2025-2026 ENSO

[GaWx]

Per JB today:

if the downward trends continue, we should see a slowdown in the thermohaline circulation, coupled with declines in SST and lower tropospheric temps going forward. We MAY be at the inflection point we've wanted to see. Fingers crossed!

———————
Global seismic activity (Mw 5.3 and greater) from 1/1/1977 - 12/31/2024. Data in yellow indicate yearly projections for 2025 but should be accorded low confidence at
this time.

 

 

@donsutherland1

[donsutherland1]

35 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Per JB today:

if the downward trends continue, we should see a slowdown in the thermohaline circulation, coupled with declines in SST and lower tropospheric temps going forward. We MAY be at the inflection point we've wanted to see. Fingers crossed!

———————
Global seismic activity (Mw 5.3 and greater) from 1/1/1977 - 12/31/2024. Data in yellow indicate yearly projections for 2025 but should be accorded low confidence at
this time.

 

 

@donsutherland1

Oceans have been warming from top down. I strongly doubt that his speculation has much merit. That we’re coming off an La Niña suggests that 2025 should be somewhat cooler than 2024 was overall, including SSTs.

[Stormchaserchuck1]

13 hours ago, PhiEaglesfan712 said:

I think we are seeing this with el ninos. The last moderate one was 2002-03, which is over 20 years ago now. Since then, either they've been weak (2004-05, 2006-07, 2014-15, and 2018-19/20) or strong/super (2009-10, 2015-16, and 2023-24).

That doesn't seem to be the case with la ninas. We just had 3 straight years of moderate la nina in 2020-23.

I mean in the maps.. with 100 years more data, Weak ENSO events will look "weak" in the composites. and strong ENSO events will give a "strong" signal. The problem now with 7-9 years in the data is that other things like the NAO have more impact with weaker ENSO. (It doesn't have to do with the frequency of Weak vs Moderate vs Strong events occurring, I'm talking about their correlated effects - stronger has stronger effects, weaker has weaker effects). 

[40/70 Benchmark]

On 4/5/2025 at 9:07 PM, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

I mean in the maps.. with 100 years more data, Weak ENSO events will look "weak" in the composites. and strong ENSO events will give a "strong" signal. The problem now with 7-9 years in the data is that other things like the NAO have more impact with weaker ENSO. (It doesn't have to do with the frequency of Weak vs Moderate vs Strong events occurring, I'm talking about their correlated effects - stronger has stronger effects, weaker has weaker effects). 

Exactly as I explain it....weaker events are more prone to extra tropical (and arctic) influences.

[40/70 Benchmark]

On 4/4/2025 at 10:01 PM, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

Weak vs Moderate vs Strong ENSO is just different amplitude of the same thing. 

I think the differences are just from not having enough climate data and weaker events having more weight from other things. 

With 50-100 more years of climate data, the differences will be sorted out and you'll only see a "weak" vs "strong" signal in the data. 

Eh....to a point...there are disparate HC configurations for weaker vs stronger events and modiki vs east-base events...

[LibertyBell]

On 4/5/2025 at 7:48 AM, PhiEaglesfan712 said:

I think we are seeing this with el ninos. The last moderate one was 2002-03, which is over 20 years ago now. Since then, either they've been weak (2004-05, 2006-07, 2014-15, and 2018-19/20) or strong/super (2009-10, 2015-16, and 2023-24).

That doesn't seem to be the case with la ninas. We just had 3 straight years of moderate la nina in 2020-23.

why do la ninas happen more frequently than el ninos and why do they last longer?

 

[Maestrobjwa]

25 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

why do la ninas happen more frequently than el ninos and why do they last longer?

 

Right? It's frickin' annoying how it seems to be harder to get the coveted niño ye ninas are easy 

[michsnowfreak]

If I had to pick between a nino and nina, its nina all day everyday here so Im fine with them being more frequent. That said, ENSO episodes have proven multiple times the past few decades that they dont always behave according to expectation.

It does seem that ninos and ninas are kind of suffocating "neutral" years and making them few and far between.

[LibertyBell]

31 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

If I had to pick between a nino and nina, its nina all day everyday here so Im fine with them being more frequent. That said, ENSO episodes have proven multiple times the past few decades that they dont always behave according to expectation.

It does seem that ninos and ninas are kind of suffocating "neutral" years and making them few and far between.

anyone who wants to see snow just needs to watch the Yankees at Tigers game!!

[michsnowfreak]

13 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

anyone who wants to see snow just needs to watch the Yankees at Tigers game!!

Big cold front came thru. Its windy and the flakes are flying off and on. Wind chills in the teens later. They changed all 3 games to day games this series because of the cold. 

 

[LibertyBell]

9 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

Big cold front came thru. Its windy and the flakes are flying off and on. Wind chills in the teens later. They changed all 3 games to day games this series because of the cold. 

 

I noticed the change in timing!  Are the other two games going to have snow too (or was that forecast to happen at night?)

 

[michsnowfreak]

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

I noticed the change in timing!  Are the other two games going to have snow too (or was that forecast to happen at night?)

 

They changed due to cold, not snow. Lows tonight and tomorrow night in the low 20s with wind chills tonight in the teens. The decision to move up was because it's "warmer" in the day. Tomorrow should have sun but high only 37, maybe some lake snow showers. Wed will be warmer but rain and snow possible at night. 

Just sucks for whoever had tickets to night games. 

[LibertyBell]

13 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

They changed due to cold, not snow. Lows tonight and tomorrow night in the low 20s with wind chills tonight in the teens. The decision to move up was because it's "warmer" in the day. Tomorrow should have sun but high only 37, maybe some lake snow showers. Wed will be warmer but rain and snow possible at night. 

Just sucks for whoever had tickets to night games. 

Early April is too early for baseball let alone late March which is when baseball begins now.

[Terpeast]

Don’t look now, but WCS daily PDO is no longer negative for the first time in many years
 

[Maestrobjwa]

5 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

Don’t look now, but WCS daily PDO is no longer negative for the first time in many years
 

Beautiful...keep on risin'  I'm curious to see just how much of our woes were caused by the negative regime...I mean at least last winter felt like winter (even though snow results were skewed south of the northeast/northern Mid Atl). It was the first winter that felt "normal". And that happens when the PDO was the least negative it had been in years? Hmm...

[LibertyBell]

4 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

Beautiful...keep on risin'  I'm curious to see just how much of our woes were caused by the negative regime...I mean at least last winter felt like winter (even though snow results were skewed south of the northeast/northern Mid Atl). It was the first winter that felt "normal". And that happens when the PDO was the least negative it had been in years? Hmm...

I wonder if this is an early sign of an el nino for next winter?

Any connection there?

 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

12 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Exactly as I explain it....weaker events are more prone to extra tropical (and arctic) influences.

Not to be confused with it correlating with NAO.. big difference. An example: There are 8 Weak La Nina's and 6 have -NAO. You would think that they are connected, but that's actually too low of a sample size. I just use the NAO in this example to provide a divider so that it can be more easily understood what I mean. It's a tough one to overcome believe it or not mentally, but given 100 historical examples, Weak ENSO will look "weak" in the composite, and Strong ENSO will look strong.. however, what they are correlated to (SE ridge or whatever) will be in the same spot in both sample sets, given enough examples. 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

12 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Eh....to a point...there are disparate HC configurations for weaker vs stronger events and modiki vs east-base events...

Yeah, east vs west-based ENSO is different. East has more of a North Pacific high correlation, and west is more connected to PNA.

[bluewave]

On 4/5/2025 at 7:48 AM, PhiEaglesfan712 said:

I think we are seeing this with el ninos. The last moderate one was 2002-03, which is over 20 years ago now. Since then, either they've been weak (2004-05, 2006-07, 2014-15, and 2018-19/20) or strong/super (2009-10, 2015-16, and 2023-24).

That doesn't seem to be the case with la ninas. We just had 3 straight years of moderate la nina in 2020-23.

You can see what has been happening over the Pacific by looking at where the SSTs have been warming the fastest. The reason that we have been seeing more frequent La Ninas is due to the WPAC warming at a faster rate than the EPAC. So it causes stronger trade winds near the Dateline. This works against El Niño development. So when we finally tip the system back to El Niño it has to be very strong in order to develop against the very strong La Ninas background state. We saw the El Niño struggle to develop in 12-13 and 14-15 only to finally push through with the super El Niño in 15-16. Then again in 23-24. 

But something shifted in the spring of 2023 with the record warming in the EPAC. This warming off the South American Coast is continuing into April 2025. So the La Niña this winter was among the weakest we have seen since 1950 coming off such a strong El Niño. The rapid increase in global warming last 2 years may suggest that we have experienced a new type of Pacific shift. One in which the system is tilted more to El Niño development. If the EPAC warming persists into the summer, then it may inhibit the typical 2nd year La Ninas which has been the norm recently. So if any type of El Niño can push through from 25-26 to 26-27, then we me be in uncharted territory. But we will need more data going forward to confirm this new hypothesis. 

Ultimately, we will need to see a shift in the record Northern Stream of the Pacific Jet since 18-19 with the lowest cumulative 7 year snowfall on record from Philly to Boston for any snowfall improvement. This is very uncertain since the competing marine heatwaves in the North Pacific blur the distinctions between what we expect from a -PDO and +PDO.   The next 5-7 years will probably be make or break as to whether this snowfall regime since 18-19 is a new climate feature or something that can shift a bit going forward. 

Long term we expect snowfall to decrease as the climate and the storm tracks warm. So using a linear understanding of the climate we could say that we get years of ups and others with more downs as the general trend line on snowfall is down. But if we see more of a non linear shift with the snow, then the decline could occur faster than then a general decrease along a linear path. Since snowfall measurement methodology shifted since the 1980s. From late 1800s into mid 1900s snowfall was under measured by today’s standards. So when the snowfall record is corrected higher from 1880 to 1980 or so, most areas will show a steady decline away from the Great Lakes snow belts with more frequent measurements these days than in the old days inflating the present totals. 
 

 

 

[LibertyBell]

7 hours ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

Not to be confused with it correlating with NAO.. big difference. An example: There are 8 Weak La Nina's and 6 have -NAO. You would think that they are connected, but that's actually too low of a sample size. I just use the NAO in this example to provide a divider so that it can be more easily understood what I mean. It's a tough one to overcome believe it or not mentally, but given 100 historical examples, Weak ENSO will look "weak" in the composite, and Strong ENSO will look strong.. however, what they are correlated to (SE ridge or whatever) will be in the same spot in both sample sets, given enough examples. 

weak la ninas are our second snowiest ENSO state.

[LibertyBell]

7 minutes ago, bluewave said:

You can see what has been happening over the Pacific by looking at where the SSTs have been warming the fastest. The reason that we have been seeing more frequent La Ninas is due to the WPAC warming at a faster rate than the EPAC. So it causes stronger trade winds near the Dateline. This works against El Niño development. So when we finally tip the system back to El Niño it has to be very strong in order to develop against the very strong La Ninas background state. We saw the El Niño struggle to develop in 12-13 and 14-15 only to finally push through with the super El Niño in 15-16. Then again in 23-24. 

But something shifted in the spring of 2023 with the record warming in the EPAC. This warming off the South American Coast is continuing into April 2025. So the La Niña this winter was among the weakest we have seen since 1950 coming off such a strong El Niño. The rapid increase in global warming last 2 years may suggest that we have experienced a new type of Pacific shift. One in which the system is tilted more to El Niño development. If the EPAC warming persists into the summer, then it may inhibit the typical 2nd year La Ninas which has been the norm recently. So if any type of El Niño can push through from 25-26 to 26-27, then we me be in uncharted territory. But we will need more data going forward to confirm this new hypothesis. 

Ultimately, we will need to see a shift in the record Northern Stream of the Pacific Jet since 18-19 with the lowest cumulative 7 year snowfall on record from Philly to Boston for any snowfall improvement. This is very uncertain since the competing marine heatwaves in the North Pacific blur the distinctions between what we expect from a -PDO and +PDO.   The next 5-7 years will probably be make or break as to whether this snowfall regime since 18-19 is a new climate feature or something that can shift a bit going forward. 

