Countdown to Winter 2017-2018 Thread

[ORH_wxman]

42 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

There's definitely some skewed perception...likewise up here I thought last winter was the best thing since sliced bread just because we got above normal snow, forget retention or low el snowpack.  

We got spoiled by 2000-2011 and then entered a string of tougher winters that weren't even that bad, a bit below normal except for 15-16 which was record bad...but coming off a good streak those winters of like 80% of normal seem much worse than they should be.

We definitely tend to have recency bias when it comes to weather...and of course that can be paired with the IMBY skew to create all kind of anecdotes that might not be reflective of reality over the general region (or in your case, even the local region which varied in snow pack big time based on elevation last winter).

I had mentioned above though that Boston's fortunate stretch is now running so long that it is no longer going to just be recency bias, it's going to be in the climate normal. They have averaged 50.3" of snow over the past 27 years...nearly 9" more than their 1961-1990 average of 41.4". Even if BOS somehow gets completely screwed an gets an unprecedented 10" per winter the next 3 years, they will still average over 46" of snow...more likely, they'll be close to 50". I wouldn't keep expecting the decadal average of 58" to continue though...climo definitely does have a strong tug. Sooner or later, there will be another 1980s decade for snowfall there.

 

[CoastalWx]

1 hour ago, powderfreak said:

There's definitely some skewed perception...likewise up here I thought last winter was the best thing since sliced bread just because we got above normal snow, forget retention or low el snowpack.  

We got spoiled by 2000-2011 and then entered a string of tougher winters that weren't even that bad, a bit below normal except for 15-16 which was record bad...but coming off a good streak those winters of like 80% of normal seem much worse than they should be.

He also might be thinking of temps too which in that case...sucked. I'm not sure. I usually gauge winter mostly in the form of total snow, which I can't complain about. I've pulled so many flakes out of my behind...I'm afraid what the next 10-20yrs entail. I had a lousy stretch of bad luck in 11 and part of 12, but since Nemo...it's been a pretty sweet ride. You won't hear too much complaining from me. 

[ORH_wxman]

Just now, CoastalWx said:

He also might be thinking of temps too which in that case...sucked. I'm not sure. I usually gauge winter mostly in the form of total snow, which I can't complain about. I've pulled so many flakes out of my behind...I'm afraid what the next 10-20yrs entail. I had a lousy stretch of bad luck in 11 and part of 12, but since Nemo...it's been a pretty sweet ride. You won't hear too much complaining from me. 

You should be suspended for referring to a snowstorm by a weather channel name.

[michsnowfreak]

39 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

We definitely tend to have recency bias when it comes to weather...and of course that can be paired with the IMBY skew to create all kind of anecdotes that might not be reflective of reality over the general region (or in your case, even the local region which varied in snow pack big time based on elevation last winter).

I had mentioned above though that Boston's fortunate stretch is now running so long that it is no longer going to just be recency bias, it's going to be in the climate normal. They have averaged 50.3" of snow over the past 27 years...nearly 9" more than their 1961-1990 average of 41.4". Even if BOS somehow gets completely screwed an gets an unprecedented 10" per winter the next 3 years, they will still average over 46" of snow...more likely, they'll be close to 50". I wouldn't keep expecting the decadal average of 58" to continue though...climo definitely does have a strong tug. Sooner or later, there will be another 1980s decade for snowfall there.

 

I knew if I popped in the new England forum is find winter talk lol. Nowhere near ready for winter yet but ALWAYS ready to look ahead at the possibilities. The last decade has had some outstanding winters in the southern Lakes as well, including the snowiest/most severe winter on record in 2013-14. Snowfall at DTW the last decade averaged 54". For comparison the 20th century avg was 40". The 21st century avg has been 49". From 2007 to 2014 avg annual snowfall was 60"...or 150% of longterm avg at a northern latitude. Snowcover the last decade is also 5 days above the long-term avg, so an increase but not as extreme. 

 

I'm not sure what to make of the coming winter but it's hard to go against a nice winter. The last 2 seasons have been subpar in the midwest, in some cases extremely so. The southern Lakes have skated by ok, but basically we have been very lucky in very bad patterns. The climate buff in me is always looking for trends based on past years, and the above mentioned last decade was unheard of. I feel that while the pendulum always swings back, it doesn't necessarily mean it will swing back THAT extreme. I find it very hard to believe that a rash of 65-95" winters in a 40-45" climate will see an equal rash of 20-30" winters. A rogue one here and there, but not a stretch. I feel it IS also important to look at your region not just your backyard, because the last 2 winters look much better on paper for SE MI (still subpar) than they really were in the midwest and Lakes as a whole. In other words...its already time for another good winter. At the very least one with less pronounced of a constant roller coaster.

