March 2023 Obs/Disco

[40/70 Benchmark]

25 minutes ago, George001 said:

 

So despite getting boned less than the rest of SNE, we are still running BN climo the past 7 year. If everyone else in SNE has done even worse it just means everyone has been getting unlucky, not that we are getting lucky.

Ok, sure....and everyone else is likely to be more "lucky" than you for a spell moving forward.

[40/70 Benchmark]

33 minutes ago, George001 said:

It’s possible to acknowledge climate change is real and still be in denial about it’s role in our bad post 2015 stretch. I don’t think people want to admit that it’s already screwing us because that means it’s only going to get worse from here. It’s not “a long ways away” from screwing us, it’s already happening and this past 7 year stretch is only the beginning.

Your 7 year average is comparable to your 130 year average...how do you arrive at the conclusion that returning to your longer term mean after a 30 year bender is due to climate change? If anything, the bender may have been due to CC.

Maybe we are reaching some sort of critical threshold where warming will reduce snowfall, but you can't make that assumption after a 7 year period during which you return to your 130 yr mean following a 30 year bender.

[Damage In Tolland]

7 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

For here, or NNE? 

SNE 

[WinterWolf]

12 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

SNE 

Interesting..thanks Kev. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

58 minutes ago, Whineminster said:

Enough of this GW shit that we'll never agree on. We snow next week or what? 

Sorry for all of the OT...the false CC attribution (yes, CC definitely does exist) just triggers the shit out of me.  

06z EPS looked pretty good for most.

[40/70 Benchmark]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Sorry for all of the OT...the false CC attribution (yes, CC definitely does exist) just triggers the shit out of me.  

06z EPS looked pretty good for most.

It kind of reminds me of the GEM from yesterday at 12z....we def. want it to get its act together a bit faster....especially WOR.

[WinterWolf]

5 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

It kind of reminds me of the GEM from yesterday at 12z....we def. want it to get its act together a bit faster....especially WOR.

So this has kind of made a comeback it seems somewhat…

[Sey-Mour Snow]

11 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

So this has kind of made a comeback it seems somewhat…

More interested in Monday night honestly for now which has just popped up over the last day or two. .  But yes Wednesday is making a small comeback, let’s see if it beefs up and gets its act together quickly. 

[NorEastermass128]

56 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

For here, or NNE? 

Don’t do it, Wolf. 

[NorEastermass128]

36 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Interesting..thanks Kev. 

 

21 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

So this has kind of made a comeback it seems somewhat…

Wolf…

[Damage In Tolland]

12 minutes ago, Sey-Mour Snow said:

More interested in Monday night honestly for now which has just popped up over the last day or two. .  But yes Wednesday is making a small comeback, let’s see if it beefs up and gets its act together quickly. 

SOP special 

[tamarack]

1 hour ago, Lava Rock said:

So no big one on Tues?

Replaced by boredom.  GYX forecast here for each day Mon-Thurs:  High 42-44, low 23-25, partly/mostly sunny.  About 1° AN, yay.  And tomorrow night's disappearing accumulation continues; in 3 days we've gone from maybe 6+ to being on the 1-2/2-3 line.  Otherwise, it's been a good snow season despite being the mildest met winter of 25 here.  Will be the mildest DJFM, too, unless we suddenly get some subzero mornings.  Might get some sub-20s but I doubt we see the temp <10° until next November.  (Or December)

[40/70 Benchmark]

00z EPS def. looked better than 06z for Wednesday.

[George001]

54 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Ok, sure....and everyone else is likely to be more "lucky" than you for a spell moving forward.

 

Climate change debate aside (I’ll take that over to banter), I don’t disagree with this conclusion. I just think it will mean other areas are somewhat BN and mine will be well BN rather than other areas going on a 2007-2015 type bender while we have a repeat or slightly worse version of 2016-2023 the next 7 years.

[WinterWolf]

27 minutes ago, NorEastermass128 said:

Don’t do it, Wolf. 

 

27 minutes ago, NorEastermass128 said:

 

Wolf…

Lmfao…is that my conscience speaking. 
 

Actually more interested in the up north snow since I’m heading for one last trip to N. Aroostook Wednesday or Thursday. They look great up there for a good snow on Sunday. 
 

