February 2013 mid-long range disco thread Part 2

[usedtobe]

We will fill the defecit, it will probaly occur the way it's been trending since about the 86/87 winter season. One big snow season every 7 years or so. It's definitely a frustating trend and for snow lovers it creates a helpless feeling to have so many pathetic snow season's sandwiched in between good one's. At some point the cycle will end and hopefully we will go back to a more evenly spread distribution of snowfall. Recently it's been too many nina's and their killing us. NJ and NY get bailed out simply because of their location which allows them to cash in on the late developing coastals where one good storm salvages their winter as far as reaching their averages.

 

I think that looking at frequency of occurrence is important to understanding the climate and what our average means.  The distribution is far from bell shaped. 

 

even when it goes back to normal it will still be 3 or 4 bad years from every good one. I think the only stretch when that didn't hapen was from 1958 to 1969. 

[HighStakes]

The coin flip analogy is not a good one as each coin flip is independent of the one before it.   In terms of snowfall you need to look at the frequency that good year (big snow year) occur versus crappy ones.  on average we have 3 or 4 crappy years for every good one. Since 1987 we've had about 6 crappy years for every good year but our good years have been huge.  That could be a statistical anomaly or could be related to a climate change for some reason.  Most years we don't get close to average.   Now having two years back to back as bad as these two years is unusual unless we luck out before the end of the year.  Anyway, those are my half baked thoughts on the subject. 

You stole my thunder.

[vinylfreak89]

Yep, which means you don't believe in the current average.  Myself, I believe the average will hold up, which in turn means I believe we will close the gap.

 

Some things like probability do have laws that govern them.  Geometry is the same.  A simple example in Geometry is the SAS postulate for proving triangles congruent.  We can't prove SAS is a theorem that works, but intuitively we know that it does.  Same with the "law of averages".  We will either get the necessary snow, or the average is going to break down.

 

not disagreeing at all... i just personally don't like using probability to measure emperical results that have absolutes... but based on the law of averages you are correct.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

 I'm the one with the math degree.  Do you have one?  Until you do don't tell me how the math works.  I'm fully aware of probability.  

 

To get an average of any number, say 15 inches of snow over a ten year period means that you have to have 150 inches of snow.  If you believe that, DC for example, will continue to see an average of 15 inches of snow in any finite period of time, then you have to believe that sometime during that, 10 years for example, 150 inches of snow will fall.  The longer you go without it, the more likely you are to see it............if you believe in the average.  If you believe the 15 inches is a flawed average, then no, or yes I guess, no event is any more likely to produce snow than the previous.

 

We are running a deficit.  We will fill the gap at some point.  Just a matter of time.  BTW, don't respond to my posts.

I don't think there's a need to get defensive here.  I can see what you and Subtropics are both saying.  Perhaps Subtropics was more responding to the sometimes weenieish "we're due!" statements that some people have expressed.  My comment about "we're paying for 2009-10!" were in the same vein.

 

I see your point, but as someone already said, the 10 year (or 30 year, or whatever) mean can change in time, too.  And it has.  I do have a problem with the idea that "the longer you go without it, the more likely you are to see it...if you believe in the average."  Not sure that's quite correct, at least looking at discrete events (a winter, in this case, or a coin flip).  In a very long term sense, maybe.  Sure, the 10 year average may be 15" in DCA, say, and you might have reason to expect to continue seeing that.  But say you have a decade where in the first 8 years you've only amassed 80" (10" per year, which might not be far-fetched in reality!), that doesn't mean you should expect the next two winters to be relative blockbusters with 35" each to make up the difference.  Getting something like back-to-back 35" seasons is highly unlikely here (but would be great!!), or having the 9th winter also be lame and the 10th getting way over 35" to get the 150" in 10 years.  Getting a huge winter sometime down the road, sure, that can happen, but I don't think the odds themselves increase just because we're in a bad run.  The weather won't much care what you got before and say "oh, we'll give you a big one this year!"  Similar to the old "past performance is no indication of future gains."

[HighStakes]

I think that looking at frequency of occurrence is important to understanding the climate and what our average means.  The distribution is far from bell shaped. 

 

even when it goes back to normal it will still be 3 or 4 bad years from every good one. I think the only stretch when that didn't hapen was from 1958 to 1969. 

I guess you could say 58-69 was the golden age of winters . Unfortunately it was before my time and most others on the board.

[WinterWxLuvr]

not disagreeing at all... i just personally don't like using probability to measure emperical results that have absolutes... but based on the law of averages you are correct.

 

Yeah, sure, but what I think doesn't really matter.  It's just one persons way of looking at it.  It can't last forever, we all know that.  Sooner or later, the ball's gonna be in our court, which is basically all I was trying to say in the first place.  I just didn't care for being called out as being basically ignorant of the way that probability works, so I guess I felt honor bound to clarify my meaning.  I think we break out.  Hopefully, this year.

[Bob Chill]

not disagreeing at all... i just personally don't like using probability to measure emperical results that have absolutes... but based on the law of averages you are correct.

A better way of looking at it that even going as far back as Feb 2011 it is a statistical anomaly and unfortunately its not in our favor. And the possibility exists that it can continue indefinitely or maybe not.

[WinterWxLuvr]

I don't think there's a need to get defensive here.  I can see what you and Subtropics are both saying.  Perhaps Subtropics was more responding to the sometimes weenieish "we're due!" statements that some people have expressed.  My comment about "we're paying for 2009-10!" were in the same vein.

 

I see your point, but as someone already said, the 10 year (or 30 year, or whatever) mean can change in time, too.  And it has.  I do have a problem with the idea that "the longer you go without it, the more likely you are to see it...if you believe in the average."  Not sure that's quite correct, at least looking at discrete events (a winter, in this case, or a coin flip).  In a very long term sense, maybe.  Sure, the 10 year average may be 15" in DCA, say, and you might have reason to expect to continue seeing that.  But say you have a decade where in the first 8 years you've only ammassed 80" (10" per year, which might not be far-fetched in reality!), that doesn't mean you should expect the next two winters to be relative blockbusters with 35" each to make up the difference.  Getting something like back-to-back 35" seasons is highly unlikely here (but would be great!!), or having the 9th winter also be lame and the 10th getting way over 35" to get the 150" in 10 years.  Getting a huge winter sometime down the road, sure, that can happen, but I don't think the odds themselves increase just because we're in a bad run.  The weather won't much care what you got before and say "oh, we'll give you a big one this year!"  Similar to the old "past performance is no indication of future gains."

 Yeah, the we're due part is not my take on it.  I just think if you look at it as a longer period of time, it becomes more likely.

 

I'm ready to drop this one.  I didn't mean to derail the thread at all with this.

[Subtropics]

I don't think there's a need to get defensive here.  I can see what you and Subtropics are both saying.  Perhaps Subtropics was more responding to the sometimes weenieish "we're due!" statements that some people have expressed.  My comment about "we're paying for 2009-10!" were in the same vein.

 

I see your point, but as someone already said, the 10 year (or 30 year, or whatever) mean can change in time, too.  And it has.  I do have a problem with the idea that "the longer you go without it, the more likely you are to see it...if you believe in the average."  Not sure that's quite correct, at least looking at discrete events (a winter, in this case, or a coin flip).  In a very long term sense, maybe.  Sure, the 10 year average may be 15" in DCA, say, and you might have reason to expect to continue seeing that.  But say you have a decade where in the first 8 years you've only ammassed 80" (10" per year, which might not be far-fetched in reality!), that doesn't mean you should expect the next two winters to be relative blockbusters with 35" each to make up the difference.  Getting something like back-to-back 35" seasons is highly unlikely here (but would be great!!), or having the 9th winter also be lame and the 10th getting way over 35" to get the 150" in 10 years.  Getting a huge winter sometime down the road, sure, that can happen, but I don't think the odds themselves increase just because we're in a bad run.  The weather won't much care what you got before and say "oh, we'll give you a big one this year!"  Similar to the old "past performance is no indication of future gains."

Exactly what I was trying to say. You put it in much better terms. Thank you. 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Exactly what I was trying to say. You put it in much better terms. Thank you. 

Thanks.  I didn't want to hammer on anyone, but just wanted to throw those ideas out there.  We're in an amazingly frustrating run here the past 3 winters, and probably everyone is on edge because of it.  Statistically that's unusual (the bad run, not being on edge!), and if we have another sub-5" year at DCA I wonder if that's ever happened back-to-back.  Not to mention the <2" event streak for over two years...let alone no warning criteria snow since Jan. 26, 2011!

 

The weenie in me says I sure wish we had a higher likelihood of back-to-back 35+" years, to make up for all this!

[usedtobe]

I guess you could say 58-69 was the golden age of winters . Unfortunately it was before my time and most others on the board.

 

It was a golden age and got me into meteorology though one huge year like 1995-1996 or 2009-2010 really are almost worth the wait. 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

It was a golden age and got me into meteorology though one huge year like 1995-1996 or 2009-2010 really are almost worth the wait. 

Funny how it's certain events/season that seem to get people into this field.  For me as a snow and cold weather lover growing up in northeast Ohio, I'd say the two incredible winters of 1976-77 and 1977-78 really got me interested and I knew I'd be going into meteorology.

[HighStakes]

It was a golden age and got me into meteorology though one huge year like 1995-1996 or 2009-2010 really are almost worth the wait. 

It is worth the wait. I still can't believe I received over 100 inches in 2009/2010. I stated in another thread that my favorite winter as a kid was 81/82 and I was hooked ever since.

[87storms]

The coin flip analogy is not a good one as each coin flip is independent of the one before it.   In terms of snowfall you need to look at the frequency that good year (big snow year) occur versus crappy ones.  on average we have 3 or 4 crappy years for every good one. Since 1987 we've had about 6 crappy years for every good year but our good years have been huge.  That could be a statistical anomaly or could be related to a climate change for some reason.  Most years we don't get close to average.   Now having two years back to back as bad as these two years is unusual unless we luck out before the end of the year.  Anyway, those are my half baked thoughts on the subject. 

 

agreed, i have a math degree as well, and still find statistics difficult to grasp.  what you said makes a lot of sense.  say there's a 2% chance that we go this long without 2" of snow and then we get 5" tomorrow, then i don't think you can really say we have another 2% chance of waiting another 700+ days because the pattern might have changed for the better decreasing our odds of us going that long again.  the weather is not easy to model because of chaos and because the types of patterns we can get are seemingly infinite.  in any event, i agree, the coin flip analogy is not a good one here.

[mitchnick]

It was a golden age and got me into meteorology though one huge year like 1995-1996 or 2009-2010 really are almost worth the wait. 

no they're not....at least not any more

[Ian]

euro ens mean gives like 1-3 for first event and less for second

[Ian]

pattern is pretty decent tho like the op except the se ridge is more prominent

[usedtobe]

pattern is pretty decent tho like the op except the se ridge is more prominent

 

1-3 would be blizzard by this years standards.  I can't decide whether to keep rooting for the strong to be broken or to keep breaking the record until next year. Then I can write a funny article about me jinxing snow in the area since joining CWG.  I do think the pattern looks pretty good through the end of the month. 

[Bob Chill]

1-3 would be blizzard by this years standards. I can't decide whether to keep rooting for the strong to be broken or to keep breaking the record until next year. Then I can write a funny article about me jinxing snow in the area since joining CWG. I do think the pattern looks pretty good through the end of the month.

If we can't do it in the next 2 weeks then we really don't deserve it. I've seen every possible signal this year to get *something* with the exception of a -nao. We've had a +pna off and on for weeks, -ao door to door with a couple short breaks, strat warming, mjo through the promised land, decent pac, even a touch of the elusive split flow....and after all that...nuttin.

I know many of the bigger lw features are important but it's pretty clear in a nina hangover type pattern, no -nao = no go. I've mentioned a few times over the last week or so (among others) that the greatly missed -nao keeps popping up in lr models. Now we're getting close to mid range and it still keeps popping up. Plus we have an active pattern. I don't need a perfect anything. Front thump to snizzle to frizzle to glop on the ground is fine if we can just get out of cartopperville even for just a few measly hours.

I've been quiet with lr stuff (by my standards. lol) last couple days and I plan on staying that way for a bit. I'm burned on getting burnt. Probably a good thing. It won't surprise me at all if the 22nd or next one become high prob events. But until they do, I just going to flood the banter thread with worthless drivel.

[Ji]

euro ens mean gives like 1-3 for first event and less for second

Why less for the 2nd?

[psuhoffman]

I feel like I'm back in stat

[Ian]

Why less for the 2nd?

Warmer and less precip than op

[stormtracker]

GFS

[Bob Chill]

lol- gfs is going miller b option. good thing we break the streak before we get slotted. Over a .50 dc burbs and south with surface and 850's below freezing. I'm sure some of that is sleet. MN can take over.

[stormtracker]

Storm is farther east on the GFS with redevelopment in NC? Obvious fake precip max down there, lol

[Bob Chill]

And after the transfer happens, secondary moves nearly due east quietly out to sea. Yea, that's gonna happen.

 

Front end streak breaker firmly on the table....for now.

[usedtobe]

lol- gfs is going miller b option. good thing we break the streak before we get slotted. Over a .50 dc burbs and south with surface and 850's below freezing. I'm sure some of that is sleet. MN can take over.

 

Looked to me like 1-3 for DC based on the eyewall maps,  did I miss something? 

[WinterWxLuvr]

And after the transfer happens, secondary moves nearly due east quietly out to sea. Yea, that's gonna happen.

Front end streak breaker firmly on the table....for now.

If streaks of any kind are to be broken, next week is probably the one.

[stormtracker]

And after the transfer happens, secondary moves nearly due east quietly out to sea. Yea, that's gonna happen.

 

Front end streak breaker firmly on the table....for now.

I lol'd at that when I saw it.

[Bob Chill]

Looked to me like 1-3 for DC based on the eyewall maps,  did I miss something? 

 

You probably didn't. I can't really tell when the changeover happens. Surface and 850's below through hr 162. .5 line right at dc.