Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

February 2022 Obs/Disco


Torch Tiger
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Even where I am, I frequently have snow pack in the first couple weeks of March. It's more common to have pack here in early March than it is for most of December. It definitely changes after the first couple weeks.

Yea, definitely...I get why its more desirable to have it in December, but history has show that March is often the more wintery month due to the impact of the seasonal lag.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the MJO part of the discussion...

CPC's weekly publication/update cites, 

"• Given the increasing likelihood that the MJO constructively interferes with La Niña, an atmospheric
response typical of La Niña is expected across the mid-latitudes of the North Pacific and North
America during the latter half of February."

This is true for 3-4-5-early 6, RMM wave spacing. 

The interesting aspect for me is, what form of La Nina forcing will this coupling reenforce? 

1  ... the La Nina has been rather decoupled from the La Nina base-state now dating back several weeks.  So, the idea there - when including that logic ... - would suggest that with a new MJO wave momentum/dispersal forcing emanating from the Indian Ocean, we might see the La Nina actual atmospheric mode "reconnect" ...or couple back up ..etc... In which case the pattern down stream of the Pacifc ...eventually, the Americas, responding.    That would take time, first of all - hence, 'latter half of February.'  Secondly, this could be good or bad for latter/late winter shenanigans.

2 ... there are two La Nina floor plans.  One might show some statistical bias for late season blocking. One ends winter early and send Forsythia buds cracking by late Feb thru early March.  Which form would the MJO re-enforce this time?  

The MJO and La Nina relationship are not the only partners in this ...  The reason the atmosphere passed through the mid season decoupled state, I believe, may not have been noise.  If that persists .... than CPC's constructive interference ( or perhaps weakly so ) may contain and not reflect in the R-wave distribution very well. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ORH_wxman said:

You average more than him....he's going on just the last 30 years. Best I can see is that Reading is about 65-66" in the last 30 years but that is trying to guesstimate with some missing data in key years like 1995-1996 and 2002-2003.

He is 18 miles from Reading.  Haverhill is closer. It's possible that he is in a dead zone in between banding setups. There are local minima. I am going on the new 30 year normals, isn't that what we are using. Why would he use Reading and not Lawrence or Haverhill 

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

64.25% of normal snowfall dating back to November 2018....obviously this can go up throughout the balance of this season. Again, my contention is that Will would have a much higher percentage, followed by Steve and Scott in descending order, but ALL would be higher than me....Will and Steve would blow me out of the water. Do the math, and if I am wrong, then I will simply shut it.

I already did and posted it. You ignored it. 64% of normal last full 3 years.. unknown this year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ginx snewx said:

He is 18 miles from Reading.  Haverhill is closer. It's possible that he is in a dead zone in between banding setups. There are local minima. I am going on the new 30 year normals, isn't that what we are using. Why would he use Reading and not Lawrence or Haverhill 

Because the Haverhill and Lawrence coops suck ass. Lowell used to be ok, but they stopped reporting consistently a few years ago. Groveland coop is probably the best one in his area.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Your BY numbers were used....not sure what you are talking about. Man, give it up already :lol:

What are you talking about I used 30 year normals from the North Foster Coop which are in line with mine. What do you want me to do Ray? I give you empirical data and you find any excuse to toss it because it doesn't fit your oh me oh my narrative.  64% of normal 18/19 20/21 21/22 sorry if you don't want to accept facts. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

 

So I will be conservative and say 65"...here are my last 4 seasons:

2018-2019: 47.5" (73.1% of normal)

2019-2020: 44" (67.7% of normal)

2020-2021: 51" (78.5% of normal)

2021-2022 (to date): 24.5" (37.7% or normal)

I would bet my life that Scooter, and especially Steve and most of all Will have done much better relative to average over this span.

The 64% average in a different post assumes zero for the rest of your snow season, while a 65" average would probably have 25" or so coming after Feb 8.  Using, say, 40" ytd rather than the full 65 for 21-22 would add about 10% for your average.  Maybe the seasonal progression is different here, where we average another 37", about 41% of the 89" average, coming after 2/8.  
Using the ytd average, we've run 93% of average for the 3+ winters 18-19 on.  The 25.4" for Jan 29 thru today boosted the average by 8%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

What are you talking about I used 30 year normals from the North Foster Coop which are in line with mine. What do you want me to do Ray? I give you empirical data and you find any excuse to toss it because it doesn't fit your oh me oh my narrative.  64% of normal 18/19 20/21 21/22 sorry if you don't want to accept facts. 

I just told you that your numbers are fine....stop, breath, and read. I said that I do not trust the HAVERHILL site. There are very few that are reputable, and Reading is one. I'm sorry if you can't accept that. Will would tell you the same thing, but I guess he wants to meet my agenda...what an asinine comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

We're excluding 2017-2018

Anyways, I calculated Ginxy's % of normal if we included 2021-2022 like Ray did....the number will rise as we get more snow in 2021-22.

Total snow is 180.8 which is 73% of average.

 

For me, I'm at 77% of average since 2018-19.

 

 

What are you using for average? I think you made a big mistake. 40 25 51 are 106 this year added would be 153. Where did you get 180?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tamarack said:

The 64% average in a different post assumes zero for the rest of your snow season, while a 65" average would probably have 25" or so coming after Feb 8.  Using, say, 40" ytd rather than the full 65 for 21-22 would add about 10% for your average.  Maybe the seasonal progression is different here, where we average another 37", about 41% of the 89" average, coming after 2/8.  
Using the ytd average, we've run 93% of average for the 3+ winters 18-19 on.  The 25.4" for Jan 29 thru today boosted the average by 8%.

The same thing was done for all stations, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I just told you that your numbers are fine....stop, breath, and read. I said that I do not trust the HAVERHILL site. There are very few that are reputable, and Reading is one. I'm sorry if you can't accept that. Will would tell you the same thing, but I guess he wants to meet my agenda...what an asinine comment.

I accept your Reading data but that still puts me at 64% the same as you. You are not on an island the last 3 full seasons. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ginx snewx said:

I accept your Reading data but that still puts me at 64% the same as you. You are not on an island the last 3 full seasons. 

Well, I just trusted that Will used reputable data. If that is the case, then yes...I am wrong with respect to you....but not Will and Scott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

Have no idea where Will got 180 inches 

I thought you were using N Foster coop?

If you aren't then you have received woefully less than them which makes me question you averaging the same that they do northeast of you and a bit higher up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WinterWolf said:

So are we posting in here about the potential on the 14th? Or in George’s thread for that potential? 

I posted in George's thread....I wouldn't have started a thread that early, but it already exists so might as well use it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said:

I posted in George's thread....I wouldn't have started a thread that early, but it already exists so might as well use it.

I just gave a run-down above - you wanna move it over there?  or -

It's premature to start a thread in this particular mise en science/leading 'feel' ..but, I think that thread's title being much more conservative might help but -whatever

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...