[WinterWolf]

24 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

00z EPS def. looked better than 06z for Wednesday.

Sane yesterday too…off hr runs suck. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

15 minutes ago, George001 said:

 

Climate change debate aside (I’ll take that over to banter), I don’t disagree with this conclusion. I just think it will mean other areas are somewhat BN and mine will be well BN rather than other areas going on a 2007-2015 type bender while we have a repeat or slightly worse version of 2016-2023 the next 7 years.

That is totally fair. We' just have to see.

[George001]

3 hours ago, CoastalWx said:

He’s also missing an entire point. Relative to everyone else, SE MA had had a run even post 2015. Even if the entire region as a whole as regressed a bit since 2015, we’ve been pulling storms out of our bums. Feb 2016, March 2019, SB storm 2021, Both storms in Jan 2022. I might even be missing some.  I’m pretty sure I’m still averaging just AN or close to it. This year may change it.  

Well, to me the fact that the region as a whole has regressed is more relevant. We are supposed to get storms, getting enough to get us to slightly BN rather than well BN like the rest of the region isn’t “having a run” in my eyes. You are correct that I missed the point you and Ray were making though. I didn’t realize you guys were talking about our climate relative to the rest of SNE, I thought you were saying we have been getting more snow than normal the past 7 years. We are just concerned about different things, which is fine.

[George001]

Anyways back to the current weather, the eps does look interesting, it’s a lot stronger and more NW with the low location than the OP. I don’t really buy it (pattern looks progressive on the models, not sure if it has room to amplify that much) but it’s worth keeping an eye on for now.

[CoastalWx]

18 minutes ago, George001 said:

Well, to me the fact that the region as a whole has regressed is more relevant. We are supposed to get storms, getting enough to get us to slightly BN rather than well BN like the rest of the region isn’t “having a run” in my eyes. You are correct that I missed the point you and Ray were making though. I didn’t realize you guys were talking about our climate relative to the rest of SNE, I thought you were saying we have been getting more snow than normal the past 7 years. We are just concerned about different things, which is fine.

These recent BN winters have actually brought us closer to the long term norm. The recent 30 yr norm is definitely inflated. 

[WinterWolf]

1 minute ago, CoastalWx said:

These recent BN winters have actually brought us closer to the long term norm. The recent 30 yr norm is definitely inflated. 

Everything balances out in the end…

[weatherwiz]

To get the true average outlier seasons should be removed from the calculation of the mean. What really sucks is I have no clue where to go anymore for historical snowfall records. The data blank from the mid 90's to early 2000's sucks and that threadex or whatever page I think that has it had completely different numbers for several stations that I had written down that the NWS had listed like 10-years ago. 

I wanted to compare the long-term average at all stations and then do a calculation with outliers removed and just curious to see what the difference comes out to be.

BUT THE RECORD KEEPING IS ABSOLUTE TOTAL DOG SHIT

[ORH_wxman]

6 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

These recent BN winters have actually brought us closer to the long term norm. The recent 30 yr norm is definitely inflated. 

I remember way before the insane CC debates trying to attribute 7 year trends to it, we used to discuss back in college how inflated the 1951-1980 or 1961-1990 snowfall normals were compared to 1971-2000 (after those came out while in the middle of college)....and whether 1971-2000 was a sign of decreasing snow or just a really shitty period because it had the brutal 1980s but didn't have a prolific decade in it anymore like the 1960s.

It turned out that it just happened to be a shitty period in the 30 year record....as we quickly returned to larger snowfall winters. No guarantee that always happens, but it was am interesting conversation at the time which parallels some of the discourse on here.

[40/70 Benchmark]

20 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

To get the true average outlier seasons should be removed from the calculation of the mean. What really sucks is I have no clue where to go anymore for historical snowfall records. The data blank from the mid 90's to early 2000's sucks and that threadex or whatever page I think that has it had completely different numbers for several stations that I had written down that the NWS had listed like 10-years ago. 

I wanted to compare the long-term average at all stations and then do a calculation with outliers removed and just curious to see what the difference comes out to be.

