was AGW over-attribution regarding the Maui wildfires. Even IF AGW played a part, there was a whole lot more to this than AGW. It does seem that AGW has been used by some as a convenient excuse and it looks bad.

[so_whats_happening]

56 minutes ago, griteater said:

Yeah, that's really weird.  I don't recall seeing that in the past.  You can set your interval and range on the entry page...but not sure why the ranges are missing on the output

Yea the issue still remains even when you change the interval and range you still don't get a bar. Unfortunately they do not list what default settings they use in their info. I can guesstimate it but can't get it to quite look like theirs but it at least gives me a better idea knowing the interval and ranges when I change it up, so that helps.

[snowman19]

Here is what makes me confident that we see a period of strong, rapid strengthening of this El Nino come October. This +IOD event is quickly gaining strength, is exceeding the latest forecasts and is very likely to become an overperformer, possibly by a lot. In addition, there is very good atmospheric coupling. +IOD constructively interferes with Nino development: https://x.com/selwyyyyn/status/1702714891210195266?s=46&t=NChJQK9_PUjA1K7D2SMojw

[so_whats_happening]

30 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

Here is what makes me confident that we see a period of strong, rapid strengthening of this El Nino come October. This +IOD event is quickly gaining strength, is exceeding the latest forecasts and is very likely to become an overperformer, possibly by a lot. In addition, there is very good atmospheric coupling. +IOD constructively interferes with Nino development: https://x.com/selwyyyyn/status/1702714891210195266?s=46&t=NChJQK9_PUjA1K7D2SMojw

Why are they comparing it to 2019? Because this was the last big +IOD pattern, wouldn't it be better to compare it to a stronger Nino pattern? 

 

[bluewave]

4 hours ago, George001 said:

I don’t know about that, strong la Nina patterns aren’t necessarily bad in New England. 2007-2008 was pretty good in Boston, and 2010-2011 had the lowest MEI on record and a raging -PDO. The summer of 2010 had an MEI of -2.5 (super).

Was referring to last winter which was one of the strongest Niña background states and worst winters around NYC metro. 07-08 was a stinker around NYC but got progressively better the further into New England you went. The raging La Niña pattern in 10-11 was tamed by the tail end of the greatest blocking pattern in hundreds of years. So the blocking was calling the shots and not the La Niña. It was game on once the historic December Greenland block pushed back against the hostile Pacific with vigor raising the PNA during that epic retrogression. So our winters always come down to a balance of competing forces. The dominant player tips the scales and the rest is history. Pick the dominant winter factor ahead of time and you come out like a weather rock star.

[raindancewx]

This time of year, the PNA has no actual correlation to Nino 3.4. But the PDO does, and so I do think I'm on the right track going with the PDO as the temperature predictor for the winter and the ENSO as the precip predictor.

This is my tentative blend for the winter. It's not super different than the Canadian, although obviously more blue south of Alaska. 

The out-of-season heat waves in Mexico in developing El Ninos tend to precede very cold periods there. The hot season on the plateau is more like March-May. The heat there means the monsoon process/subtropical jet/moisture etc was moved from its normal latitude to the north or south, allowing dry air to work in, instead of the rainy season. The corresponding movement in the winter allows cold dry air to accompany much colder lows on the plateau and it gets very cold. Years like 1982 have monthly record heat in June, and then severe cold in winter. 

Again...volcanic Summer in Mexico - 1982 was too. 

The five hot "developing El Nino" Junes on the Mexican highlands -

Most El Ninos are cold in June in Mexico - so it's been interesting looking at those five as a hint for what the subtropical ridges will do.

[snowman19]

Why are they comparing it to 2019? Because this was the last big +IOD pattern, wouldn't it be better to compare it to a stronger Nino pattern? 
 

He was comparing it to the last strong +IOD event

[40/70 Benchmark]

8 hours ago, bluewave said:

I think of it more as changing background conditions leading to new probability distributions. Not that we can’t get the older patterns from time to time in the future. Just that the combinations  leading to warmer outcomes will have a greater chance of occurring now. Kinda of like playing with a loaded set of dice in a casino or using steroids in baseball to hit more home runs. So a warmer climate changes the character of the anomalies and extremes. Like power hitters will hit more and longer homers with steroids. Not that there would be no anomalies or home runs absent increased warming and steroid usage. So some of the very cold seasonal forecasts issued in recent years are overlooking the fact that the game is getting rigged in favor or warmer outcomes. 

I understand this, but it doesn't change my opinion that anomalies over overly attributed to CC.

