Deck Pic Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Used average snowfall for DCA/NYC/BOS 1972-73: 4.4" 2001-02: 7.3" 1988-89: 9.8" 1997-98: 10.4" 1994-95: 12.3" 2006-07: 13.0" 1991-92: 13.7" 1979-80: 15.2" 1980-81: 15.4" 1985-86: 15.5" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Used average snowfall for DCA/NYC/BOS 1972-73: 4.4" 2001-02: 7.3" 1988-89: 9.8" 1997-98: 10.4" 1994-95: 12.3" 2006-07: 13.0" 1991-92: 13.7" 1979-80: 15.2" 1980-81: 15.4" 1985-86: 15.5" NYC was above the average in 1980-81 only...it was probably the coldest of the bunch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 NYC was above the average in 1980-81 only...it was probably the coldest of the bunch... ughh what a lousy winter that was at DCA/BWI a Phineas special.....cold/dry, warm/wet for 3 straight months with cold/dry more prevalent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 NYC 2001-02: 7.3" :axe: I received about 3.5 inches of snow that winter. All of that came with 1 storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 '96-'97 was pretty terrible but BOS bailed out the average with over 25" in the April 1997 storm. '07-'08 was awful too south of BOS. I think '79-'80 was pretty sickening north of DC/BWI. My personal worst is 1994-1995 followed by 1988-1989. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 '96-'97 was pretty terrible but BOS bailed out the average with over 25" in the April 1997 storm. '07-'08 was awful too south of BOS. I think '79-'80 was pretty sickening north of DC/BWI. My personal worst is 1994-1995 followed by 1988-1989. December 1996 was pretty good for you in 1996-97 also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Used average snowfall for DCA/NYC/BOS 1972-73: 4.4" 2001-02: 7.3" 1988-89: 9.8" 1997-98: 10.4" 1994-95: 12.3" 2006-07: 13.0" 1991-92: 13.7" 1979-80: 15.2" 1980-81: 15.4" 1985-86: 15.5" 5 El Ninos and only 1 La Nina...interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KEITH L.I Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 72-73 and 97-98 were the worst..both strong Nino's..god 01-02 was horrible too which was neutral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 72-73 and 97-98 were the worst..both strong Nino's..god 01-02 was horrible too which was neutral This is why a lot of people are worred about a neutral enso this season.I just hope we end up with a weak el nino for this upcoming winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 This is why a lot of people are worred about a neutral enso this season.I just hope we end up with a weak el nino for this upcoming winter. NAO is the only thing that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 December 1996 was pretty good for you in 1996-97 also Yes it was, but it sucked in BOS so it doesn't count for I-95. +NAO El Ninos are about as bad as it gets for the I-95 corridor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NittanyWx Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 NAO is the only thing that matters. Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 NAO is the only thing that matters. I don't think that is the only thing that matters. I would include the PNA,AO and the Sun. We saw last winter how the PNA trumped the NAO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 NAO is the only thing that matters. Didn't 1997-98 have somewhat -NAO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Didn't 1997-98 have somewhat -NAO? It was technically slightly positive. But I'd basically call it neutral. The PAC was definitely the biggest culprit that winter. A solidly -NAO perhaps could have saved that winter a bit, but obviously it didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 It was technically slightly positive. But I'd basically call it neutral. The PAC was definitely the biggest culprit that winter. A solidly -NAO perhaps could have saved that winter a bit, but obviously it didn't happen. 1993-94 and 2002-03 also had positive NAO..... 1993-94 overwhelmingly positive and I don't see how Analog could say or think NAO is the only thing that matters, because he got a ****load of both snow and cold that winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 It was technically slightly positive. But I'd basically call it neutral. The PAC was definitely the biggest culprit that winter. A solidly -NAO perhaps could have saved that winter a bit, but obviously it didn't happen. Yeah, I think if we had a neg nao timed appropriately that winter it could have ended up like 1982-83 (which might also have been influenced by the volcano.) I'd rather have a great pacific pattern first though because that seems to be easier to sustain but if everything else is bad a neg nao can sometimes bail us out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 It was technically slightly positive. But I'd basically call it neutral. The PAC was definitely the biggest culprit that winter. A solidly -NAO perhaps could have saved that winter a bit, but obviously it didn't happen. That's exactly my point. The NAO was close to neutral, so the strong El Nino overwhelmed the pattern. We have seen in the last two winters that if the NAO is strongly negative, it doesn't matter if we have a strong ENSO on either side. And we saw in 2001-02 that a completely neutral ENSO (which was SUPPOSED to be good for snow in the NE) is garbage with a strong +NAO. Yet, I'm sure CPC will still use 100% ENSO to make their outlook this winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Yeah, I think if we had a neg nao timed appropriately that winter it could have ended up like 1982-83 (which might also have been influenced by the volcano.) I'd rather have a great pacific pattern first though because that seems to be easier to sustain but if everything else is bad a neg nao can sometimes bail us out A strong -NAO that year could have given us a combination of 1982-83 and 2009-10. The writing was on the wall in the fall, but the pattern never set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Monthly NAO index for those years... year........Dec...Jan...Feb...Mar... 1972-73...1.7...0.5...2.3...0.9 1979-80...1.3..