psuhoffman

Rebooting the world economy will take coordination and a collaborative effort. Too much of the workforce depends on transnational corporations or demand from international markets for one region to prosper in a vacuum. We are no exception. I was just saying one advantage we have now over most past economic crises is the market imbalance at work here can be temporary. I say can be because without adequate fiscal and monetary interventions the temporary imbalance could become permanent. Lets compare this to the Great Depression. In that case 4 major problems combined. An incredibly unhealthy distribution of wealth that limited purchasing power and product demand, extreme inflation of market value due to an unregulated financial sector acting recklessly and a lack of feduciary regulations combined with a sudden banking crises unchecked by a lack of funds insurance, and exasperated by a laissez-faire attitude by some governments unwilling to take measures to infuse the necessary artificial stimulus to kick start growth. Of those 4 factors acting to create the extreme imbalance only 1 exists today in a tangible way beyond the temporary effects of the virus. We again today have an unhealthy distribution that will threaten a worse recession someday if it is not rectified. But the other 3 factors do not exist to the same degree. In the 1920s we actually were still pretty close to a true capitalist economy. Not quite as much as the 1800s prior to the progressive movement when damn near anything was legal in the name of making a buck but still close. In that way we were ill equipped to manage a sudden market imbalance. Once demand was wrecked by such an imbalance it could take years for people to cobble together enough cap to increase demand and thus labor again. Plus people were burned and even when they had money were acting frugal which was not helpful to creating labor demand which requires people buying stuff. Today we can, to a degree, control and offset such imbalances. Whether we are willing is another story. But for instance, most don’t realize how government spending really happens. When we spend money we don’t take it from revenues. We actually just print the money. We make it up. Then the following year we correct the imbalance by either taxing it out of the economy fiscally or use monetary measures (open market operations or tinkering with interest rates) to prevent rapid extreme inflation. The deficit is just the estimate of the imbalance between how much more money we are infusing into the economy than taking out the following year. And normally that’s important because in a well functioning economy without an imbalance if you flood cap into the market without increasing production you end up with rapid inflation that destabilizes the economy. But what if we have an equal downward economic pressure like right now? Will the 2T infusion of cap really cause the same harm now? Not likely. In some limited sectors maybe. But the downward pressures right now will offset most of the effects. So we could spend recklessky right now without as much harm as in other situations. We also could freeze debt to limit the instability. Now will we do those things? I’m skeptical. But my point was our unwillingness to enact a proper economic plan doesn’t make the healthcare plan wrong. We could manage this in a way to minimize both the virus impacts and economic impacts imo.

Yes because there is no $ on life AND money is all abstract anyways. We literally make it up. It’s the value of our goods, services and means of production that matters. Temporarily there will be an imbalance to that but necessary services will survive and if the government wanted too they can easily freeze then reboot all non essential economic sectors with an infusion of capital to kick start it. Typically such an infusion would create inflation but not when it’s balanced by downward price pressures such as now. Economic policy is really about how we allot and prioritize resources. Money can be manipulated. This won’t create a permanent imbalance in the means of production. We will still have an adequate labor force and raw materials. With an infusion of cap to crate necessary demand the economy would recover quickly. We could also freeze all debt both to and from financial institutions so most come out the same way they entered the crisis. Now I know our government sucks at economic policy and that likely won’t do all that. The biggest issue is we are selfish AF and that strategy would require the greater good mentality. A lot of people will still be making a profit. Financial institutions don’t want to give up several months of interest payments. And many wouldn’t want everyone to realize just have abstract the value of money is and open their eyes to the truth of how we deploy our resources. So we will probably drive ourselves into a depression in a futile attempt to save the status quo economic system but that doesn’t make the first part of the plan wrong. It just makes us idiots when it comes to economic policy.

In a few years when it’s a constant neussance we will have some natural immunity and likely a vaccine. It won’t be a threat to run rampant all at once and crash the medical system.

It’s unavoidable. An old boss of mine is a Qanon tin foil hat nutcase and it’s amazing what he shares on his FB wall. I mean some of it’s like grocery store tabloid level stupid. The theme seems to be “take ANYTHING that doesn’t fit his preferred narrative and twist it into a conspiracy that does”. But some of those absolutely lunatic level crap posts have 100,000 likes.

You are describing the micro effects of the macro pattern I discussed.

Split flow progressive pattern with lack of phasing (until OTS). Southern stream moisture stays south. Northern stream races by to the north. It happens. But it’s unlikely to persist forever. Especially as we move into Summer patterns when different factors become more critical to our precipitation prospects.

