Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,588
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

February 2024


wdrag
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, NEG NAO said:

This is closer to reality

prateptype-imp.conus.png

CMC is a lot weaker with the low and with the mild prior airmass, looks like a lot of white rain or just rain. We’d need a dynamic setup like the GFS to really snow and accumulate unless you’re inland and probably elevated. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

CMC is a lot weaker with the low and with the mild prior airmass, looks like a lot of white rain or just rain. We’d need a dynamic setup like the GFS to really snow and accumulate unless you’re inland and probably elevated. 

the biggest obstacle to snowfall in the metro with this system is there is no established cold air in place prior to arrival of the storm and you have to be far inland and higher elevation

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GFS continues to show less phasing and less favorable northern and southern stream spacing to lift the low further north like earlier runs. We should not be looking at snow clown maps now as they are just not good but rather what is going on aloft. Will see what the other guidance has, but the GFS may not be completely wrong with the scraper for us. Again i would not put stock in its ptype or snow amount at all. It has a cold bias 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, the_other_guy said:

 

again, these are just theories at this point. You have posted this before that you do not see it direct correlation with the warmth and the lack of snow.

I have a theory that we will actually be much more affected by warming than places like the Delmarva or the Tennessee valley. simply because of location and because we are an extreme urban environment that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the country. 

You are already seeing this play out in real time.

 

You were looking at a north south east west axis for your warming assumptions going forward. I’m looking at that plus extreme urbanization and urban heat island.

I think if you move north and west of New York City, your assumptions will be more in line of a traditional axis by which the warming is moving.

 

But I think New York City in terms of snowfall is fucked at this new warmer climate. I don’t think it’s an aberration. I don’t think it will be comparable to the 70s and 80s and 90s. I think we have seen a sharp drop off in snow due to the fact that we are now running 5 to 10° warmer on any given day then we should be. And in a cement jungle like Brooklyn (sorry MJO) you cant snow under those circumstances

Difficult to really say. The Pacific is very hostile in general to producing snowy and cold conditions in the East the last few winters because of the -PDO and warming equatorial W PAC. The Plains and West are favored now and have seen record cold. With the Pacific this hostile, any year would be lousy here. But the background warming will make any lousy year worse-ie we struggle to 10” vs it could’ve produced 15-20” or more in a winter. A few decades or more ago the marginal conditions might’ve accumulated snow and we would’ve been OK for a few minor events that add up. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SBUWX23 said:

The GFS continues to show less phasing and less favorable northern and southern stream spacing to lift the low further north like earlier runs. We should not be looking at snow clown maps now as they are just not good but rather what is going on aloft. Will see what the other guidance has, but the GFS may not be completely wrong with the scraper for us. Again i would not put stock in its ptype or snow amount at all. It has a cold bias 

you talking about the 13th system or the Presidents Day system ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

@donsutherland1 Is it possible that some of the 1-3" days in the early years would be 3-6" days under current snow measuring techniques? And similarly some of the 3-6" days (not shown) would have registered as 6"+ days under current snow measuring techniques? This trend might mostly be generally an artifact of data quality issues and actually masking a general decrease in total snowfall.

UCAR estimates proper snow board use with 6-hourly measurements can increase reported total snowfall by 15-20 percent relative to a single storm measurement. Moreover, there were other inconsistencies before 1950, including the use of a simple 10:1 ratio for snowfall at some sites and/or simply measuring change in depth (although I don't think this was the case at Central Park). Regardless, snow boards didn't come into use until the latter half of the 20th century.

Source: Snowfall measurement: a flaky history | NCAR & UCAR News

 

It's certainly plausible. I have greater confidence in the 30-season moving averages starting at 1980 and running through 2022-23.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EastonSN+ said:

Do you think the war had anything to do with that massive drop in the late 30s early 40s?

I don't know enough about the war's impact to address that issue. There had been a general decline in average winter precipitation from the late 1930s bottoming out at the end of the 1960s.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...