-1.7...0.5...0.0 1980-81...1.5...1.0...1.2..-1.1 1985-86..-1.2...2.4..-2.7...3.9 1988-89...0.5...2.4...3.2...3.2 1991-92...0.2..-1.0...2.0...2.0 1994-95...1.6...1.4...2.3...1.8 1997-98..-0.5..-0.7...0.7...0.5 2001-02..-4.1...0.5...1.7...0.9 2006-07...2.1...1.1..-0.2...3.1 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jhurrell/indices.data.html#naostatdjfm The neg nao in December 2001 was pretty strong but was a short dip... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 That's exactly my point. The NAO was close to neutral, so the strong El Nino overwhelmed the pattern. We have seen in the last two winters that if the NAO is strongly negative, it doesn't matter if we have a strong ENSO on either side. And we saw in 2001-02 that a completely neutral ENSO (which was SUPPOSED to be good for snow in the NE) is garbage with a strong +NAO. Yet, I'm sure CPC will still use 100% ENSO to make their outlook this winter. But then as someone pointed out, you have 1993-94 which was postive neutral ENSO and had +NAO...so clearly the NAO is not all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LehighValleyBlizzard Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 That's so funny! When I read "worst winters" I assumed you meant snowiest and coldest. I guess I've been brainwashed by the prevailing media! A As to the question I'd have to include 1931-32, 1918-19 and 1889-90 going back a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 That's exactly my point. The NAO was close to neutral, so the strong El Nino overwhelmed the pattern. We have seen in the last two winters that if the NAO is strongly negative, it doesn't matter if we have a strong ENSO on either side. And we saw in 2001-02 that a completely neutral ENSO (which was SUPPOSED to be good for snow in the NE) is garbage with a strong +NAO. Yet, I'm sure CPC will still use 100% ENSO to make their outlook this winter. Well '01-'02 didn't have a strong +NAO, that was another winter were it was weakly positive. The PAC was absolutely horrendous that winter with a strong vortex over W AK and the Bering Straight region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Monthly NAO index for those years... year........Dec...Jan...Feb...Mar... 1972-73...1.7...0.5...2.3...0.9 1979-80...1.3..-1.7...0.5...0.0 1980-81...1.5...1.0...1.2..-1.1 1985-86..-1.2...2.4..-2.7...3.9 1988-89...0.5...2.4...3.2...3.2 1991-92...0.2..-1.0...2.0...2.0 1994-95...1.6...1.4...2.3...1.8 1997-98..-0.5..-0.7...0.7...0.5 2001-02..-4.1...0.5...1.7...0.9 2006-07...2.1...1.1..-0.2...3.1 http://www.cgd.ucar....tml#naostatdjfm The neg nao in December 2001 was pretty strong but was a short dip... The problem with the -NAO dip in 2001 was that it did not last long enough, and it happened to coincide nicely with a period when there were no storms on the map. That winter, it did everything it could to NOT snow here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 But then as someone pointed out, you have 1993-94 which was postive neutral ENSO and had +NAO...so clearly the NAO is not all that matters. We also had a strong +PNA. Very odd winter. But you would note, the further South you go, the more important the NAO becomes, which is why 1993-94 had such a sharp gradient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Well '01-'02 didn't have a strong +NAO, that was another winter were it was weakly positive. The PAC was absolutely horrendous that winter with a strong vortex over W AK and the Bering Straight region. That sure didn't help matters, creating a strong -PNA, which overwhelmed the weak variances of the NAO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 That PV in NW Canada really is the key. If that is in NW Canada..then we (especially NYC-BOS) has the benefit of a nice banana high reaching in from the Great Lakes to help lock in the cold. If that PV is stuck in AK or especially the Bering Sea...we're fooked. Even with a +NAO..so long as the cold is in Canada..we have a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 That sure didn't help matters, creating a strong -PNA, which overwhelmed the weak variances of the NAO. So apparently the NAO is not all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 So apparently the NAO is not all that matters. NAO first, then PNA. My point is that local teleconnections are more important in this part of the world than ENSO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 NAO first, then PNA. My point is that local teleconnections are more important in this part of the world than ENSO. It's almost a chicken or the egg argument because you could say that ENSO helps drive teleconnections..or at least allows them to settle in their base state if ENSO is not too strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.