@showmethesnow everything you bring up are good points and it’s very possible. I guess I’m more optimistic that if it was a truly catostrophic (extremely high mortality) virus nations and individuals would be more likely to take the known necessary measures. It’s one thing to have 20 year old selfish ding dongs ignoring the measures when the risk to them truly is relatively minor. It’s another if the virus had a 50% mortality rate! And the few remaining idiots would likely face swift immediate severe government action. We were “lenient” and many people ignored the advice. I hope that wouldn’t be true if a civilization threatening level event. Additionally modern medicine likely would reduce the mortality rate “some”. Of course that’s assuming we mitigate the spread enough not to crash the system. A huge assumption. So I agree your pessimism is warranted but there are more optimistic possibilities. Hopefully we never have to find out!

I wonder why the initial dismissal of masks as a part of the containment strategy. Even if it’s minimally effective at preventing people from contracting it seemed to me that it would help with the transmission from the asymptotic carriers. And even minimally effective could lower transmission some. Maybe they knew we simply didn’t have the supply and didn’t want to cause a panic or rush on supplies? ETA: just read that some experts feared masks would create a false sense of security and cause people not to practice social distancing thus mitigating the benefits. I could see how that “could” be a problem but then better messaging was needed. That seems to be a “people are too stupid to handle the truth” attitude. And while that may be true you have to at least attempt imo.

@showmethesnow given how much more we know about virus transmission now and medical advances hopefully we never see another pandemic that wipes out majorities of the population in places. It’s possible but it’s also likely we could at least mitigate the impact some compared to pandemics that predated modern medicine. This doesn’t have the mortality rate to be that kind of outbreak anyways but people taking the minimalist extreme position also aren’t accounting for what the mortality would look like if we didn’t take these measures. Somewhere in between is the likely answer but a level we would regret considering the crash to the healthcare system it would cause and how that would impact millions of other people.

At least this time the map agrees with your point. But a 30 day anomaly over such a relatively small geographic area isn’t that significant. If that kind of pattern were to continue another 60 days or so it would become a problem. My guess is it won’t. These things tend to naturally balance out. These short term anomalies aren’t even really anomalies. The mean is just a bunch of anomalies averaged together. You are missing the forest from the trees.

You might want to learn how to read that map before using it to make a point...

A small area receiving 50-75% of normal precip for 1-2 months isn’t that significant. That happens quite frequently. For some reason no one makes a big deal everytime we get 150% of qpf in a 60 day period. The drought thing is overblown almost everytime it comes up. We haven’t had a true emergency level drought in a long time. The droughts being trumpeted lately are just typical variance that happens several times a decade. And before some brings up water restrictions...just because some localities didn’t properly plan their water usage when zoning doesn’t mean it’s a true anomalous drought everytime they run out of water due to poor planning and over population for the local water availability.

It hasn’t rained here in about 20 minutes. Good thing we are already sheltering in place.

Here we go...

I think the coop they used there is right on the bay so it skews low.

@RevWarReenactor they might not have "lied" to you, simply fallen to a common misconception. West can help wrt snowfall...but only if you get far enough west to enter another climate zone. The reason west helps is because of the contour of the elevation zones in the mid atlantic. If you go far enough west you get out of the coastal plain and into the Piedmont. Go far enough west and you get out of the Piedmont and into the mountains. With each elevation increase you enter a better climate zone for snowfall. But within each zone...north/south matters more than east/west. You can see that with these snowfall maps here...I continued the approximate contours from the NJ map to help show how once you hit the fall line...snowfall totals turn southwest due to the climate zone change...but within the coastal plain the contours run more west to east. You can see on the Maryland snowfall map how there is a tight gradient along the fall line. Had you moved 15 miles further northwest THEN you would have seen a dramatic change in your snowfall. But moving east and west within the coastal plain won't make much difference. Within each climate zone local meso scale terrain features like ridges and water matter more. So being right along the immediate coast...like on the barrier islands...will get less snow than 10 miles inland. But once inland a little snowfall won't usually change much going another 10 miles east or west. Someone right along the Delaware river will get less snow than someone 250 feet higher up in South Jersey for instance. Look at where you are on that MD map...you had the misfortune of moving into a local snowfall minimum also...a region that is between the Chesapeake bay and Delaware river...at very low elevation. Warmth floods up the bay and river.... you have a downsloping wind from every direction...and a wind off water from many directions. You are in a bad local area also. When I moved from southern NJ to northern VA I did see an increase in snow...but only because I went from the coastal plain to the Piedmont. Had I moved somewhere 15 miles further southeast in VA I would have actually gotten less snow than where I used to live southeast of Philly. Elevation is the reason going west helps...but if you go west and do NOT increase your elevation...you really aren't doing yourself any good. And if you go west and put yourself into a local snow hole due to terrain features you can even get less. I get way more snow than places west of me in the valley there. Hope this helps explain the real phenomenon you are describing.

First of all I hope you don't find this antagonistic. I don't find any of this to be hostile. We have different opinions but it's an interesting conversation that is all. It has been a crappy run for snow. I am not happy with the results either. But I am taking a purely statistics and probabilities side here. In the last 10 years DCA had 4 years above average. That still holds with the long term "normal" frequency. Those years can sometimes come in chunks with long periods in between...that has always been the case. There is a very random distribution to our big snowfall years. You have to look at the frequency over longer periods of time when you have that kind of distribution to see real trends versus just random noise. Like a coin flip. You can get 5 heads in a row...and think that is a trend...but if you step back and look over 20 or 30 flips you are more likely to see it even out towards the 50/50 probability. Over the long term the odds of a big snowfall year is about 30% and we will have runs of good or bad within but over the longer term it usually ends up evening out to about that 30% chance. I am not trying to say its been a good run for snow. Its been crappy. But the problem is we live somewhere that crappy is kind of the normal base state most of the time. I am just accepting that reality. Not saying you should be happy about it. WRT your take on different years...and how snow comes. Again you feel how you feel...no changing that, but what you describe...late snowfalls (or even mid winter ones) that melt right away...or turn to rain and get washed away...or imperfect storms that dry slot us...that describes A LOT of our snow. If you start to toss years that got to a decent result but did it with "flawed" storms you end up making our already crappy climo even worse. For instance if you remove the "good snow years" in DC where most of that snow came from one big storm OR most of that snow came late in the season then you end up tossing "good years" like 1960, 1972, 1983, 2000, 2015, 2016, 2019... take those away and now your probabilities of a "good year" go down to like 20% if not worse. On top of that a lot of the "mediocre" years become awful if you toss one big storm years...like 2006, or years where most of the snow came from flawed melty storms or late season storms....like 2018. Do that and now the chances of a total crap season goes up even more. So I get why you don't "like" those storms as much...I just don't think you get how rare what you "want" really is. How common has it been for us to get a winter where we get a lot of snow from multiple "cold" storms? How many of those have happened in the last 30 years? 1996, 2003, 2010, 2014, 2015... is that it? Am I missing any? If not that is 5 times in 30 years... that's only 17% of the time. You only have a 17% chance of getting that in any given year. I am not saying that isn't what you should want...and I want that too...I just realize how rare that is around here. I also think you are mis remembering some years. 2002 DC only had 3.2". It was 2003 that was great and that was a nino year. 2004 was only 12.5" so it was decent but not a "good" year, especially by your standards. 2006 DC had 13.6" and most of it came from one storm that was a meltathon right after so doesn't that fall into the type of years you say you don't like? 2008 was only 4.9 all of it came from a clipper in early Dec and then two 1" slush storms. I highly doubt you really thought that was "decent" at the time. 2009 was 7.5" almost all from one storm in March that melted the next day. So.... You are saying some of those werent that bad but they were every bit as bad as some of the years in the last 10 that you complained constantly that they sucked as they were happening. They were all way worse than 2018 was in your location and you hated that year when it was actually happening. I think time has a tendency to edit our memories. 15 years from now maybe all I will remember from this winter is that one good snowstorm I got in January and the day in the snow with my children and it won't seem as bad. But the numbers don't lie.

Nino winters using January for the year 2003,2005,2007,2010,2015,2016,2019 nina years 2001,2006,2008,2009,2011,2012,2017,2018 neutral years 2002,2004,2013,2014,2020 Let me explain my rationale. This year has been awful. It’s not normal. But it is normal to get a year like this every 8 years or so. This one ended up even worse then some similar comp years with a similar pattern like 1989, 2002, 2008 but only slightly because each of those years lucked into one storm and this year didn’t. But it ended up similar to some other years like 98, 73 or 52 that also ended up pretty snowless. But these type years have been trending worse for a while. 2017 was another example where similar comp pattern years in the past might have produced 8” but recently that’s been trending down so the 3” result wasn’t shocking to me. That this year ended up with almost nothing vs the 3-4” it might have produced in a similar year 30 years ago also doesn’t shock me. That just seems to be the new normal now. But that doesn’t bother me that much because honestly would you feel better if we had eeked our way to 5” from a couple minor slush events? You know not, you complained non stop in years like that also. So who cares if our awful years are 3” instead of 5” or 1” instead of 3” now. The frequency of our “good winters” actually hasn’t changed and is still about 30%. Those are the only years you and most would be happy with the results anyways. The other 70% is some variation of suck that are mostly warm with little snow and most of that snow is flawed minor events that you toss and those years won’t make you happy whether the final total is 2” or 5” or 8”. So im not obsessing over the fact that in our typical run of 4 crap years we get every decade we end up with 27” total instead of the 32” we might have gotten 20 years ago. That seems to be the expected result of the recent trends. Im not saying this is normal. I’m saying there is no normal but that this run doesn’t fall outside of an expected result to balance out the run of luck we had earlier in the decade. I never hear you complaining about how not normal it is when we get a lot of snow.

Too much bitter for some

As @C.A.P.E. said there is no "normal" for us. Statistically normal is usually anything within a standard deviation. I don't remember exactly what it came out too but I ran the numbers once and one standard deviation wrt snowfall here is useless. Because our snowfall year to year is so varied it was something like anything between 1 and 40". We have no "normal" snowfall distribution...we don't live somewhere that has a typical expected snowfall each year. We can get 1" and 40" with about equal probabilities...and everything in between. WRT this current 4 year run...look if it makes you feel better to cling to the idea that it isnt normal and is the worst spit in our eye of mother nature fine. I have no idea what that would make you feel any better. But if you keep expecting things to be better than recent history and trends suggest its likely to be year to year...you are just going to keep being frustrated and disappointed most years. I have no idea if this is a more temporary climate cycle (some of it probably is wrt NAO) or a more permanent shift due to warming (some of it likely is) but the bottom line is there has been an observable change. Nino years havent changed much. We still average about 25" in a nino since 2000. That was about the same before that. Our chances of an above avg snow year are still good in a nino. But since 2000 EVERYTHING else has been crap. We have only had one good snowfall year since 2000 in a non nino year. The other 12 were all some variation of garbage. That didn't used to be the case. Enso neutral years used to produce above avg snowfall years much more frequently in the past. Not so anymore. On top of that years with a crappy pattern are trending downwards in snowfall results likely due to warming eliminating some of the marginal fluke snowfalls that would get a year like 1989 or 1992 or 2002 to 5" instead of 1" or nothing. When you combine those FACTS it makes what is happening now totally expected and inevitable. I don't know if this trend will continue but until it changes we should expect similar results. Some good years surrounded by long stretches of really really bad is the new normal. It's been that way and trending worse for over 20 years now. For some reason you seem to want to set your expectations based on how things USED TO BE 50 years ago instead of what the evidence suggests is a reasonable expectation in our current climate cycle.

You could make it harder to attack you if you didn’t post absurd nonsense. You recently criticized us for not using analogs when the long range and seasonal thread is filled with analog discussions. I made a post months ago showing the analogs to this year and how awful they were. And many others said similar. Just because you didn’t read it...which is fine but then to criticize a thread you obviously don’t bother to actually read makes you look bad. You make rants about NWP (like it hadn’t improved in the last 20 years) that are easily disproven as false. You make up crazy conspiracy theories that insult the integrity of some of our best professionals in here who would have to be part of that conspiracy, ignoring the insult to logic that is your theory. Then you start this thread acting like there was and is no way to know what went wrong when we have been discussing that for weeks now and this exact type season has happened before and we do and have known “what went wrong”. Sorry but you make yourself an easy target.

@C.A.P.E. Tenman and this thread is absurd Weve known for months this winter was a turd numerous posters said without a lot of luck how bad this season was going to suck he complains we don’t use analogs obviously he didn’t read the long range blogs a central pac ridge +AO is crap once that set in we knew it was a wrap but he is still trying to figure what went wrong Long after the rest of us moved on but I’m sure he won’t listen to me And blame it on a government conspiracy.

There was a man in Delaware who loved snow I told him dude you got to go Somewhere up north I would find henceforth For the sake of your sanity oh and lay off the Hannity The population density might be crappier but you will be much happier In a place where the nao isnt needed to get snow so for the love of god GO

But you are ignoring climate change. If you look at the trends it is normal now. Go back and look at the patterns the last 100 years. The good years aren’t changing wrt frequency or totals but the bad years are getting worse. 50 years ago a bad year was 10”. Now most bad years struggle to get to 5 or 7” and the frequency of below 5” winters is going up. Since 2000 (not including this year yet) we have had 13 non nino years. In those years 12/13 were below avg and the median snowfall is 7.5”. Furthermore 5 were below 5”. The new normal for non nino years is for most to be pretty awful. Because that is a new phenomenon that is getting worse everytime we get a bad run (which are common even in the old climate to get 3-5 year bad periods only now the bad years are worse) we will likely challenge the “worst period ever” thing you are clinging too. But is it “not normal” when it’s been happening and trending this way for 20+ years now?