BUT THE RECORD KEEPING IS ABSOLUTE TOTAL DOG SHIT

I use the Cornel site:

http://climod2.nrcc.cornell.edu

[brooklynwx99]

15 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I remember way before the insane CC debates trying to attribute 7 year trends to it, we used to discuss back in college how inflated the 1951-1980 or 1961-1990 snowfall normals were compared to 1971-2000 (after those came out while in the middle of college)....and whether 1971-2000 was a sign of decreasing snow or just a really shitty period because it had the brutal 1980s but didn't have a prolific decade in it anymore like the 1960s.

It turned out that it just happened to be a shitty period in the 30 year record....as we quickly returned to larger snowfall winters. No guarantee that always happens, but it was am interesting conversation at the time which parallels some of the discourse on here.

imagine how people in the west felt during 2013-14 and 2014-15 when they were parked under a 578dam ridge all winter. that was ALSO due to climate change. it all is.

people only attribute its influence to less snowy periods when it made the snowy periods a bit more insane, too 

[Great Snow 1717]

20 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

To get the true average outlier seasons should be removed from the calculation of the mean. What really sucks is I have no clue where to go anymore for historical snowfall records. The data blank from the mid 90's to early 2000's sucks and that threadex or whatever page I think that has it had completely different numbers for several stations that I had written down that the NWS had listed like 10-years ago. 

I wanted to compare the long-term average at all stations and then do a calculation with outliers removed and just curious to see what the difference comes out to be.

BUT THE RECORD KEEPING IS ABSOLUTE TOTAL DOG SHIT

Candidate for post of the year award!!

[weatherwiz]

5 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I use the Cornel site:

http://climod2.nrcc.cornell.edu

sweet!

If I get some time in the upcoming days I want to do an average vs. average with outliers removed. Will be fun to see the difference. The differences though aren't really going to be drastic. 

[ORH_wxman]

2 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

imagine how people in the west felt during 2013-14 and 2014-15 when they were parked under a 578dam ridge all winter. that was ALSO due to climate change. it all is.

people only attribute its influence to less snowy periods when it made the snowy periods a bit more insane, too 

Yeah if we're talking butterfly effects....then you can attribute CC to everything, since we're in a world with that influence. There no world without at the moment.

But the true value of attribution studies is the "net effect". One reason I like to stick to the truly empirical studies is you can actually measure some of this stuff more confidently rather than trying to fix too much of it into a model which will always have some levels of assumptions. You still need models even on empirical attribution studies, but you try and use as much real data as possible. Temperature is probably the bets example....we have a TON of temperature data so we're pretty confident on a lot of the temperature changes.

But other things with lower sample sizes shorter periods of record can get really dicey very quick. There's a model for everything....in the 1997-2002 period, we saw a lot of studies that said CC was helping make the NAO more positive having come off a recent 2 decade binge of positive NAO winters. Of course, fast forward 10-15 years to the early/mid 2010s after that binge of excessive -NAO/AO winters between 2009-2013 and so many of the NAO/CC studies started claiming the opposite....that reduced sea ice and arctic amplification was actually causing the NAO/AO to become more negative. We don't hear about those studies much anymore after the binge of +NAO winters again post-2013 (and prior to this season). We saw similar papers come out that you mentioned about the "pacific warm blob" causing the big +PNA ridges out west in the 2013-2015 years.....now in the past few seasons we can't stop talking about troughs slamming into Cabo San Lucas.

I'm sure CC is involved in all of these things, but the net effect isn't confident so when I read claims like "CC making negative NAO winters more/less likely", I tend to mostly roll my eyes since so many of those things are based on shorter samples and lots of models with assumptions in there. Sometimes, the headlines don't really match the paper either...you'll read that headline and then the paper has this really weak correlation where they state a lot of uncertainty and I'm thinking "how did that headline get written based on that paper?".

[tamarack]

1 hour ago, George001 said:

 

Climate change debate aside (I’ll take that over to banter), I don’t disagree with this conclusion. I just think it will mean other areas are somewhat BN and mine will be well BN rather than other areas going on a 2007-2015 type bender while we have a repeat or slightly worse version of 2016-2023 the next 7 years.

Slightly" is the right term.  My 25year average is 88.5", and for 2016-23 it's 85.9".  The difference is noise, and any further snow this season will mean less noise.

[Heisy]

12z Canadian blows this event up again



.