2024-2025 La Nina

[TheClimateChanger]

On 3/16/2025 at 9:47 AM, michsnowfreak said:

The NWS/Weather Bureau has been using 30 year averages since the 1930s, nearly 100 years. It's a way to capture recent trends in weather patterns for any one area. It doesn't erase the past data, but it's updated every 10 years to reflect those trends.

So I see no reason why some are against using the current normals. I mean, if you want to use entire period of record, that's cool too. But let's not use the 30 year normals until the unusually cold 1960s and 1970s are erased then suddenly stop so we don't captured the mild winters of the mid 20th century .

 

For Detroit, this winter of 2024-25 was:
-0.9° using 1991-2020 avg

-0.2° using 1981-2010 avg

+0.7° using 1971-2000 avg
+1.8° using 1961-1990 avg
+1.1° using 1951-1980 avg
+0.3° using 1941-1970 avg

-0.4° using 1931-1960 avg
-0.1° using 1921-1950 avg

+0.7° using 1911-1940 avg
+1.7° using 1901-1930 avg

 

+0.5° using POR 1874-2025 avg

 

Normals are not simple averages. You are conflating the published normals with simple averages of data collected from different sites. The normals are - and always have been - corrected for biases and change in instrumentation, site location or other inhomogeneities. Here are two examples, but I'm sure the others are off as well.

The 1931-1960 normal at DTW (as revised in 1967) was ~27.3F for the winter (DJF). Versus the corrected normal, this winter was approximately 0.2F above normal [not 0.4F below normal].

 

 

The 1941-1970 normal at DTW was ~26.6F for the winter (DJF). Versus the corrected normal, this winter was approximately 0.9F above normal [not 0.3F above normal].

[TheClimateChanger]

5 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Normals are not simple averages. You are conflating the published normals with simple averages of data collected from different sites. The normals are - and always have been - corrected for biases and change in instrumentation, site location or other inhomogeneities. Here are two examples, but I'm sure the others are off as well.

The 1931-1960 normal at DTW (as revised in 1967) was ~27.3F for the winter (DJF). Versus the corrected normal, this winter was approximately 0.2F above normal [not 0.4F below normal].

 

 

The 1941-1970 normal at DTW was ~26.6F for the winter (DJF). Versus the corrected normal, this winter was approximately 0.9F above normal [not 0.3F above normal].

The 1921-1950 normal at Detroit City Airport (no DTW) was 27.5F. Prior to that period, the "normals" published were just the means of all data from the city and airport.

[michsnowfreak]

2 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

They way I see it.....snowfall is measured in 6 hour increments, and snow depth is obtained the old-fashioned way.

Its really a very easy process. Snowfall and depth are reported every 6 hours, with the depth at 7am being the official depth for the day. However, measuring at the end of a snowfall is best too, so if you have 3 hours before obs time with no more snow coming, obviously measure then instead of waiting.

Also theres a few common sense practices - if snow melts or is rained on before obs time, you have to do your best to account for what snow fell before this happened. Also we have all had times where our snowboard is scoured free of the snow that fell OR drifted over from the winds. In any of those cases, it should be obvious to the obsever to properly measure averages and not just go by whats on the snowboard. These are all common sense practices than any observer, especially ones for first order sites, need to be following.

Side note - Speaking of depth...i know ive mentioned this before, but i cant believe BOS & ORH dont report 12z snow depth. They are literally the only first order sites ive seen that dont do snow depth. I wonder why?

[michsnowfreak]

3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Central Park still has undermeasuring issues compared to the airports

I wonder who does the measuring? Central Park should be the easiest of the bunch. Measuring in a park should offset the wind issues that are common at most airports. Some first order stations measure at locals near the airport that are in a more user-friendly environment (ie a park). 

[LibertyBell]

10 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

I wonder who does the measuring? Central Park should be the easiest of the bunch. Measuring in a park should offset the wind issues that are common at most airports. Some first order stations measure at locals near the airport that are in a more user-friendly environment (ie a park). 

I think it's the zookeeper (or so they say.)

[LibertyBell]

14 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

Its really a very easy process. Snowfall and depth are reported every 6 hours, with the depth at 7am being the official depth for the day. However, measuring at the end of a snowfall is best too, so if you have 3 hours before obs time with no more snow coming, obviously measure then instead of waiting.