[CoastalWx]

8 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

You should be suspended for referring to a snowstorm by a weather channel name.

I know...it's just that most know the name and can identify with it. 

[ORH_wxman]

10 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

I know...it's just that most know the name and can identify with it. 

Nemo went viral I remember...but I honestly can't name any of the other big ones...what was Jan '15? Was that linus? or juno? They all blend together and they only come from TWC. I'm sticking to dates/years.

 

[CoastalWx]

2 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Nemo went viral I remember...but I honestly can't name any of the other big ones...what was Jan '15? Was that linus? or juno? They all blend together and they only come from TWC. I'm sticking to dates/years.

 

I think Jan 15 was Juno. Unfortunately for us, we refer to them by name when briefing clients because that's what they remember..lol. I don't like it, but gotta make the customer happy. 

[OceanStWx]

38 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

I think Jan 15 was Juno. Unfortunately for us, we refer to them by name when briefing clients because that's what they remember..lol. I don't like it, but gotta make the customer happy. 

Honestly the only one I remember is Nemo, and that may be more because I liked the movie and thought it was cool the blizzard that was going to trounce us was given that name. 

If you think about it though, winter storms are still pretty local, and colloquially become known by the dates they occurred in that region. If somebody from WI asks me about winter storm Dumbo, I'm likely to have zero clue what they are talking about. If you tell me the month and year, I'm more likely to know what they are referring to. I mean the blizzard of '78 will always take me to Feb 1978, but at least I know that in late January 1978 the Midwest got slammed by a blizzard that they sometimes refer to as the blizzard of '78.

[weathafella]

41 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

We definitely tend to have recency bias when it comes to weather...and of course that can be paired with the IMBY skew to create all kind of anecdotes that might not be reflective of reality over the general region (or in your case, even the local region which varied in snow pack big time based on elevation last winter).

I had mentioned above though that Boston's fortunate stretch is now running so long that it is no longer going to just be recency bias, it's going to be in the climate normal. They have averaged 50.3" of snow over the past 27 years...nearly 9" more than their 1961-1990 average of 41.4". Even if BOS somehow gets completely screwed an gets an unprecedented 10" per winter the next 3 years, they will still average over 46" of snow...more likely, they'll be close to 50". I wouldn't keep expecting the decadal average of 58" to continue though...climo definitely does have a strong tug. Sooner or later, there will be another 1980s decade for snowfall there.

 

I don't think we've had a 30 year period like this since records have been kept at BOS. 

[tamarack]

3 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

Your data seems to match jspin with the jan dip...although it should be noted that it is also a relatively short sample unlike the BTV sample which didn't show a dip but was also 100+ years worth. It seems like January has been a harder month to get big snows up there in the past 15-20 years. That would be in contrast to down here...ORH has seen 5 of the last 15 Januarys produce 20"+ and 3 of them produce 40"+ including a 50"+...more importantly though, only 4 of the 15 have been below average, so the non-20"+ Januarys have been in that 14-18" range keeping it a decent month. Of course, that pales in comparison to February which has been 10 out of the last 15 that crack 20" (including 5 consecutive...which also included 3 consecutive 40"+ Februarys) and 4 of them producing in excess of 36"...that matches your prolific February period.

Small sample size for sure, but I suspect the January lack of big storms is real, somewhat less so for the big months.  (I plan to parse data from CAR - 78 years - and Farmington - 125 - to see if the depth-of-winter trend holds up.)  January at my place has really shown the SSS hazards.  In 9 of my first 14 winters, that month brought 22.6" to 27.5", and its average of 20.6" was just 0.2" behind Feb.  For 2013-17 I've measured 36.8" in 2015 and 37.1" total for the other 4 years, dropping the average to 19.1" while Feb has gone up to 23.3".   Ironically, the Jan median of 22.6" is an inch higher than Feb median.

[CoastalWx]

2 hours ago, weathafella said:

I don't think we've had a 30 year period like this since records have been kept at BOS. 

Sweet baby ray have we been fortunate!

[powderfreak]

21 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Sweet baby ray have we been fortunate!

I know we've talked about it at length but I always wonder if snowfall measuring lately is "helping" so to speak.  

BTV has the long period of records back to 1880 and the 2000-2010 decade was the snowiest decade on record and by a decent margin.  The BTV top storms are like 15 out of 20 since 1993 and like 12 out of 20 since 2000 or some crazy high percentage.

I know New England as a whole has had a really good run of it since the 90s, but I wonder what role measuring every 6-hours plays into it.  Maybe those 24.0" storms would've been more like 19-20" back in 1940 or something.  

[CoastalWx]

1 hour ago, powderfreak said:

I know we've talked about it at length but I always wonder if snowfall measuring lately is "helping" so to speak.  

BTV has the long period of records back to 1880 and the 2000-2010 decade was the snowiest decade on record and by a decent margin.  The BTV top storms are like 15 out of 20 since 1993 and like 12 out of 20 since 2000 or some crazy high percentage.

I know New England as a whole has had a really good run of it since the 90s, but I wonder what role measuring every 6-hours plays into it.  Maybe those 24.0" storms would've been more like 19-20" back in 1940 or something.  

I think that can probably help to an extent. You may fluff the numbers up a few inches in larger events, but there is no question the frequency of larger snow events has increased in New England for whatever reason. We had a lack...a disgusting lack at that, of events greater than 6" in the 80s and early 90s. When ORH goes 4 years without a 10" event, that's bad. LOL.  Snowfall is such an inexact science. When I think of good winters...I'm speaking more about the frequency of winter events. I think that is why we have been fortunate relatively speaking. Obviously the interior had a bit of a slowdown relative to the anomalies we had down here over the last few years, but last winter helped to try and rectify that. 

[powderfreak]

20 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

I think that can probably help to an extent. You may fluff the numbers up a few inches in larger events, but there is no question the frequency of larger snow events has increased in New England for whatever reason. We had a lack...a disgusting lack at that, of events greater than 6" in the 80s and early 90s. When ORH goes 4 years without a 10" event, that's bad. LOL.  Snowfall is such an inexact science. When I think of good winters...I'm speaking more about the frequency of winter events. I think that is why we have been fortunate relatively speaking. Obviously the interior had a bit of a slowdown relative to the anomalies we had down here over the last few years, but last winter helped to try and rectify that. 

I honestly cannot imagine that type of stretch after what we've been through as a whole in New England.  And ORH always seems to be either just far enough SE to get into those coastal lows tracking further out-to-sea and also just far enough NW to get into the goods on the more hugging type systems, lol.  The climo there on the hill/ridges just seems to smack of one of the higher probabilities for bigger events in New England.  Not the highest annual snowfall of course, but just the highest probability of a larger event.  I'd even put ORH ahead of like where the former Ski_MRG was in terms of chances of a 10"+ event but that's just anecdotal and I have absolutely nothing to factually back that up.  It could also be like Will said, recent-bias of more easterly tracking cyclones once they get out over the Atlantic (of course finally un-done by the mid March 2017 storm that was a top event at interior sites like BGM and BTV).

It just seems like in a piss poor pattern that ORH at 1,000ft would have some of the highest chances to score a rouge 10"+ event...speaking synoptically and "where people live" type deal. 

And yeah I hope my post didn't come off as implying that the recent snow blitz since like 1993 and especially during the 2000s in NNE and 2010s in SNE was due to the measuring differences....just speaking aloud and musing in that post.  There is no doubt like you said, that the frequency of larger snow events has increased.  It is to the point that you pretty much expect at least one event each winter with a jackpot of 18-24" or more, just depends on where it is.

[weathafella]

The elephant in the room is if this is an effect of climate change.  Impossible to know just yet. 

[TauntonBlizzard2013]

The frequency of larger event shows of the last 5-8 years is pretty incredible. My knowledge is limited, but even going back just through memory from early childhood, I can't remember as many big events as we've seen recently.

Seems like every year we are getting a legit 12"+ regionwide event at least once.

Im sure that helps the numbers because even in crap winters if you can score a big storm, it makes things look a lot better

[CoastalWx]

52 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

I honestly cannot imagine that type of stretch after what we've been through as a whole in New England.  And ORH always seems to be either just far enough SE to get into those coastal lows tracking further out-to-sea and also just far enough NW to get into the goods on the more hugging type systems, lol.  The climo there on the hill/ridges just seems to smack of one of the higher probabilities for bigger events in New England.  Not the highest annual snowfall of course, but just the highest probability of a larger event.  I'd even put ORH ahead of like where the former Ski_MRG was in terms of chances of a 10"+ event but that's just anecdotal and I have absolutely nothing to factually back that up.  It could also be like Will said, recent-bias of more easterly tracking cyclones once they get out over the Atlantic (of course finally un-done by the mid March 2017 storm that was a top event at interior sites like BGM and BTV).

It just seems like in a piss poor pattern that ORH at 1,000ft would have some of the highest chances to score a rouge 10"+ event...speaking synoptically and "where people live" type deal. 

And yeah I hope my post didn't come off as implying that the recent snow blitz since like 1993 and especially during the 2000s in NNE and 2010s in SNE was due to the measuring differences....just speaking aloud and musing in that post.  There is no doubt like you said, that the frequency of larger snow events has increased.  It is to the point that you pretty much expect at least one event each winter with a jackpot of 18-24" or more, just depends on where it is.

No not at all. It could explain some of the differences. But even taking that into account...we've been on a pretty special run overall. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, weathafella said:

The elephant in the room is if this is an effect of climate change.  Impossible to know just yet. 

That has been my theory.

[40/70 Benchmark]

I'm excited about this winter.

I actually have just hooked up with the local paper and will be using them as a vehicle to disseminate some of my blog posts to the "masses".....relatively speaking, obviously....just Wilmington and Tewksbury.

As for the actual winter prospects, I'm really anticipating the ENSO update later this week because it looks like its going to either be warm neutral, or weak nino.

[ORH_wxman]

2 hours ago, powderfreak said:

I honestly cannot imagine that type of stretch after what we've been through as a whole in New England.  And ORH always seems to be either just far enough SE to get into those coastal lows tracking further out-to-sea and also just far enough NW to get into the goods on the more hugging type systems, lol.  The climo there on the hill/ridges just seems to smack of one of the higher probabilities for bigger events in New England.  Not the highest annual snowfall of course, but just the highest probability of a larger event.  I'd even put ORH ahead of like where the former Ski_MRG was in terms of chances of a 10"+ event but that's just anecdotal and I have absolutely nothing to factually back that up.  It could also be like Will said, recent-bias of more easterly tracking cyclones once they get out over the Atlantic (of course finally un-done by the mid March 2017 storm that was a top event at interior sites like BGM and BTV).

It just seems like in a piss poor pattern that ORH at 1,000ft would have some of the highest chances to score a rouge 10"+ event...speaking synoptically and "where people live" type deal. 

And yeah I hope my post didn't come off as implying that the recent snow blitz since like 1993 and especially during the 2000s in NNE and 2010s in SNE was due to the measuring differences....just speaking aloud and musing in that post.  There is no doubt like you said, that the frequency of larger snow events has increased.  It is to the point that you pretty much expect at least one event each winter with a jackpot of 18-24" or more, just depends on where it is.

Yeah, the measuring techniques may add a bit to the totals vs years like pre-1980, but the effect will be fairly small overall since it's really only large storms where it makes a difference. All those SWFEs are basically unaffected...a 7 hour thump of dense snow. They did have 6 hourly snowfall back to the 1940s actually...it just wasn't always utilized, so even back then, some of the storms will actually have 6 hourly totals.

The snowfall measuring techniques are more noticeable when you talk about "top 10 snowstorms" and stuff like that. A 19.5" snowstorm in 1961 might be 21-22" today. But it's not like a bunch of 10" storms turned into 18 inchers in 2010 because of measuring. It's just been really active on the large storm front.

 

I lived those 4 consecutive years in ORH where they failed to get a 10" event. I probably wouldn't believe it happened if I hadn't experienced it. In modern times, you have to go back to 2007-2008 to get a winter without a 10" event...ironically, that was a solid winter though, lol. Just a ton of 6-9.9" events.

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah, the measuring techniques may add a bit to the totals vs years like pre-1980, but the effect will be fairly small overall since it's really only large storms where it makes a difference. All those SWFEs are basically unaffected...a 7 hour thump of dense snow. They did have 6 hourly snowfall back to the 1940s actually...it just wasn't always utilized, so even back then, some of the storms will actually have 6 hourly totals.

The snowfall measuring techniques are more noticeable when you talk about "top 10 snowstorms" and stuff like that. A 19.5" snowstorm in 1961 might be 21-22" today. But it's not like a bunch of 10" storms turned into 18 inchers in 2010 because of measuring. It's just been really active on the large storm front.

 

I lived those 4 consecutive years in ORH where they failed to get a 10" event. I probably wouldn't believe it happened if I hadn't experienced it. In modern times, you have to go back to 2007-2008 to get a winter without a 10" event...ironically, that was a solid winter though, lol. Just a ton of 6-9.9" events.

