January 2023 Mid-Long Range Disco

[Terpeast]

2 hours ago, MN Transplant said:

This chart might get to what WesternFringe is trying to say.  If you take a centered 9 year running mean, the "worst" periods over that kind of timescale aren't getting worse.  We are still pulling off enough of the 2003s, 2010s, 2014s and 2016s to balance it out.

 

 

 

The way I read this graph is that 100 years ago, we averaged 10 more inches of snow a year than we do now. Or put another way, average snow decreased by 45% over 100 years. 

To be fair, the downtrend started way early - around the 1910s to 1920s. By the 40s and 50s, we were getting similar amounts as now. Then the 60s went bonkers, then back down to around 13-15” a year.

I wonder though, is there a discontinuity in this graph when they changed the measuring station to DCA? And what year was that?

[WesternFringe]

3 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

The problem has nothing to with the number of years/sample size.  The issue is you aren't looking at what I am talking about.  I am talking about how DC is getting more single digit snowfall seasons than before and you are looking at a mean which can be skewed by a minority of seasons to hide that phenomenon.  We are two ships passing in the night.  Neither of us is refuting the other...we are simply focusing on two completely different phenomenons. 

I guess.  I think perspective is king and the proper perspective is the whole data set, not our limited lifetimes.

[Chris78]

3 hours ago, MN Transplant said:

About that

 

Calendar Year	Single digit snowfall years
1884-1918	4
1919-1953	7
1954-1988	9
1989-2022	16

I think this is very striking and shows how we are losing on the margins.

[Kmlwx]

Sounds like there are a couple folks in here that need a nap. 

[Bob Chill]

21 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

The way I read this graph is that 100 years ago, we averaged 10 more inches of snow a year than we do now. Or put another way, average snow decreased by 45% over 100 years. 

To be fair, the downtrend started way early - around the 1910s to 1920s. By the 40s and 50s, we were getting similar amounts as now. Then the 60s went bonkers, then back down to around 13-15” a year.

I wonder though, is there a discontinuity in this graph when they changed the measuring station to DCA? And what year was that?

DC stats are from multiple stations. And the current one could not possibly be in a worse place. Concrete jungle at sea level with warm water nearby and jet exhaust blasting 18 hours a day. Not sure how to quantify how much difference but my guess is if the nwdc station was used exclusively, that graph would only require 1 Prozac to emotionally deal with instead of 2 and a Xanax 

[Bob Chill]

This place is in mid/late crappy season form already I see.  Lol. I closed the blinds before Christmas. No reason to open them for a week or 2. Carry on with weenie death by a thousand cuts

[Ralph Wiggum]

1 hour ago, Maestrobjwa said:

Man what? Forgive me for not having a photographic memory to remember every snow total over last decade from an area that's not even mine, and somehow pick out all said totals by memory from 1000s of post. Shame on me! All I remember is your 30-something inches last year. Stray snark detected...lol

How did I know this post would end with 'lol'?

[WesternFringe]

3 hours ago, MN Transplant said:

That's a bit of a disingenuous statement because we simply don't have full DC-area data for the entire 1880s.  What I can say is that using the daily data, the average for the five-year period from 1885-1889 was 18.3".  That is higher than any 5-year period in present day going back until 1988.  The latest 5-year average is 8.4".

 

Talk about cherry picking, lol.  Across many cities, we recently had our 4th best of the last 11 decades for snowfall, if we want to look by decade (which I don’t think is very smart).

[Ralph Wiggum]

Soooo, how bout those +height anomalies at HL on the GEFS in the LR?

[Maestrobjwa]

8 minutes ago, Ralph Wiggum said:

How did I know this post would end with 'lol'?

Yeah it's kind of a virtual tick I have...(kinda like my parentheses...lol Dang it!)

[WesternFringe]

3 hours ago, MN Transplant said:

Here's a really boring stat comparing the 1980s to 2010s.

• Total snowfall of every day in the 1980s:  183.0"
• Total snowfall of every day in the 2010s:  155.7"

Cherry picking.  IPCC predicts less

big storms as we warm, not

more.

 Kinda destroys the whole “more big storms is the reason for the unchanging mean” narrative.

 

[WesternFringe]

3 hours ago, MN Transplant said:

Here's a really boring stat comparing the 1980s to 2010s.

• Total snowfall of every day in the 1980s:  183.0"
• Total snowfall of every day in the 2010s:  155.7"

Okay, now do the 40s compared to the 2000s

we can do this all day

[WxUSAF]

The goalposts are moving so fast in here. Need to call in Justin tucker for the 72yd field goal into the wind.

[Weather Will]

Latest WB GEFS extended has lowest height anomalies centered around the 15th in the next 20 days.  We then lose the eastern trough again so maybe only a brief window of opportunity in mid January.

[Solution Man]

37 minutes ago, WesternFringe said:

Talk about cherry picking, lol.  Across many cities, we recently had our 4th best of the last 11 decades for snowfall, if we want to look by decade (which I don’t think is very smart).

Don’t see Short Pump on that list

[gymengineer]

4 minutes ago, WxUSAF said:

The goalposts are moving so fast in here. Need to call in Justin tucker for the 72yd field goal into the wind.

Lol, exactly. Now this is supposed to be about cities all around the country? And the obsessive troll responses to the same post…

[stormtracker]

[WesternFringe]

14 minutes ago, gymengineer said:

Lol, exactly. Now this is supposed to be about cities all around the country? And the obsessive troll responses to the same post…

No, it is about how the median better represents 140 year data sets and how 10” is a magic cutoff for judging yearly snowfall in DC, as are certain decades better comparison decades than others.   When in reality, annual snowfall remains much the same across 140 years.  And yes, across cities as well.

So, mock away.  But facts are facts.  And average annual snowfall is relatively unchanged in DCA in 140 years.  And is relatively unchanged statistically in most east coast cities now that I am looking into it.

And how many want to explain our poor run of snowfall luck and the unchanging average on more bigger storms and less smaller storms as a result of global warming.  Even though global warming predicts the opposite (less big storms).  

[Ji]

This place is in mid/late crappy season form already I see.  Lol. I closed the blinds before Christmas. No reason to open them for a week or 2. Carry on with weenie death by a thousand cuts

We had a -nao -ao and no snow. Easy on the weenies lol

[HighStakes]

16 winters over a 33/34 year span that resulted in single digit amounts is outright atrocious coicidence or not. That can't just be getting unlucky. I understand it's a small sample size but it's the most recent 33 year period in the discussion. Very alarming. I knew DCA has been bad recently but when you see it on the chart it becomes shocking. Very alarming. One can hope hope it's a cyclical type deal but common sense says otherwise. 

[WesternFringe]

3 minutes ago, HighStakes said:

16 winters over a 33/34 year span that resulted in single digit amounts is outright atrocious coicidence or not. That can't just be getting unlucky. I understand it's a small sample size but it's the most recent 33 year period in the discussion. Very alarming. I knew DCA has been bad recently but when you see it on the chart it becomes shocking. Very alarming. One can hope hope it's a cyclical type deal but common sense says otherwise. 

140 years of data says otherwise.  But emotion away

[Chris78]

4 minutes ago, WesternFringe said:

140 years of data says otherwise.  But emotion away

Data doesn't lie. Dud years are more common now than what they have ever been in the last 140 years.

Don't know if it's just coincidence or not but the numbers really high light that.

[psuhoffman]

1 hour ago, SnowenOutThere said:

Could you please show me that?

He is trolling... I should have noticed sooner.   But no need to continue engaging with childish behavior. 

[Stormfly]

1 hour ago, Bob Chill said:

This place is in mid/late crappy season form already I see.  Lol. I closed the blinds before Christmas. No reason to open them for a week or 2. Carry on with weenie death by a thousand cuts

I got the tools for the cuts.

[HighStakes]

2 minutes ago, WesternFringe said:

140 years of data says otherwise.  But emotion away

I haven't read through this thread very carefully but my post was focused on the data from 1989 until present. You can't deny that those numbers are very concerning. We're talking about almost half of the last 33 winters producing extremely low numbers. For instance if the numbers went from 9 to 11 then it can be dismissed  or chalked up to random occurrence but 9 to 16 is almost double and has to be strongly accepted as something greater involved.

[ravensrule]

This thread is way more depressing than watching the Orioles from 1984 to the present. 

[Maestrobjwa]

42 minutes ago, HighStakes said:

16 winters over a 33/34 year span that resulted in single digit amounts is outright atrocious coicidence or not. That can't just be getting unlucky. I understand it's a small sample size but it's the most recent 33 year period in the discussion. Very alarming. I knew DCA has been bad recently but when you see it on the chart it becomes shocking. Very alarming. One can hope hope it's a cyclical type deal but common sense says otherwise. 

It's would be even more horrendous if this year were to follow the trend psu mentioned and end up in the single digits...because that would mean 5 of the last 10 seasons were single digits! Yeah we gotta break the trend this year somehow! But if not this year...the mod niño is our last snow hope, lol

[cbmclean]

1 hour ago, Ralph Wiggum said:

Soooo, how bout those +height anomalies at HL on the GEFS in the LR?

What hour are you looking at?

[cbmclean]

8 hours ago, WxUSAF said:

A shift to a more favorable longwave pattern remains steady around the 7th/8th. Not much else worth looking at IMO before this weekend assuming that doesn’t change. 

Eastern ridge definitely starting to be beat down by Jan 8th, but 2m anomalies still mostly warm through Jan 12.  Not sure of that is residual from Pac Puke or just the new pattern is meh.

[Ralph Wiggum]

6 minutes ago, cbmclean said:

What hour are you looking at?

I like where hrs 282 implies we may be headed based on past hl looks as such, especially just earlier this month. Big ridge signal near Scandinavia which generally feeds the NAO over time, nice EPO ridge, and what looks to be a -AO. Little ways out but something to watch going forward: