Fall+Banter

[Ginx snewx]

3 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Those numbers seem strange to me given some of those years. 

See the difference in Mass that why it is strange to you

Snapshot of State & Climate Division Data
Temperature and Precipitation
State & Climate Divisions Data
November 2011 to October 2016

                    Temp    Norm     Dep          Prcp    Norm     Dep   %Norm
  Clim_Div MA01     46.8    45.6     1.2        220.58  248.05  -27.47      89
  Clim_Div MA02     49.4    48.0     1.4        215.19  240.78  -25.59      89
  Clim_Div MA03     51.4    50.0     1.4        222.88  242.39  -19.51      92

   Statewide MA     49.5    48.1     1.4        218.51  242.71  -24.20      90

Normals for this product are 1981-2010.

[CoastalWx]

Just now, Ginx snewx said:

See the difference in Mass that why it is strange to you

Snapshot of State & Climate Division Data
Temperature and Precipitation
State & Climate Divisions Data
November 2011 to October 2016

                    Temp    Norm     Dep          Prcp    Norm     Dep   %Norm
  Clim_Div MA01     46.8    45.6     1.2        220.58  248.05  -27.47      89
  Clim_Div MA02     49.4    48.0     1.4        215.19  240.78  -25.59      89
  Clim_Div MA03     51.4    50.0     1.4        222.88  242.39  -19.51      92

   Statewide MA     49.5    48.1     1.4        218.51  242.71  -24.20      90

Normals for this product are 1981-2010.

I'm looking at some numbers in CT. 

[Ginx snewx]

6 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

That's a statewide thing that's estimated. How is that computed? 

History of the U.S. Climate Divisional Dataset

For many years the Climate Divisional Dataset was the only long-term temporally and spatially complete dataset from which to generate historical climate analyses (1895-2013) for the contiguous United States (CONUS). It was originally developed for climate-division, statewide, regional, national, and population-weighted monitoring of drought, temperature, precipitation, and heating/cooling degree day values. Since the dataset was at the divisional spatial scale, it naturally lent itself to agricultural and hydrological applications.

There are 344 climate divisions in the CONUS. For each climate division, monthly station temperature and precipitation values are computed from the daily observations. The divisional values are weighted by area to compute statewide values and the statewide values are weighted by area to compute regional values. (Karl and Koss, 1984).

[CoastalWx]

But then how are the normals determined? Are these recent stations who may only have a short term climo record and biases wet? I'd rather look at the big 1st order stations where the record is more certain and representative. 

[Ginx snewx]

1 minute ago, CoastalWx said:

I'm looking at some numbers in CT. 

water years

http://cocorahs.org/WaterYearSummary/

 

[Ginx snewx]

1 minute ago, CoastalWx said:

But then how are the normals determined? Are these recent stations who may only have a short term climo record and biases wet? I'd rather look at the big 1st order stations where the record is more certain and representative. 

Ask NCDC

[CoastalWx]

Lots of bad data in that.

[CapturedNature]

The issue that I have is the concept of having a statewide average.  What exactly do they mean by that?

The problem I have is that several of those deficit years were above normal on an annual basis so it kind of twists the data to make it look like every year has been below normal. 

Using the "water year" makes it hard to compare but if I take the last 3,650 days of precip, I get 494.81" of precip.  Normal would be 466" so I'm above that value.

I guess it would be helpful to me to know where they are getting that data to call it a statewide average because at least in my case, I don't have nearly the deficit that those numbers are showing.

[Ginx snewx]

3 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Lots of bad data in that.

In what? i mean if you have the time to make random statements please refute with some data. The original data i listed was not a water year but from Nov 1st to Oct 31st, water years are Oct 1 to Sept 30th. I don't know what to say but you think CT averages more than 45-50 inches a year of precip? This seems pretty close to me

Snapshot of State & Climate Division Data
Temperature and Precipitation
State & Climate Divisions Data
November 2011 to October 2016

                    Temp    Norm     Dep          Prcp    Norm     Dep   %Norm
  Clim_Div CT01     48.6    47.3     1.3        214.49  253.71  -39.22      85
  Clim_Div CT02     50.7    49.4     1.3        202.99  247.48  -44.49      82
  Clim_Div CT03     52.5    51.0     1.5        188.97  243.31  -54.34      78

   Statewide CT     50.6    49.3     1.3        202.45  247.87  -45.42      82

 

[Ginx snewx]

6 minutes ago, MetHerb said:

The issue that I have is the concept of having a statewide average.  What exactly do they mean by that?

The problem I have is that several of those deficit years were above normal on an annual basis so it kind of twists the data to make it look like every year has been below normal. 

Using the "water year" makes it hard to compare but if I take the last 3,650 days of precip, I get 494.81" of precip.  Normal would be 466" so I'm above that value.

I guess it would be helpful to me to know where they are getting that data to call it a statewide average because at least in my case, I don't have nearly the deficit that those numbers are showing.

I don't know because Climod data for BDL and BDR only indicates a 20 ish deficit. Thats the problem with NCDC I guess. You used 10 years, whats the deficit for 5?

[CoastalWx]

13 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

In what? i mean if you have the time to make random statements please refute with some data. The original data i listed was not a water year but from Nov 1st to Oct 31st, water years are Oct 1 to Sept 30th. I don't know what to say but you think CT averages more than 45-50 inches a year of precip? This seems pretty close to me

Snapshot of State & Climate Division Data
Temperature and Precipitation
State & Climate Divisions Data
November 2011 to October 2016

                    Temp    Norm     Dep          Prcp    Norm     Dep   %Norm
  Clim_Div CT01     48.6    47.3     1.3        214.49  253.71  -39.22      85
  Clim_Div CT02     50.7    49.4     1.3        202.99  247.48  -44.49      82
  Clim_Div CT03     52.5    51.0     1.5        188.97  243.31  -54.34      78

   Statewide CT     50.6    49.3     1.3        202.45  247.87  -45.42      82

 

Look at the data. You have 0.0" being included if that indeed is factoring into everything. Is there some sort of QC?

[CapturedNature]

Between November 2011 and October 2016 I received 217.14" of precip.  My normal for that same time would be 233" for a departure of 15.86".  But that is a little misleading because 10" of that is just from this year.  Last year I was down 10" as well but the previous years surplus mutes that.

I just think that data is making it look like the drought goes back to 2011 when, at least for my station, that's not the reality.

[CoastalWx]

Just now, MetHerb said:

Between November 2011 and October 2016 I received 217.14" of precip.  My normal for that same time would be 233" for a departure of 15.86".  But that is a little misleading because 10" of that is just from this year.  Last year I was down 10" as well but the previous years surplus mutes that.

I just think that data is making it look like the drought goes back to 2011 when, at least for my station, that's not the reality.

It's not the best way to gauge, using state avg. You would need to look at quality long record COOP obs and 1st order stations. 

[Ginx snewx]

Here is the climod data for the 3 CT official sites

[Ginx snewx]

4 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Look at the data. You have 0.0" being included if that indeed is factoring into everything. Is there some sort of QC?

? thats accumulated precip? of course 0" are included in summation, maybe I am misunderstanding

[Ginx snewx]

4 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

It's not the best way to gauge, using state avg. You would need to look at quality long record COOP obs and 1st order stations. 

And unfortunately thats how snowfall and temp data sets get skewed by NCDC but the 3 official sites are above

[CoastalWx]

3 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

? thats accumulated precip? of course 0" are included in summation, maybe I am misunderstanding

Are those numbers getting filtered out? Clearly 0.0" is not correct for a yearly total. You have people sporadically report data and some who are very diligent. 

[Ginx snewx]

4 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Are those numbers getting filtered out? Clearly 0.0" is not correct for a yearly total. You have people sporadically report data and some who are very diligent. 

This is what they say I don't know just using their data which obviously is less than desirable

A month is marked missing if more than 2% of the daily data is missing. If any month is marked missing, the selected season is marked as missing.

[CoastalWx]

Man Dave Epstein would have a pants tent about these last two pages. You wonder if he'd be able to stand up after looking at those water years?

[Ginx snewx]

2 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Man Dave Epstein would have a pants tent about these last two pages. You wonder if he'd be able to stand up after looking at those water years?

After looking at climod I would say more than likely the deficit across CT from Nov 1 2011 ranges from 20 to 30 inches with IJD a real oddity and outlier

[dendrite]

5 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Man Dave Epstein would have a pants tent about these last two pages. You wonder if he'd be able to stand up after looking at those water years?

I was about to say...

The last 2 pages have been riveting to read. Almost as exciting as my soil temp posts.

[Ginx snewx]

Just now, dendrite said:

I was about to say...

The last 2 pages have been riveting to read. Almost as exciting as my soil temp posts.

Yea bantering in a banter thread, probably should move it to the new political site

[CoastalWx]

16 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

After looking at climod I would say more than likely the deficit across CT from Nov 1 2011 ranges from 20 to 30 inches with IJD a real oddity and outlier

That seems to make more sense. I wasn't saying you were wrong...just that those values were a head scratcher to me.

[dryslot]

Something noteworthy in the winter camp on the models can not come soon enough

[dendrite]

1 hour ago, Ginx snewx said:

Yea bantering in a banter thread, probably should move it to the new political site

Laugh a little. I didn't have any issue with the convo. And I guess American Sports is next.

[Damage In Tolland]

1 hour ago, CoastalWx said:

Man Dave Epstein would have a pants tent about these last two pages. You wonder if he'd be able to stand up after looking at those water years?

He's rolling around in extreme pain this morning 

 

[Ginx snewx]

2 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Laugh a little. I didn't have any issue with the convo. And I guess American Sports is next.

[Ginx snewx]

4 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

He's rolling around in extreme pain this morning 

 

sure this helped in ENY

[Typhoon Tip]

Fwiw to the drought conversation ...

The four major climate sites in KTAN's region were actually on the plus side for totals spanning the month of October (alone).  

Some of that was conceptually outlined to everyone back in mid summer, ...when it was mused that a couple solid autumn coastals could plausibly correct the "drought" in a sudden climate whip. 

Having (thus far) failed the whiplash correction event(s), still...we are seeing an homage emerge that changing of season exposes the systemic fragility of drought forcing.  In other words, ...the drought in the area was sort of a random result borne out of noise ...where the noise happened to favor less than normal precipitation for so-many collected month's worth of time.  

Remember the old coin-flip adage; you can flip 20 heads and think that coin flipping is a heady game, but that was an anomaly... then you flip two tails for every one head, for three times as long, and the total variation is closer to 50/50. 

We should know fundamentally that droughts in this region of the Globe are attributable to that sort of random action, just based upon the knowns of the Global system. Example, we don't live in the Sonoran Desert; obviously, this will and has to correct.  Logically (then) this was just noise. 

So when does the noise end?  well - you could argue based on that October that the local time scaled noisiness fell apart already.  It just didn't do it in a melodramatic, news making event.  But, if the next nine months feature 4.5 of them being above normal, where the rest are normal...the total/n-terms would/could nicely eradicate longer-termed deficits, if perhaps at a slower pace that some posters want for their sensationalism lust. 

[CoastalWx]

I wonder if Dave can't sleep the night before the drought monitor is issued. Like, actually keeps getting up a night....heart beating with excitement wondering what it will look like. Just picture the feeling you had as a kid on Christmas Eve night or before a massive blizzard. That's how he feels. I could see him printing out and scotch taping each of these maps on his ceiling, gazing up at night and staring at it.