While long term we expect snowfall to decrease as the climate and the storm tracks warm. So using a linear understanding of the climate we could say that we get years of ups and others with more downs as the general trend line on snowfall is down. But if we see more of a non linear shift with the snow, then the decline could occur faster than then a general decrease along a linear path. Since snowfall measurement methodology shifted since the 1980s. So late 1800s into mid 1900s snowfall was under measured by today’s standards. So when the snowfall record is corrected higher from 1880 to 1980 or so, most areas will show a steady decline away from the Great Lakes snow belts with more frequent measurements these days than in the old days inflating the present totals. 
 

 

 

So late 1800s into mid 1900s snowfall was under measured by today’s standards.

 

This is absolutely amazing because we were already averaging around 35" of snow per decade from the 1860s through the 1910s..... so this may actually have been over 40" And the decades before the 1860s were even snowier!

 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

9 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

weak la ninas are our second snowiest ENSO state.

But that's because of lack of data! Lol, people will never hear me on this. Weak la Nina's are not an entity of their own, separate from Strong La Nina's. 

[LibertyBell]

15 minutes ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

But that's because of lack of data! Lol, people will never hear me on this. Weak la Nina's are not an entity of their own, separate from Strong La Nina's. 

But do you feel the same way about weak el ninos vs strong el ninos?

Just using deductive reasoning, we can surmise that weak phases are usually best because they do not interfere with the overall pattern as much and thus other factors (like nao state) are allowed to take over.

With a strong el nino (1998 for example), you can have a -nao all you want, but the winter won't be snowy because enso overwhelms the entire pattern.  The same should be the case for a strong la nina.

It's also interesting that la ninas that come after el ninos are snowier, perhaps because the subtropical jet from the previous season's el nino is still actively supplying moisture for that snow?

 

 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

4 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

But do you feel the same way about weak el ninos vs strong el ninos?

Just using deductive reasoning, we can surmise that weak phases are usually best because they do not interfere with the overall pattern as much and thus other factors (like nao state) are allowed to take over.

With a strong el nino (1998 for example), you can have a -nao all you want, but the winter won't be snowy because enso overwhelms the entire pattern.  The same should be the case for a strong la nina.

It's also interesting that la ninas that come after el ninos are snowier, perhaps because the subtropical jet from the previous season's el nino is still actively supplying moisture for that snow?

Yes.. it's the same for Strong El Nino's vs Weak El Nino's. It's not a given that the NAO will be negative in Weak El Nino.  To assess whether strong or weak is better or worse, you have to surmise which the better pattern is, El Nino or La Nina.. they should actually be opposites of each other as far as anomalies go. If Strong El Nino is so bad, then Strong La Nina is so good... the difference is we've never really seen a strong east-based La Nina like some of the stronger east-based El Nino's. Orientation on the equator is a difference maker. But a -3c La Nina in Nino 1+2... should be cold near the Great Lakes.. 

[michsnowfreak]

16 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Early April is too early for baseball let alone late March which is when baseball begins now.

This years Tigers home opener had a game time temp of 50F, which was the warmest home opener in 10 years. Games 2 and 3 were mid-40s then yesterdays game time temp was 38F. Todays will be in the 30s somewhere (it was 23F this morning!).

Sitting in the cold during April games is quite uncomfortable, even for a winter lover. When the chill of Fall hits for Sept and especially Oct baseball, its a complete different story. There nothing like the crisp, chilly autumn air swirling around the smells of the ballpark during playoff baseball! Of course its not quite as cold as April, but the difference is the April cold comes after a long winter when youre body is used to cold, whereas Fall baseball comes after a hot summer. Yet it hits so differently.

[LibertyBell]

4 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

This years Tigers home opener had a game time temp of 50F, which was the warmest home opener in 10 years. Games 2 and 3 were mid-40s then yesterdays game time temp was 38F. Todays will be in the 30s somewhere (it was 23F this morning!).

Sitting in the cold during April games is quite uncomfortable, even for a winter lover. When the chill of Fall hits for Sept and especially Oct baseball, its a complete different story. There nothing like the crisp, chilly autumn air swirling around the smells of the ballpark during playoff baseball! Of course its not quite as cold as April, but the difference is the April cold comes after a long winter when youre body is used to cold, whereas Fall baseball comes after a hot summer. Yet it hits so differently.

Yes, I love fall baseball.... looks like the Tigers and Yankees will both be good enough to play deep into Fall.  

We had some snow here on parts of Long Island before the sun came out, it really feels like winter here today with temperatures going below freezing tonight.  It's the latest it's happened since 2014, when we had accumulating snow on April 16, 2014.  We had snow on May 9, 2020 but the low was 34 on that date. Ironically our last freeze that season was in early March lol.

 

 

[LibertyBell]

10 minutes ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

Yes.. it's the same for Strong El Nino's vs Weak El Nino's. It's not a given that the NAO will be negative in Weak El Nino.  To assess whether strong or weak is better or worse, you have to surmise which the better pattern is, El Nino or La Nina.. they should actually be opposites of each other as far as anomalies go. If Strong El Nino is so bad, then Strong La Nina is so good... the difference is we've never really seen a strong east-based La Nina like some of the stronger east-based El Nino's. Orientation on the equator is a difference maker. But a -3c La Nina in Nino 1+2... should be cold near the Great Lakes.. 

That's an interesting way of looking at it.  I've always thought that strong of both is really bad and what you want is a weaker version of either so other factors become more important.

 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

That's an interesting way of looking at it.  I've always thought that strong of both is really bad and what you want is a weaker version of either so other factors become more important.

But they are relative states of the same weather on the equator.. if one is less than, than the greater than should have opposite effects. The reason why both appear bad is because of lack of data, and because historically stronger La Nina's have usually been west-based, which is focused near 180W/0. If the La Nina was east-based like these massive Strong El Nino's have been, then you might see a very cold pattern in the northern US and Canada. 

[michsnowfreak]

38 minutes ago, bluewave said:

You can see what has been happening over the Pacific by looking at where the SSTs have been warming the fastest. The reason that we have been seeing more frequent La Ninas is due to the WPAC warming at a faster rate than the EPAC. So it causes stronger trade winds near the Dateline. This works against El Niño development. So when we finally tip the system back to El Niño it has to be very strong in order to develop against the very strong La Ninas background state. We saw the El Niño struggle to develop in 12-13 and 14-15 only to finally push through with the super El Niño in 15-16. Then again in 23-24. 

But something shifted in the spring of 2023 with the record warming in the EPAC. This warming off the South American Coast is continuing into April 2025. So the La Niña this winter was among the weakest we have seen since 1950 coming off such a strong El Niño. The rapid increase in global warming last 2 years may suggest that we have experienced a new type of Pacific shift. One in which the system is tilted more to El Niño development. If the EPAC warming persists into the summer, then it may inhibit the typical 2nd year La Ninas which has been the norm recently. So if any type of El Niño can push through from 25-26 to 26-27, then we me be in uncharted territory. But we will need more data going forward to confirm this new hypothesis. 

Ultimately, we will need to see a shift in the record Northern Stream of the Pacific Jet since 18-19 with the lowest cumulative 7 year snowfall on record from Philly to Boston for any snowfall improvement. This is very uncertain since the competing marine heatwaves in the North Pacific blur the distinctions between what we expect from a -PDO and +PDO.   The next 5-7 years will probably be make or break as to whether this snowfall regime since 18-19 is a new climate feature or something that can shift a bit going forward. 

Long term we expect snowfall to decrease as the climate and the storm tracks warm. So using a linear understanding of the climate we could say that we get years of ups and others with more downs as the general trend line on snowfall is down. But if we see more of a non linear shift with the snow, then the decline could occur faster than then a general decrease along a linear path. Since snowfall measurement methodology shifted since the 1980s. From late 1800s into mid 1900s snowfall was under measured by today’s standards. So when the snowfall record is corrected higher from 1880 to 1980 or so, most areas will show a steady decline away from the Great Lakes snow belts with more frequent measurements these days than in the old days inflating the present totals. 
 

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

So late 1800s into mid 1900s snowfall was under measured by today’s standards.

 

This is absolutely amazing because we were already averaging around 35" of snow per decade from the 1860s through the 1910s..... so this may actually have been over 40" And the decades before the 1860s were even snowier!

 

This "snow being undermeasured" in the old days is widely skeptical IMO. Its just another excuse for some to try and find an excuse for the weaker winters of the old days, and assume the snowier winters were even snowier. Whether its 1880 or 2025, snow is measured by a human and subject to human error.

For starters, nearly all first order stations have used the same 6-hour snow measurement practices since 1950 or so, not 1980. 

As for pre-1950 data, a key I look for is precip total, snowfall, and snow depth. This is where you would notice any inflations or undermeasurments.  One thing working in their favor in the pre-1950 years vs today is that the weather obs were highly cared for and someone was monitoring around the clock. With most first order sites now away from the actual NWS (weather bureau in the old days), you rely on the observers to be on top of things if anything like melting, mixing, etc occurred between the 6 hour intervals. In the old days they were on top of all that, documenting every detail (ie: snow began at 7:38pm, or snow ended at 3:42pm). If one truly measured only at the end of a storm or whatever, you would find that it is mostly the larger storms that are more inflated using 6 hours.

The main data I question locally is the 1870s-1890s data. Far too often they always used the 10-1 ratio. If I had to guess, what I THINK they did was measure the snow depth "on the level" and apply a 10-1 ratio. Once we get to 1900 or so is when the data becomes more clear (ie, its not always 10-1 ratio, the snow depth is more in line with compacting/settling, etc). 

In my spare time Im working on piecing together weather data from the 1830s-1860s. I have several journals/books that detail it, so Im trying to piece together the good and not so good years. As I understand it, the 1860s were generally harsh winters, the 1850s a mixed bag, and the 1830s-1840s were quite mild and "open" winters with a few exceptions. So dont just assume any linear up or down at any level. 

Last but certainly not least, in terms of future snow...dont assume warmer means less snow for all. While it may be the case for NYC and south, for places farther north it could be a completely different story. Milder winters often lead to more dynamic/powerful snowstorms in further north climes.

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

 

This "snow being undermeasured" in the old days is widely skeptical IMO. Its just another excuse for some to try and find an excuse for the weaker winters of the old days, and assume the snowier winters were even snowier. Whether its 1880 or 2025, snow is measured by a human and subject to human error.

For starters, nearly all first order stations have used the same 6-hour snow measurement practices since 1950 or so, not 1980. 

As for pre-1950 data, a key I look for is precip total, snowfall, and snow depth. This is where you would notice any inflations or undermeasurments.  One thing working in their favor in the pre-1950 years vs today is that the weather obs were highly cared for and someone was monitoring around the clock. With most first order sites now away from the actual NWS (weather bureau in the old days), you rely on the observers to be on top of things if anything like melting, mixing, etc occurred between the 6 hour intervals. In the old days they were on top of all that, documenting every detail (ie: snow began at 7:38pm, or snow ended at 3:42pm). If one truly measured only at the end of a storm or whatever, you would find that it is mostly the larger storms that are more inflated using 6 hours.

The main data I question locally is the 1870s-1890s data. Far too often they always used the 10-1 ratio. If I had to guess, what I THINK they did was measure the snow depth "on the level" and apply a 10-1 ratio. Once we get to 1900 or so is when the data becomes more clear (ie, its not always 10-1 ratio, the snow depth is more in line with compacting/settling, etc). 

In my spare time Im working on piecing together weather data from the 1830s-1860s. I have several journals/books that detail it, so Im trying to piece together the good and not so good years. As I understand it, the 1860s were generally harsh winters, the 1850s a mixed bag, and the 1830s-1840s were quite mild and "open" winters with a few exceptions. So dont just assume any linear up or down at any level. 

Last but certainly not least, in terms of future snow...dont assume warmer means less snow for all. While it may be the case for NYC and south, for places farther north it could be a completely different story. Milder winters often lead to more dynamic/powerful snowstorms in further north climes.

This is something I've always advocated for, use precipitation totals to account for snowfall measuring errors.  I would use a sliding scale snowfall to liquid ratio based on temperatures.  8:1 for heavier wet snow, 10:1 for normal snow and 15:1 for dry and fluffy snow.