|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 18, 2021 10:36:55 GMT -5
This is such an obnoxious discussion because you're constantly basing arguments on claims that are simply not true, that you would've known if you just had more knowledge about the climate and weather in the Bothnian sea and gulf. I compiled an album for you with satellite images of mid-January where it's clear that the sea ice is usually very limited, and never enough to eliminate the effects of the sea moisture. And I also compiled images of mid-April showing that literally every single year, Finland will have significantly earlier loss of permanent snow cover in spring than Sweden, even when comparing places of similar altitude, distance from the sea and mean temperatures. Umeå generally loses snow cover at similar rate to Oulu in Finland, significantly further north with signficantly cooler winters and springs. imgur.com/a/43wB4eQAlso, you keep going on about Umeå getting more rain because we're closer to the atlantic. The thing is that you're severely over-estimating the effect that rain has on the melting of snow. 10mm of rain at 2'C will NOT melt 10cm of snow that fell at 2'C. The amount of energy needed to melt 1kg of snow is enough to warm 1kg of water by 80 degrees. Meaning if you had a bowl of water and wanted to melt snow/ice, you'd need 1kg of 80'C water to melt 1kg of ice/snow (if the ice/snow is already 0'C) (if you disregard ambient temperatures and heat exchange). Water is fucking shit at melting snow. The reason people think rain is crucial for melting snow is that water is effective at compacting snow. If there's very powdery snow, and you pour 0'C water on it, it will shrink a lot even though it doesn't actually melt. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 18, 2021 11:08:18 GMT -5
This is such an obnoxious discussion because you're constantly basing arguments on claims that are simply not true, that you would've known if you just had more knowledge about the climate and weather in the Bothnian sea and gulf. I compiled an album for you with satellite images of mid-January where it's clear that the sea ice is usually very limited, and never enough to eliminate the effects of the sea moisture. And I also compiled images of mid-April showing that literally every single year, Finland will have significantly earlier loss of permanent snow cover in spring than Sweden, even when comparing places of similar altitude, distance from the sea and mean temperatures. Umeå generally loses snow cover at similar rate to Oulu in Finland, significantly further north with signficantly cooler winters and springs. imgur.com/a/43wB4eQAlso, you keep going on about Umeå getting more rain because we're closer to the atlantic. The thing is that you're severely over-estimating the effect that rain has on the melting of snow. 10mm of rain at 2'C will NOT melt 10cm of snow that fell at 2'C. The amount of energy needed to melt 1kg of snow is enough to warm 1kg of water by 80 degrees. Meaning if you had a bowl of water and wanted to melt snow/ice, you'd need 1kg of 80'C water to melt 1kg of ice/snow (if the ice/snow is already 0'C) (if you disregard ambient temperatures and heat exchange). Water is fucking shit at melting snow. The reason people think rain is crucial for melting snow is that water is effective at compacting snow. If there's very powdery snow, and you pour 0'C water on it, it will shrink a lot even though it doesn't actually melt.
You are saying that Umeå loses irs snow cover later because of lake-effect snow, which you also admit is a rare phenomenon, and only come from wind directions that are a fraction of them all. So the reasons must be something else.
Umeå had 60-something cm on the ground on 22 March, Kaustinen had 60-something cm on the ground at the same day, so the initial setup was exactly similar. Why Kaustinen lost its snowpack by 8 April and Umeå didn't IDK.
You say higher wind speeds and more fields in Finland. The wind speed argument is false, and while fields can have an effect on a small scale locally, it doesn't change the reality that both countries are heavily forested.
Meanwhile at Turku's latitude the Swedish side loses its snow cover earlier. Uppsala for example. Why is that the truth at 60N but not 63N? IDK. Same wind directions, same wind speeds, similar ice situation etc.