Also theres a few common sense practices - if snow melts or is rained on before obs time, you have to do your best to account for what snow fell before this happened. Also we have all had times where our snowboard is scoured free of the snow that fell OR drifted over from the winds. In any of those cases, it should be obvious to the obsever to properly measure averages and not just go by whats on the snowboard. These are all common sense practices than any observer, especially ones for first order sites, need to be following.

Side note - Speaking of depth...i know ive mentioned this before, but i cant believe BOS & ORH dont report 12z snow depth. They are literally the only first order sites ive seen that dont do snow depth. I wonder why?

I was interesting in finding the total snowfall, liquid equivalent and maximum snow depth for the January 2016 super blizzard (12 continuous hours of blizzard conditions in a 30 hour snowstorm) at JFK because it's historically important, the largest city station to record a 30 inch snowstorm.

[LibertyBell]

40 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Normals are not simple averages. You are conflating the published normals with simple averages of data collected from different sites. The normals are - and always have been - corrected for biases and change in instrumentation, site location or other inhomogeneities. Here are two examples, but I'm sure the others are off as well.

The 1931-1960 normal at DTW (as revised in 1967) was ~27.3F for the winter (DJF). Versus the corrected normal, this winter was approximately 0.2F above normal [not 0.4F below normal].

 

 

The 1941-1970 normal at DTW was ~26.6F for the winter (DJF). Versus the corrected normal, this winter was approximately 0.9F above normal [not 0.3F above normal].

Thanks I was wondering about normals vs averages.  TWC for example overemphasizes averages and never mentions normals.

 

[TheClimateChanger]

8 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Thanks I was wondering about normals vs averages.  TWC for example overemphasizes averages and never mentions normals.

 

I hate that! A lot of TV meteorologists do that as well... de-emphasize the use of "normal" because they say it incorrectly implies other values are abnormal and instead use "average" or "mean." In fact, the NWS normals are not simple averages or means. In some cases, the two can be quite a bit different. There are adjustments for inhomogeneities [pairwise homogenization] and a lot of statistical work behind the scenes to smooth out the data, for instance. So, while calling them "averages" or "means" might be more intuitive for the casual weather viewer, it's not technically correct in the dictionary definition sense.

 

[LibertyBell]

10 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I hate that! A lot of TV meteorologists do that as well... de-emphasize the use of "normal" because they say it incorrectly implies other values are abnormal and instead use "average" or "mean." In fact, the NWS normals are not simple averages or means. In some cases, the two can be quite a bit different. There are adjustments for inhomogeneities [pairwise homogenization] and a lot of statistical work behind the scenes to smooth out the data, for instance. So, while calling them "averages" or "means" might be more intuitive for the casual weather viewer, it's not technically correct in the dictionary definition sense.

 

Have they gone to bad colleges or something where they don't teach the difference? It makes sense to us and I call them out on it when I see it and they always ignore that.

Also, if you're seeing records being broken frequently of course that's abnormal lol.  It almost seems like they are trying to play down climate change?

 

[snowman19]

IMO an El Niño (even weak) for the fall/winter is looking less and less likely by the day

[BuffaloWeather]

On 3/16/2025 at 2:15 PM, michsnowfreak said:

Most climate site deals with moves over the course of the climate period. Just one of those things in the climate record. Roads were dirt in the 1870s. DTW airport had much better radiational cooling in the 1960s-80s before the airport expanded to its current status. You just have to deal with the changes as part of the climate record, rather than pick and choose the ones we like and don't like. 

You can't use Buffalos data before 1940 due to it being literally on the lake. It isn't a good representative of weather across our area, way too marine influenced. If Detroits recording station moved, that data shouldn't be used either. Not really up for debate, moving a recording station eliminates its accuracy and consistency.

[George001]

49 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

IMO an El Niño (even weak) for the fall/winter is looking less and less likely by the day

What ENSO state would you favor right now? I think another La Niña is very possible. Probably wouldn’t be very strong though

[LibertyBell]

35 minutes ago, George001 said:

What ENSO state would you favor right now? I think another La Niña is very possible. Probably wouldn’t be very strong though

Probably warm neutral.