[SnoSki14]

How many strong to super Ninos had higher Atlantic ACE than east Pacific because with Margot & Nigel coming up & east Pacific staying quiet that looks very possible. 

[snowman19]

Here’s a real good tweet thread…the temp, snowfall and precip for all the strong El Niños (Dec - Feb) since 1940…there have been 7 of them: https://x.com/climatologist49/status/1702475030909829138?s=46&t=NChJQK9_PUjA1K7D2SMojw

[mitchnick]

5 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

Here’s a real good tweet thread…the temp, snowfall and precip for all the strong El Niños (Dec - Feb) since 1940…there have been 7 of them: https://x.com/climatologist49/status/1702475030909829138?s=46&t=NChJQK9_PUjA1K7D2SMojw

No strong Niño had an MEI as low as this one. Not even close at this stage of the game  in fact. I think tempering one's expectations that this Niño will behave similarly to previous Niños based solely/heavily on the ONI is prudent.

[bluewave]

6 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I understand this, but it doesn't change my opinion that anomalies over overly attributed to CC.

More like a much warmer climate influences the anomalies differently than a cooler one. So the expression of the natural variability shifts over time. It loads the dice toward warmer outcomes than cooler ones. As to the recent La Niña background state since 15-16, we just don’t know if this may eventually shift to something else. But if it eventually does and we get a whole new winter pattern, doesn’t mean that the warming wasn’t responsible for the last 8 winters. But other changes from the warming asserted themselves for a new winter pattern should it emerge.  

[snowman19]

No strong Niño had an MEI as low as this one. Not even close at this stage of the game  in fact. I think tempering one's expectations that this Niño will behave similarly to previous Niños based solely/heavily on the ONI is prudent.

I get the argument….find any way possible to say this is going to be a cold and snowy winter. Right now it’s “don’t look at the ONI or SSTs” if the MEI drops significantly it will be “don’t look at the MEI” and “there’s more to it than ENSO, other factors will decide this winter” next. Last year we ignored the MEI and PDO. We play the game of find any way humanely possible to predict a cold and snowy winter for the east coast every fall, as predicable as the rising sun

[mitchnick]

Just now, snowman19 said:

I get the argument….find any way possible to say this is going to be a cold and snowy winter. Right now it’s “don’t look at the ONI or SSTs” if the MEI drops significantly it will be “don’t look at the MEI” and “there’s more to it than ENSO, other factors will decide this winter” next. Last year we ignored the MEI and PDO. We play the game of find any way humanely possible to predict a cold and snowy winter for the east coast every fall, as predicable as the rising sun

Lol. The problem you seem to have is not everyone who may disagree with your interpretation is Joe Bastardi. I've never said anything about a cold and snowy winter. I am saying that I  don't believe this winter will behave like your stereotypical strong or super Niño. I have not said, however, how it will behave because a) it's too early to say, and b) it's likely to be unique and anyone who gets it close to right will need more luck than knowledge. 

[chubbs]

Good discussion about CC impacts on northeast snow above. Here is my two cents. A couple of general comments first: 1) As mentioned above you have to be careful evaluating  recent trends. Snowfall is highly variable year-to-year and decade-to-decade in the northeast. 2) Climate change is ongoing. If we want a centered 30-year average to get 2023 snowfall climatology we are going to have to wait till 2038. This is problematic because snowfall is becoming even more variable.

Per 2018 paper linked below we shouldn't expect big climate impacts on northeast US storm tracks. In addition we aren't going to see significant negative climate impacts on big snowstorms, they may even become heavier; but, we will steadily lose lighter snow events as conditions that allow snow become more infrequent. In general this agrees with recent experience.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/2018GL079820

Now for some data. Below are running 30-year average snow for I95 and a few inland sites. The chart is on a log scale so cities with heavier snow don't dominate and to highlight percentage changes. I would group the chart into two main baskets. There is a northern group with mixed trends, coastal generally doing better than inland in recent decades; and, there is a southern group that is in long-term decline. My interpretation is that the negative impact of loosing potential snow days overcomes other climate change impacts at the southern sites. If you are a snow lover, the data indicates that you don't want to get warmer than Richmond was 1960-1990. Unfortunately we will get to test this theory at additional sites this decade. We'll see if it holds up.

 

 

[bluewave]

This is a great presentation on how the Northeast and adjacent coastal waters have seen some off the fastest regional warming  on the planet. Just remember that there can always be future shifts to the rates of warming and future decades could vary from the most recent one. Just acknowledging our rapid warming doesn’t guarantee that we will know how things will change in the future. The rates of future warming can vary over the shorter decadal time scales.