I'm ready to believe you if you have good arguments, but you're just saying "well more fields" or "east winds give lots of lake-effect snow for Umeå, but the Finnish side never gets it". Those just don't hold water.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 18, 2021 11:43:51 GMT -5
This is such an obnoxious discussion because you're constantly basing arguments on claims that are simply not true, that you would've known if you just had more knowledge about the climate and weather in the Bothnian sea and gulf. I compiled an album for you with satellite images of mid-January where it's clear that the sea ice is usually very limited, and never enough to eliminate the effects of the sea moisture. And I also compiled images of mid-April showing that literally every single year, Finland will have significantly earlier loss of permanent snow cover in spring than Sweden, even when comparing places of similar altitude, distance from the sea and mean temperatures. Umeå generally loses snow cover at similar rate to Oulu in Finland, significantly further north with signficantly cooler winters and springs. imgur.com/a/43wB4eQAlso, you keep going on about Umeå getting more rain because we're closer to the atlantic. The thing is that you're severely over-estimating the effect that rain has on the melting of snow. 10mm of rain at 2'C will NOT melt 10cm of snow that fell at 2'C. The amount of energy needed to melt 1kg of snow is enough to warm 1kg of water by 80 degrees. Meaning if you had a bowl of water and wanted to melt snow/ice, you'd need 1kg of 80'C water to melt 1kg of ice/snow (if the ice/snow is already 0'C) (if you disregard ambient temperatures and heat exchange). Water is fucking shit at melting snow. The reason people think rain is crucial for melting snow is that water is effective at compacting snow. If there's very powdery snow, and you pour 0'C water on it, it will shrink a lot even though it doesn't actually melt.
You are saying that Umeå loses irs snow cover later because of lake-effect snow, which you also admit is a rare phenomenon, and only come from wind directions that are a fraction of them all. So the reasons must be something else.
Umeå had 60-something cm on the ground on 22 March, Kaustinen had 60-something cm on the ground at the same day, so the initial setup was exactly similar. Why Kaustinen lost its snowpack by 8 April and Umeå didn't IDK.
You say higher wind speeds and more fields in Finland. The wind speed argument is false, and while fields can have an effect on a small scale locally, it doesn't change the reality that both countries are heavily forested.
Meanwhile at Turku's latitude the Swedish side loses its snow cover earlier. Uppsala for example. Why is that the truth at 60N but not 63N? IDK. Same wind directions, same wind speeds, similar ice situation etc.
I'm ready to believe you if you have good arguments, but you're just saying "well more fields" or "east winds give lots of lake-effect snow for Umeå, but the Finnish side never gets it". Those just don't hold water.
I said that I wasn't stating for the record that Umeå gets specifically one 30cm sea-effect snowfall event more than Kronoby each winter month. Not making any statement at all isn't the same as stating the opposite of the argument (I didn't state B by not stating A). My point was just to illustrate how your conclusion in your first paragraph (So the reasons must be something else) is faulty, because if we assume that a 30cm sea-effect snow occurs once per month in Umeå in addition to the normal snow that is equal in Kronoby, it doesn't matter that it is "infrequent" in only happening once per month, because it'll still add up to a 90cm snow difference after three months. I'm using made up stats to illustrate why your conclusion is faulty. It's a well known fact that sea-level semi-coastal Sweden gets more winter precipitation than similar geography places in Finland at these latitudes; just compare the precipitation in Luleå and Oulu. It's also a fact that we receive an additional amount of snow by a similar amount. And the fact that it more often blows from the west doesn't mean the eastern side of the baltic is going to have more sea-effect snow if those western winds are mild and moist. For sea-effect snow, the winds must be very cold. Regarding Kaustinen: They received 35mm precipitation in January, 47mm in February and 36mm in March. Umeå received 140mm of precipitation in January (literally all of which was snow, no rain) and about 40mm in February. March was dry though with 15mm. So even if snow depth was similar, it's clear Umeå received a shitton more snow. Also, Röbäcksdalen where the precipitation and snowdepth station is, recorded 0cm snow on the 8th of April as well. It lost its snow cover a lot quicker than everywhere else within 50km. Why? Because it's in the middle of Sweden's largest field north of Uppsala. A field of very average size in Finland at that latitude. Regarding Uppsala, the shape and size of the Baltic changes pretty drastically south of 60'N. Also, at this point Sweden becomes significantly milder in winter and spring especially. There's also much more open plain as opposed to hilly taiga making wind speeds markedly higher during storms etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 18, 2021 11:57:10 GMT -5
I said that I wasn't stating for the record that Umeå gets specifically one 30cm sea-effect snowfall event more than Kronoby each winter month. Not making any statement at all isn't the same as stating the opposite of the argument (I didn't state B by not stating A). My point was just to illustrate how your conclusion in your first paragraph (So the reasons must be something else) is faulty, because if we assume that a 30cm sea-effect snow occurs once per month in Umeå in addition to the normal snow that is equal in Kronoby, it doesn't matter that it is "infrequent" in only happening once per month, because it'll still add up to a 90cm snow difference after three months. I'm using made up stats to illustrate why your conclusion is faulty. It's a well known fact that sea-level semi-coastal Sweden gets more winter precipitation than similar geography places in Finland at these latitudes; just compare the precipitation in Luleå and Oulu. It's also a fact that we receive an additional amount of snow by a similar amount. And the fact that it more often blows from the west doesn't mean the eastern side of the baltic is going to have more sea-effect snow if those western winds are mild and moist. For sea-effect snow, the winds must be very cold. Regarding Kaustinen: They received 35mm precipitation in January, 47mm in February and 36mm in March. Umeå received 140mm of precipitation in January (literally all of which was snow, no rain) and about 40mm in February. March was dry though with 15mm. So even if snow depth was similar, it's clear Umeå received a shitton more snow. Also, Röbäcksdalen where the precipitation and snowdepth station is, recorded 0cm snow on the 8th of April as well. It lost its snow cover a lot quicker than everywhere else within 50km. Why? Because it's in the middle of Sweden's largest field north of Uppsala. A field of very average size in Finland at that latitude. Regarding Uppsala, the shape and size of the Baltic changes pretty drastically south of 60'N. Also, at this point Sweden becomes significantly milder in winter and spring especially. There's also much more open plain as opposed to hilly taiga making wind speeds markedly higher during storms etc.
Ok everything else is cool and dandy, but Kronoby does get rather infrequently frequent lake-effect snowfalls as well. So it's definitely a phenomenon on this side, which more or less happens some time every winter.
One thing which might affect the agricultural areas in Ostrobothnia are the French Drains (täckdike) which are very common and widespread. So the melting snow has a better chance of flowing away and not stay stagnant and freeze again during the night. Just crossed my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 18, 2021 12:04:57 GMT -5
Also, I compared windspeeds for the last month and a half between Kronoby and Umeå airport, and Kronoby was consistently windier albeit the difference wasn't massive, only about 20%, especially during the mild streak that started in late March. And it's not even a fair comparison, because while Umeå airport lies in the middle of our largest field, in an otherwise foresty area (i.e. being representative of the absolute worst case scenario, the windiest place in the county if you don't count the coast), Kronoby airport is both further from the sea, as well as being located in an "island" of forest in an otherwise fieldy area, (i.e. less windy than the surrounding areas). Kronoby vs Umeå (same scale):   Also, why is the ground all around the airstrips at the Kronoby airport completley different in appearance compared to normal grass? Zooming in it looks like Kronoby airport is located extremely sandy soil, with some sand dunes poking out all over the place, as well as most of the ground not being covered in grass. Will have to keep it in mind for future comparisons with Umeå airport. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 18, 2021 12:09:06 GMT -5
I think it's kept barren like that so that it doesn't attract birds.
|
|
|
|
Post by ral31 on Apr 18, 2021 12:25:16 GMT -5
It's been a very wet stretch for the Gulf coast the past two weeks and also a number of severe storms. 10-15 inches of rain in SE LA and coastal MS & AL. I've had 6.78" in my gauge during since April 7 (5.33" at Alexandria's airport).  |
|
|
|
Post by Benfxmth on Apr 18, 2021 12:29:48 GMT -5
Pretty big contrast within Florida forecast this afternoon - occluded front over northern FL peninsula has been bringing rain today.  |
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 18, 2021 12:31:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 18, 2021 14:34:37 GMT -5
Artukainen absolutely DESTROYED yesterday's high of 17.8C with setting a new spring high of 17.9C today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 18, 2021 15:59:44 GMT -5
I said that I wasn't stating for the record that Umeå gets specifically one 30cm sea-effect snowfall event more than Kronoby each winter month. Not making any statement at all isn't the same as stating the opposite of the argument (I didn't state B by not stating A). My point was just to illustrate how your conclusion in your first paragraph (So the reasons must be something else) is faulty, because if we assume that a 30cm sea-effect snow occurs once per month in Umeå in addition to the normal snow that is equal in Kronoby, it doesn't matter that it is "infrequent" in only happening once per month, because it'll still add up to a 90cm snow difference after three months. I'm using made up stats to illustrate why your conclusion is faulty. It's a well known fact that sea-level semi-coastal Sweden gets more winter precipitation than similar geography places in Finland at these latitudes; just compare the precipitation in Luleå and Oulu. It's also a fact that we receive an additional amount of snow by a similar amount. And the fact that it more often blows from the west doesn't mean the eastern side of the baltic is going to have more sea-effect snow if those western winds are mild and moist. For sea-effect snow, the winds must be very cold. Regarding Kaustinen: They received 35mm precipitation in January, 47mm in February and 36mm in March. Umeå received 140mm of precipitation in January (literally all of which was snow, no rain) and about 40mm in February. March was dry though with 15mm. So even if snow depth was similar, it's clear Umeå received a shitton more snow. Also, Röbäcksdalen where the precipitation and snowdepth station is, recorded 0cm snow on the 8th of April as well. It lost its snow cover a lot quicker than everywhere else within 50km. Why? Because it's in the middle of Sweden's largest field north of Uppsala. A field of very average size in Finland at that latitude. Regarding Uppsala, the shape and size of the Baltic changes pretty drastically south of 60'N. Also, at this point Sweden becomes significantly milder in winter and spring especially. There's also much more open plain as opposed to hilly taiga making wind speeds markedly higher during storms etc.