 

[michsnowfreak]

2 hours ago, BuffaloWeather said:

You can't use Buffalos data before 1940 due to it being literally on the lake. It isn't a good representative of weather across our area, way too marine influenced. If Detroits recording station moved, that data shouldn't be used either. Not really up for debate, moving a recording station eliminates its accuracy and consistency.

I think a majority of climate sites have moved over the years. Just how it goes. Why? No idea lol. DTW (detroit metro airport) has been the official climate station for Detroit since 1966. From 1934-1966 it was DET (Detroit city airport) and from 1874-1933 it was various places downtown Detroit. I personally like DTW best because it's closer to me but I still like looking at the old data. If you look at the climate summaries in ncdc it will tell you all of a stations site moves and corresponding dates.

I know Chicago's moved from midway airport to ohare airport in I think like 1980.

 

[LibertyBell]

13 hours ago, michsnowfreak said:

I think a majority of climate sites have moved over the years. Just how it goes. Why? No idea lol. DTW (detroit metro airport) has been the official climate station for Detroit since 1966. From 1934-1966 it was DET (Detroit city airport) and from 1874-1933 it was various places downtown Detroit. I personally like DTW best because it's closer to me but I still like looking at the old data. If you look at the climate summaries in ncdc it will tell you all of a stations site moves and corresponding dates.

I know Chicago's moved from midway airport to ohare airport in I think like 1980.

 

They should still have one at Midway, they probably both have weather stations.

[LakePaste25]

16 hours ago, BuffaloWeather said:

You can't use Buffalos data before 1940 due to it being literally on the lake. It isn't a good representative of weather across our area, way too marine influenced. If Detroits recording station moved, that data shouldn't be used either. Not really up for debate, moving a recording station eliminates its accuracy and consistency.

NOAA makes post ad-hoc adjustments to stations when they are moved to account for difference in temperature. @chubbs can attest to this - for example, one of the warmest recording stations of the 20th century (Coatesville) was moved to a cooler, higher elevation location and adjustments were made accordingly. 

[michsnowfreak]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

They should still have one at Midway, they probably both have weather stations.

They do have an ASOS at Midway, just as they have an ASOS at Detroit City Airport still. Problem is, these are no longer first order sites, so their accuracy is no better than any one of the other thousands of ASOS in place across the country. They dont have snowfall observations, they dont have near their equipment that their 1st order counterparts (ORD & DTW) have, and when theres errors it can often take a long time to fix them. (if theres any malfunctioning equipment at a first order site they are usually right on it).

[40/70 Benchmark]

21 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

I think it's the zookeeper (or so they say.)

He should stick to bagging monkey shit.

[40/70 Benchmark]

17 hours ago, George001 said:

What ENSO state would you favor right now? I think another La Niña is very possible. Probably wouldn’t be very strong though

Whichever he thinks will yield the least snow

jk

I highly doubt another La Nina...I would be shocked. I think an el Nino is more likely.

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, michsnowfreak said:

They do have an ASOS at Midway, just as they have an ASOS at Detroit City Airport still. Problem is, these are no longer first order sites, so their accuracy is no better than any one of the other thousands of ASOS in place across the country. They dont have snowfall observations, they dont have near their equipment that their 1st order counterparts (ORD & DTW) have, and when theres errors it can often take a long time to fix them. (if theres any malfunctioning equipment at a first order site they are usually right on it).

Wow I thought it was like New York City, where both JFK and LGA (not to mention EWR) as well as Central Park do all those things.  Is there any reason why they can't all be first order sites? Budgetary cuts?

 

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, LakePaste25 said:

NOAA makes post ad-hoc adjustments to stations when they are moved to account for difference in temperature. @chubbs can attest to this - for example, one of the warmest recording stations of the 20th century (Coatesville) was moved to a cooler, higher elevation location and adjustments were made accordingly. 

Did they move it because it had a warm bias?

[michsnowfreak]

55 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Wow I thought it was like New York City, where both JFK and LGA (not to mention EWR) as well as Central Park do all those things.  Is there any reason why they can't all be first order sites? Budgetary cuts?