 

As a general rule of thumb, the disparity between snowfall and snow depth increases about an inch for every 10"....ie 10" snowfall, 9" depth....20" fall, 18" depth....30", 27" etc.

[40/70 Benchmark]

Man, great All Star game tonight.

[ORH_wxman]

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

As a general rule of thumb, the disparity between snowfall and snow depth increases about an inch for every 10"....ie 10" snowfall, 9" depth....20" fall, 18" depth....30", 27" etc.

Yeah I remember the compaction being about 10-15% in reading about it a while ago when talking short time spans. It can be higher in a fluff bomb (close to 20%).

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah I remember the compaction being about 10-15% in reading about it a while ago when talking short time spans. It can be higher in a fluff bomb (close to 20%).

Yes, the lower LE results in an augmented rate of compaction/sublimation.

[dendrite]

There were some occasionally wonky snow measurements in the knicker days too. The good ol' days weren't always good.

[weathafella]

1 hour ago, dendrite said:

There were some occasionally wonky snow measurements in the knicker days too. The good ol' days weren't always good.

I wonder what actually fell in 1717 using today's measurements?

[ORH_wxman]

5 minutes ago, weathafella said:

I wonder what actually fell in 1717 using today's measurements?

From all the accounts I have read, it's probably somewhere around 5-6 feet of snow...though it started with already 1-2 feet of snow OTG from a big set of back to back storms in mid-February 1717. Then there was a bit of a break/thaw before the carnage began on February 27th through around March 10 or 11....it was likely 3 different storms that dumped around 5-6 feet of snow.

 

The 2015 snow blitz between Jan 24th and Feb 15th dropped more snow than the 1717 blitz...but given that the 2015 blitz started with bare ground and also the snow in every single storm was very fluffy, I don't think the maximum depth reached 1717 depths. That's just my guess based on the different accounts I have read.

[CoastalWx]

1717 Tossed. Everyone was 4'10" and they rode around on ponies. Misguided measuring from skewed perspectives.

[tamarack]

13 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

As a general rule of thumb, the disparity between snowfall and snow depth increases about an inch for every 10"....ie 10" snowfall, 9" depth....20" fall, 18" depth....30", 27" etc.

Then it settles even more by the next day.  My biggest storm here, 24.5" on 2/22-23/09, had 1.89" LE for a 13:1 ratio.  It fell atop a solid 27" pack and when the accum ended late morn there was 50-51" at the stake (which was plastered so I couldn't tell.)  By my 9 PM obs time the depth was 49" (right on that rule of thumb), and 24 hr later with temps 25/9 it had settled to 43".  By the 27th the depth was 37", meaning the big storm's pow had settled to 5:1, helped by late Feb sun, but 4-5 to 1 is about where I've seen packs naturally set up in the absence of thaws and/or significant IP/ZR. 
In the biggest snow season I've measured anywhere, 186.7" in Ft.Kent 1976-77, the period from the 2nd week of Dec thru early March had no thaws, no rain or IP/ZR, no temps above low 30s, and 140" snow with close to 12" LE.  That stretch featured some snow on 90%+ of the days, 3 large storms and a pile of 4-8" events, and added 50" to the pre-existing pack to top out at 54".  At that point the relatively pristine pack had settled to a 4:1 ratio.

Also, the long term data for Farmington refutes both of my short term assumptions.  25 Januarys have reached 30", 5 more than Dec or Feb and 10 more than March.  For storms dumping 10"+ those 4 months show 45, 58, 55, 48 - Feb is still tops when days-in-month are considered, but not by much.  Below are monthly means for DJFM and total, LT and 1991-2020 (2.3 yr short, of course) showing a change in monthly comparisons, probably too small (for too short a time) to mean anything.

Month   1893 on    1991-20
DEC      18.1"        19.9"
JAN      21.0"        20.5"
FEB      20.5"        22.4"
MAR     15.9"        18.1"
4 Mo.   75.5"        80.9"
Seas.    89.5"        91.2" 

The shoulder seasons make up 16% of the LT snowfall but only 11% for 1991-present.  If all those numbers show anything significant, that change in early-late snow would be it.  Nov snow, in particular, is 33% lower for 1991-on than for 1893-on (down 38% from 1893-1990.)

[dendrite]

20 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

1717 Tossed. Everyone was 4'10" and they rode around on ponies. Misguided measuring from skewed perspectives.

'Twas 119 days of sleighing. Snow reached the height of Mr. Smith's tailor shop fence on a level.