Ok everything else is cool and dandy, but Kronoby does get rather infrequently frequent lake-effect snowfalls as well. So it's definitely a phenomenon on this side, which more or less happens some time every winter.
One thing which might affect the agricultural areas in Ostrobothnia are the French Drains (täckdike) which are very common and widespread. So the melting snow has a better chance of flowing away and not stay stagnant and freeze again during the night. Just crossed my mind.
Yeah, fields always have some form of drainage system, ditches et.. I never really thought about what effect they may have on snow depth compared to just increased wind speeds on open fields. Obviously Finland gets sea effect snow. They also get a fair bit of lake-effect snow until the lakes freeze. My point was never that only Sweden got it, the point was just that it would be more frequent and/or intense in Sweden. |
|
|
|
Post by FrozenI69 on Apr 18, 2021 16:04:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 18, 2021 18:35:46 GMT -5
Sweden recorded our first 20'C temp of the year today with 20.2'C in Markaryd in southern Sweden. This was also the third or fourth day in a row that Umeå recorded a new warmest day of the year. 13.5'C today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 18, 2021 18:39:42 GMT -5
This frost hollow traffic agency station just NE of Umeå, that tends to have extremely similar highs but colder lows compared to the airport station, has had a very neat pattern the last few days.  |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Apr 19, 2021 2:37:24 GMT -5
Classic west-to-east foehn today; max temps from coolest to warmest.
• Mount William (1,150 m): 8.5° C
• Cabramurra (1,482 m): 10.1° C
• Hunters Hill (981 m): 12.9° C
• Perisher (1,735 m): 13.1° C
Here (948 m) it maxed at 13.4° C, so about the same as Perisher…despite being 800 m lower.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrozenI69 on Apr 19, 2021 11:05:06 GMT -5
Seems like the snow would be a bit lower than imagined and the track will shift through Ohio and Indiana. Toronto will see some good totals. Mountains around Pittsburgh may also see some accumulating snow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 19, 2021 11:15:37 GMT -5
We've had a very nice streak of Marches and Aprils (note however that the dotted lines don't represent the true normal climate, as well as april 2021 being incomplete)   For May the inverse is true though, with 2013, 2016 and 2018 the only Mays in the last 10 years that haven't been significantly below average. We've had two very cold Mays in a row now. Surely this must mean we'll have a warm May this year? Please? |
|
|
|
Post by kronan on Apr 19, 2021 13:32:58 GMT -5
20.4C in göteborg today - warmest temperature in Sweden so far this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by desiccatedi85 on Apr 19, 2021 14:25:22 GMT -5
High/low of 65/48 here, thunderstorms firing up in parts of the north and west suburbs. Dry so far today here. Tomorrow looks nice, should hit 70. Models showing a strong line of storms coming thru with the cold front on Wednesday. Very cold Thursday then moderating. Next week could see sustained warmth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crunch41 on Apr 19, 2021 22:36:48 GMT -5
After 20 dry days between February 23-March 14, the last month has been drier than average also. 2021 precipitation was above normal in late February but is now about 2.5" below average ( graph). Temps have also been about 7F/4C above normal since then so plants are leafing out early. Spring is usually a wet time of year but a dry spring isn't bad. A rainy stretch will come sometime. As of now the area is considered abnormally dry but not in a drought. I definitely prefer this to a wet spring that has a bunch of cold rainy days.
 |
|