 

Honestly I have no clue. New York is one of the only few cities I know of that has multiple "first order" stations. All NWS offices encourage plenty of spotter reports of precip and snowfall (in fact the NWS is in a big advertising spree right now to get more cocorahs), but most metros have one main "first order" station that does it all, precip, snow, snow depth, intra-hour obs as needed, etc etc. When Detroit switched from DET to DTW in 1966 everything "official" just moved to DTW. I wasnt even born so I cant say haha. 

[snowman19]

@40/70 Benchmark Maybe finally, at long last we are going into a -AMO cycle like we had in the 1980’s?
 

[40/70 Benchmark]

12 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

@40/70 Benchmark Maybe finally, at long last we are going into a -AMO cycle like we had in the 1980’s?
 

I was agreeing with raindance last fall and winter that we were beginning to flip, but the idea was met with a great deal of resistance in here....I think we are flipping to -AMO/+PDO, much like the mid to late 70s.

[PhiEaglesfan712]

If we get a SSW in the coming days, we're looking at something similar to 2010: https://x.com/BenNollWeather/status/1903446063169581452

[Stormchaserchuck1]

The AMO is still near the high peak of its positive cycle. For now, it's not in a descending state, it's sustaining or slightly continuing to increase. 

There is an overlap between the AMO and NAO. When the NAO is positive there is a -0.3 correlation to Atlantic SSTs. This is what happened last Summer - it wasn't that we were cooling because of an oncoming -AMO state, it was cooling because we had a near record +NAO occurring. 

If you think we will see more +NAO in the future, associated with Solar Max, that could be a cooler AMO.. 

It's around the timeframe now where decadal states have shifted, but I just don't see the "first Wave down" happening yet. 

Here is a chart going through 2023 of the current +phase

[Stormchaserchuck1]

In other news, we continue to get warm US conditions in warm Stratosphere, and cold conditions in cold Stratosphere. You would say that makes sense, but it's main effect at the surface is AO/NAO. The NAO has a 0.5 temperature correlation in the eastern 2/3 of the US.. negative (warm Stratosphere +time) being cold, and positive (cold Stratosphere 0-time) being warm. 

Last Winter we had the warmest Winter on record for CONUS and it was during 4 Stratosphere warmings. The mean for the Winter was +500dm at 10mb. This Winter the opposite occurred, -500dm 10mb, but now after this March Stratosphere warming, in the allotted time where it's suppose to have NAO correlation, we have a major SE ridge signal on models, and possibly 80s. 

Another point is this -NAO correlation with SE ridge after the coldest day of the year (Jan 27th). For the last few years, the NAO has anomalously low correlation to it's usual tendencies in the late Winter/early Spring. I've found that even "potential -NAO events" (like a "downwelled" Stratosphere warming, or MJO wave cycle) have occurred with a flexed SE ridge in that time.

[Stormchaserchuck1]

On 3/21/2025 at 6:34 AM, snowman19 said:

@40/70 Benchmark Maybe finally, at long last we are going into a -AMO cycle like we had in the 1980’s?

That's just the Gulf Stream shifted a little south. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

14 hours ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

The AMO is still near the high peak of its positive cycle. For now, it's not in a descending state, it's sustaining or slightly continuing to increase. 

There is an overlap between the AMO and NAO. When the NAO is positive there is a -0.3 correlation to Atlantic SSTs. This is what happened last Summer - it wasn't that we were cooling because of an oncoming -AMO state, it was cooling because we had a near record +NAO occurring. 

If you think we will see more +NAO in the future, associated with Solar Max, that could be a cooler AMO.. 

It's around the timeframe now where decadal states have shifted, but I just don't see the "first Wave down" happening yet. 

Here is a chart going through 2023 of the current +phase

I do.

Maybe my eye sight is finally beginning to go, but that looks like a prety defined dip at the end of that graph, no??

[Stormchaserchuck1]

6 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I do.

Maybe my eye sight is finally beginning to go, but that looks like a prety defined dip at the end of that graph, no??

If you remember, we had record warm SSTs across the Atlantic early last Hurricane season. I made that chart in February 2024 I think, and it was smoothed out, so the cutoff had to be 2023. But if you include last year, it would look like this: