Panic Room - Winter 23/24 Edition

[stormy]

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

@stormy you obviously haven’t followed my whole argument. Never have I blamed 100% of our snow drought on warming. Our snowfall is greatly affected by cyclical pacific and Atlantic sst patterns that you can easily track. Sometimes we go through great periods when they are in a positive cycle concurrently. Sometimes they are both bad and we get periods like this. And sometimes they’re in conflict and we get some combo. 
 

But our good and bad cycles are deteriorating linearly. It’s hard to see if you focus on any small chuck of time because it’s buried within the up and down cycles of snowfall.  But if you pull back to see the ups are less up and the downs are more down. 
 

Example. We’ve had this same cycle we’re in now before. From 1949-57 and 1971-77. And both sucked for snow.  DC averaged about 11” during those years which was way below avg in those periods. But from 2017-2024 DC is averaging 6”. 6 is worse than 11!  11 was bad. 6 is worse!  
 

Im not saying the last 8 years should have been good. The best analog to this pattern was the 2 previous least snowy cycles in our recorded history. But it’s been 40% worse that those!  And our last “snowy” cycle from 2003-2016 was 30% worse than 1958-1971 the previous snowy one!  What I’m saying is the ups are less up and the downs are more down. We are bleeding snow away and we didn’t have that much to give!  
 

Fibally 2F is HUGE when 50% of DCs snow always came with temps near freezing. We aren’t Daluth. 50 years ago we were already on the southern edge of the climate zone where snow was a “normal reliable” occurrence. Even back then snow was an anomaly that might not happen much at all year to year in places like Raleigh NC.  More recently Richmond has entered that zone. And imo the 2016 super Nino pushed it one more notch and now DC is south of the line where snow is a normal reliable winter event.
 

If you asked me to quantify it I’d say DC area has lost about 30% of their snow climo. DC is probably where Richmond was before now. Snow can happen. There can even be a 30” season. Richmond used to get them. But I know growing up in DC area when I’d hear people in Richmond complain about no snow I’d snicker it’s not supposed to snow down there. They are south of the “it’s supposed to snow in winter” line. That’s us now!  

PSU:

I have followed your thoughts probably closer than you realize. Your knowledge is impressive.  I at this time really appreciate this reasonable response without the historical angst between you and I.  I have at times thought you and I could be friends. We probably got started off on the wrong foot and it was probably my fault. This may have been during the summer of 2021 over my drought conditions.

Without wasting precious text space, I really appreciate your admittance that I have noticed more during recent weeks that warming is probably not the only factor in the recent  snow drought. I believe that warming could be contributing, especially in D.C. proper but other unrecognized factors are also at play here. The most important consideration is that folks who have a special interest in the weather not be driven to near insanity with hopelessness and they understand that during their lifetime whether they are 15 or 75 the only thing we can do is try to be happy with what we have because we don't have the ability to change it over a lifetime. We will evolve away from any AGW.  We will have good snow years and bad snow years in the mentime. 

I really believe that some have been driven to the depths of despair believing that the world is coming to an end because of warming. I have lived through many ups and downs as I posted from January of 1967. Many of these folks suffering this god-awful despair today will live to see much better times regarding snowfall as I did in the late 60's. Historic snow and cold in January of 1966, springlike warmth in January of 1967, Heavy November snows in 1968.  It has been a roller-coaster lifetime of weather..

 Many folks on this board hope for snow as I did in January of 1967, only a year after record breaking snowstorms and severe cold, only to be greeted with springtime warmth........... We didn't have any thoughts about warming back in those times and we were only a few years away from the 70's when the best and brightest told us we were approaching another ice-age.

My greatest desire is that you and I will have a much better relationship going forward and you won't feel compelled to tell folks to put me on "ignore". I am a very reasonable person if you get to know me.

[SnowenOutThere]

3 hours ago, stormy said:

In support of your thoughts,  NOAA says that the warming rate has doubled since 1981 but the pier reviewed data still says 2 F since 1880. The climate is always changing and has been for millions of years. Any speculation about the next 50 or 100 years is just that. But, a snow drought since 2016 in D.C. because of this?  I don't believe NOAA would support that idea.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

Saying that human released greenhouse gasses will continue to warm the planet in the 21st century isn’t speculation, hope this helps ✨

[Maestrobjwa]

31 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I’ve heard this excuse like 5 times in the last several years. “You can’t expect it to snow despite a perfect track storm in a perfect long wave pattern because we are recovering from a torch”. That’s total 100% complete utter BS!  If it takes weeks to recover from a bad pattern for us to snow…that just proves my point!  In most winters we’re going to get a pac puke onslaught. It’s rare to get a winter where at some point there is no jet extension and a flood of maritime air.  If we need a Fng month to recover from that…well math is really not on our side!  
 

About 5 years ago I did a case study analysis of every 5” snowstorm at BWI back to 1948!  I looked at the loading pattern out to 10 days before each. We’ve had a ton of snowstorms through that history when the pattern flipped better from a “torched” pattern and we didn’t have to wait weeks. Guess what we even had some wet snowstorms during pac puke regimes in the past. It’s becoming the distant past now though. 
 

Some years we won’t ever get a favorable pattern to lock in for more than a week or two all winter. And there’s why we’ve been getting virtually no snow at all a lot lately. Yea those years would have always been bad. But in a year we’re the mean pattern is going to flood the continent with pac air if we need 3 weeks to recover it won’t snow at all. We don’t get that chance!  
 

The long wave pattern flipped Dec 23-26. That’s when the pac onslaught ended. The perfect track rainstorm was Jan 7. There is no excuse for that.   Yes it did take that long.  Yes we are just now getting a cold enough airmass.  It took 4 cutters and a perfect track rainstorm to slowly lower heights and pull down slightly colder air behind each wave  3 weeks!  That’s a problem.  Most winters we will be Fd if it takes 3 weeks to get cold enough following a torch!  

I hate that I keep having to play devils advocate. It makes me seem more negative that I am. I still think we eventually get a good snowstorm this year. I’ll be shocked if we don’t. I agree with the pattern. I’ve said as much. 
 

But…I’m not nearly the optimist you are. Im somewhere in between you and Ji. 

Whenever I bring up the fact that that less snow may be a reality we may have to learn to deal with...I get weenied and folks complain about being negative. Look y'all...this is what's been happening. And we just have to find healthier ways to deal with it. If this is what's happening...then it's happening.

 

I said last year that we may get to a point (not now but maybe years from now) where this forum may become the SE forum if this trend continues (folks sent the icon for that one too, lol). But I mean...if we become like them, folks may lose interest after awhile..I know I probably would! How we have been is...at least it works out sometimes. But IF the "sometimes" get less, then I'm not sure what the point in tracking would be. But maybe that's just me.

[Solution Man]

26 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

Whenever I bring up the fact that that less snow may be a reality we may have to learn to deal with...I get weenied and folks complain about being negative. Look y'all...this is what's been happening. And we just have to find healthier ways to deal with it. If this is what's happening...then it's happening.

 

I said last year that we may get to a point (not now but maybe years from now) where this forum may become the SE forum if this trend continues (folks sent the icon for that one too, lol). But I mean...if we become like them, folks may lose interest after awhile..I know I probably would! How we have been is...at least it works out sometimes. But IF the "sometimes" get less, then I'm not sure what the point in tracking would be. But maybe that's just me.

 

[pazzo83]

4 hours ago, stormy said:

In support of your thoughts,  NOAA says that the warming rate has doubled since 1981 but the pier reviewed data still says 2 F since 1880. The climate is always changing and has been for millions of years. Any speculation about the next 50 or 100 years is just that. But, a snow drought since 2016 in D.C. because of this?  I don't believe NOAA would support that idea.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

lol - now ocean piers are reviewing scientific papers and data?  The word is peer - and yes, of course the climate is always changing.  The issue here is human influence is causing that change to accelerate in unnatural ways.  Don't talk about "peer reviewed data" if you are just going to dismiss the mountains of data and research - also peer reviewed - that supports that conclusion.

[psuhoffman]

@stormy for the record it’s not personal. I don’t know you. I don’t have any issue with you.
 

But sometimes man…like last week when you know everyone else in the storm thread is upset and you decide that’s a good time to say how awesome it is we’re getting rain because of the drought. Yea you’re right. You also know no one gives a F and that’s just going to upset people. 
 

Or a few days ago when you decided what the thread needed was a grammar cop!  
 

Or the other day, hell I don’t even know what you were on about.  You made like 5 posts that didn’t even make any sense at all. I’m serious people kept quoting you and I had no idea what it meant. That’s why I said just ignore it. 
 

I didn’t say to ignore you because of our vehement but scientific disagreement over climate change. I said that because you often are off on a tangent from what the current discussion is. 

[psuhoffman]

24 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

So that's an example of just a bad luck thing, right? You'd think we'd be solidly on the board right now if it wasn't there! (Of course we could get on the board if Tues-Wed can squeeze out an inch...but you know what I mean)

But the main reason I don’t like having a TPV there is that it means we need NS interaction and to get a NS SW to dig enough to phase with a storm south of our latitude. And that isn’t happening very much anymore. And I think you know what is a part of that. This exact pattern has worked out a lot in the past. Not to much recently. 

[Maestrobjwa]

16 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

But the main reason I don’t like having a TPV there is that it means we need NS interaction and to get a NS SW to dig enough to phase with a storm south of our latitude. And that isn’t happening very much anymore. And I think you know what is a part of that. This exact pattern has worked out a lot in the past. Not to much recently. 

And it doesn't dig enough because the pac jet is situated further north, and that's because of...that? Lol (Had you demonstrated what that looks like visually in a previous post?) I mean if it's warming it's warming...I was just trying to visualize what it looks like.

And mercy...that means that even in a niño...that takes away another way we can win, smh Basically if we don't get a strong enough SS, there aren't many other paths to victory. Again, mercy...

[Maestrobjwa]

@psuhoffman Thanks for the tpv explanation in the main thread. Now...to discuss what we can't in there: What is causing the jet to situate north? Warmer water, or? (Trying to visualize that as well)

[Fozz]

10 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

2002-2016 wasn’t torrid here. DC and Baltimore were below avg snowfall then, just less below than since!  I made this point that 2002-2016 should have been a huge red flag for places like DC. It was an amazing run with a perfect mean long wave pattern. 

it won’t get much better than that ever. Yet while places further north were getting buried by 150% of normal snow we were getting 90%.  Since 2000 DC and Baltimore decoupled from NYC wrt snowfall. They used to be correlated and get about the same % of normal most years. Not since. It started below 40*. It’s creeping north!  
 

Yes true recent period has sucked like the 50s and early 70s. But it’s worse than those!  About 25% worse. The last good period was worse here than the ones before!  Why do you expect the next favorable pdo amo cycle to buck that trend?  Yes I suspect we will do better than now. That’s not my argument. But will we ever get back to when Baltimore averaged close to 25” which was true from 1890-1970?  Or will the next good period avg 18”?  

Since you mentioned NYC, I took a look at the data between Baltimore and NYC to see how much disparity there was each decade.

Turns out, from the late 19th century to 1990, NYC averaged 25% more snow than Baltimore. The highest decade I found was 75% more for NYC (1940s), while the 1960s actually had slightly more snow in Baltimore.

In the 90s and 00s (including 09-10), NYC averaged around 35% more than Baltimore.

But since 2010, NYC averaged more than 2x the snow of Baltimore, which is completely unprecedented. It is very apparent just from the raw numbers that something has clearly changed. The NY and NNJ snow weenies should take this all as a cautionary tale, because the change isn't stopping any time soon and they aren't going to like where it may eventually take them.

[PrinceFrederickWx]

16 minutes ago, Fozz said:

Since you mentioned NYC, I took a look at the data between Baltimore and NYC to see how much disparity there was each decade.

Turns out, from the late 19th century to 1990, NYC averaged 25% more snow than Baltimore. The highest decade I found was 75% more for NYC (1940s), while the 1960s actually had slightly more snow in Baltimore.

In the 90s and 00s (including 09-10), NYC averaged around 35% more than Baltimore.

But since 2010, NYC averaged more than 2x the snow of Baltimore, which is completely unprecedented. It is very apparent just from the raw numbers that something has clearly changed. The NY and NNJ snow weenies should take this all as a cautionary tale, because the change isn't stopping any time soon and they aren't going to like where it may eventually take them.

I’ve been wondering about this a lot. Could it be that our new normal gives us more Miller B’s, etc., or otherwise a pattern that leaves NYC permanently higher while the Mid-Atlantic trends lower? Will some areas in the northeast be permanently better off? Or are they just now in the feast-or-famine stage, which will eventually transition to all famine (like we seem to be doing)? 

[Fozz]

12 minutes ago, PrinceFrederickWx said:

I’ve been wondering about this a lot. Could it be that our new normal gives us more Miller B’s, etc., or otherwise a pattern that leaves NYC permanently higher while the Mid-Atlantic trends lower? Will some areas in the northeast be permanently better off? Or are they just now in the feast-or-famine stage, which will eventually transition to all famine (like we seem to be doing)? 

Probably their feast or famine stage. I think it's like psuhoffman and Terpeast said, the changing climate is probably shifting the Hadley cells and speeding up the NS with not as much digging south. That means more Miller Bs which favor 40N and less opportunity for us. But if that trend continues, then we'll probably see a lot more New England exclusive Miller Bs in the future.

Even Philly got 45% more snow than BWI since 2010, which is also ridiculous. From the late 19th century to 2010, they averaged 3% more snow than BWI, and actually had many decades with less. Some of their recent disparity was certainly luck, especially 2013-14.

[psuhoffman]

2 hours ago, Maestrobjwa said:

@psuhoffman Thanks for the tpv explanation in the main thread. Now...to discuss what we can't in there: What is causing the jet to situate north? Warmer water, or? (Trying to visualize that as well)

Hopefully this will help you visualize. Now imagine if that circulation expands!  It shifts the subtropical flow north. Which does 2 things. It simply shifts everything north. That’s not good if you were already on the southern edge of where it typically snowed much!  But it also compresses the flow between the subtropics and the polar jet. So it speeds up the northern get stream. Which will tend to flatten it and prevent digging and make it harder to phase things since waves are racing by faster. It’s a lose lose. 

[Jebman]

2 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

Hopefully this will help you visualize. Now imagine if that circulation expands!  It shifts the subtropical flow north. Which does 2 things. It simply shifts everything north. That’s not good if you were already on the southern edge of where it typically snowed much!  But it also compresses the flow between the subtropics and the polar jet. So it speeds up the northern get stream. Which will tend to flatten it and prevent digging and make it harder to phase things since waves are racing by faster. It’s a lose lose. 

In summary, if I came back East, I'd definitely go to the LES belts. Or the Green Mountains. You need to be about 1000 miles north. Jay Peak VT gets demolished a lot, too. Everyone in the Del Maryland VA Region needs a brand new winter hobby - or move well north. Not being a deb, just a realist.

[Jebman]

12 hours ago, SomeguyfromTakomaPark said:

If this week doesn’t produce I need to be reaped. 

I can tell you from experience that getting reaped is exhilarating! I should have called for ending winter years ago! 

[psuhoffman]

16 minutes ago, NorthArlington101 said:

Is this not the coastal taking over and pushing some warm air in, for lack of knowledge of a better term?

Let’s not overreact to one NAM run. But well yes it’s that but look where the low is. 1010 east of the outer banks. 

If a weak low there is enough to destroy the thermals NW of DC even with arctic air around what are we doing?  What are we even rooting for?  
 

Let me clarify. Yes DC is fine so long as it’s just the weak boundary wave along the arctic boundary activated by the jet crossing the boundary. And that’s great. I’m not complaining about a 1-3” snow. 
 

But if the second a wave actually starts to amplify in what’s supposed be our ideal location the weak flow associated with that immediately wrecks our thermals what’s the path to a legit big snow???  You do realize to get heavy snow we need an easterly flow!  Other than when we get instability from a strong upper level wave tracking over us most snow requires overrunning and clash along the thermal boundary. But if our thermals can’t withstand even a weak SE flow how do we get a significant snowstorm?  If a low off the outer banks pushes an arctic boundary NW of us…tell me exactly what are we rooting for if we want a big snowstorm???

[NorthArlington101]

Let’s not overreact to one NAM run. But well yes it’s that but look where the low is. 1010 east of the outer banks. 
If a weak low there is enough to destroy the thermals NW of DC even with arctic air around what are we doing?  What are we even rooting for?  
 
Let me clarify. Yes DC is fine so long as it’s just the weak boundary wave along the arctic boundary activated by the jet crossing the boundary. And that’s great. I’m not complaining about a 1-3” snow. 
 
But if the second a wave actually starts to amplify in what’s supposed be our ideal location the weak flow associated with that immediately wrecks our thermals what’s the path to a legit big snow???  You do realize to get heavy snow we need an easterly flow!  Other than when we get instability from a strong upper level wave tracking over us most snow requires overrunning and clash along the thermal boundary. But if our thermals can’t withstand even a weak SE flow how do we get a significant snowstorm?  If a low off the outer banks pushes an arctic boundary NW of us…tell me exactly what are we rooting for if we want a big snowstorm???

Thanks - appreciate it. Agree it’s dire if that’s really a problem, was just trying to sus out what was taking out the thermals. Looking forward to the next edition of your book

[Ralph Wiggum]

8 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

The NAM ... blasted a low level warm later NW of 95. Book worthy?  

 

[J.Mike]

Pesky geese are still hanging around

[Ralph Wiggum]

SSTs are just too warm. Probably too many fish releasing methane or some shit.

[psuhoffman]

14 minutes ago, NorthArlington101 said:

Thanks - appreciate it. Agree it’s dire if that’s really a problem, was just trying to sus out what was taking out the thermals. Looking forward to the next edition of your book

The thing is the people saying “you can’t be sure this one thing is due to warming” are right. All these examples in a vacuum can be dismissed as a fluke.  But thats ignoring the preponderance of evidence when you stack them all together and superimpose them on the worst region wide snow draught ever and a snow mean that’s been dropping precipitously if you apply a linear regression to the data. 

[CAPE]

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

Let’s not overreact to one NAM run. But well yes it’s that but look where the low is. 1010 east of the outer banks. 

If a weak low there is enough to destroy the thermals NW of DC even with arctic air around what are we doing?  What are we even rooting for?  
 

Let me clarify. Yes DC is fine so long as it’s just the weak boundary wave along the arctic boundary activated by the jet crossing the boundary. And that’s great. I’m not complaining about a 1-3” snow. 
 

But if the second a wave actually starts to amplify in what’s supposed be our ideal location the weak flow associated with that immediately wrecks our thermals what’s the path to a legit big snow???  You do realize to get heavy snow we need an easterly flow!  Other than when we get instability from a strong upper level wave tracking over us most snow requires overrunning and clash along the thermal boundary. But if our thermals can’t withstand even a weak SE flow how do we get a significant snowstorm?  If a low off the outer banks pushes an arctic boundary NW of us…tell me exactly what are we rooting for if we want a big snowstorm???

Look at the CMC at the surface and 925. It has largely been doing the same thing as the latest NAM runs. This has to do with the flow between the developing LP and the HP off to the east(not ideal), and more amplification of the TPV vort. We have said all along the situation was sensitive due to the presence of the TPV and lack of a 50-50 low.

GFS has the low forming a little further southeast, not as amplified. Look at the 925 mb wind speed/flow direction compared to the Canadian.

 

[psuhoffman]

50 minutes ago, CAPE said:

Look at the CMC at the surface and 925. It has largely been doing the same thing as the latest NAM runs. This has to do with the flow between the developing LP and the HP off to the east(not ideal), and more amplification of the TPV vort. We have said all along the situation was sensitive due to the presence of the TPV and lack of a 50-50 low.

GFS has the low forming a little further southeast, not as amplified. Look at the 925 mb wind speed/flow direction compared to the Canadian.

 

I said it was precarious because an amplified wave could easily track inside our ideal box. But that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is if the wave amplifies at all it’s pressing low level warmth way way way NW of the track even with an ideal track. 
 

This seems to be a repetitive theme where someone points out the imperfections to excuse why it’s too warm. I don’t get it!  Yea I know it’s not perfect. I know we can still get snow when everything is perfect. 
 

Yes if we have a 1035 high over Montreal with a 50/50 and a locked in arctic airmass and a 988 low off VA beach we will get a big snowstorm.  I know that! 
 

But we are almost never going to have that.  You know what % of all those warning snows I looked at had a perfect setup?  Barely any. The perfect setup ones were the 12”+ snows!  We shouldn’t need perfect to get 5-8”. Most of those were flawed. Something wasn’t right. No high. Marginal airmass. No blocking.  But the storm took a good track and it worked out. My point is lately a good track isn’t overcoming those flaws anymore. 

[Maestrobjwa]

Just now, psuhoffman said:

I said it was precarious because an amplified wave could easily track inside our ideal box. But that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is if the wave amplifies at all it’s pressing low level warmth way way way NW of the track even with an ideal track. 
 

This seems to be a repetitive theme where someone points out the imperfections to excuse why it’s too warm. I don’t get it!  Yea I know it’s not perfect. I know we can still get snow when everything is perfect. 
 

Yes if we have a 1035 high over Montreal with a 50/50 and a locked in arctic airmass and a 988 low off VA beach we will get a big snowstorm.  I know that! 
 

But we are almost never going to have that.  You know what % of all those warning snows I looked at had a perfect setup?  Barely any. The perfect setup ones were the 12”+ snows!  We shouldn’t need perfect to get 5-8”. Most of those were flawed. Something wasn’t right. No high. Marginal airmass. No blocking.  But the storm took a good track and it worked out. My point is lately a good track isn’t overcoming those flaws anymore. 

Why do you feel the need to argue this, though? Like yeah you've got valid points. But if people don't wanna hear it, they don't wanna hear it. Yeah it'll be this reason or that reason. I don't know why you waste all that energy in an endless campaign of making your case, lol

[psuhoffman]

4 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

Why do you feel the need to argue this, though? Like yeah you've got valid points. But if people don't wanna hear it, they don't wanna hear it. Yeah it'll be this reason or that reason. I don't know why you waste all that energy in an endless campaign of making your case, lol

We are in the panic room 

[Maestrobjwa]

2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

We are in the panic room 

Yeah I know, lol But I do wonder why...I mean if it were me, I wouldn't waste my energy with it. And don't forget that perhaps some of the excuses come from not wanting to accept a certain reality yet. So when the excuses start to pile up, remember...this is something no snow lover wants to hear. So probably some denial mixed with a few legit unknowns about what things will look like going forward.

[psuhoffman]

1 minute ago, Maestrobjwa said:

Yeah I know, lol But I do wonder why...I mean if it were me, I wouldn't waste my energy with it. And don't forget that perhaps some of the excuses come from not wanting to accept a certain reality yet. So when the excuses start to pile up, remember...this is something no snow lover wants to hear. So probably some denial mixed with a few legit unknowns about what things will look like going forward.

Consider this…why come in to the panic room, choose to respond, then complain about the discussion?  Maybe it’s just frustration manifesting?  

[Maestrobjwa]

10 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Consider this…why come in to the panic room, choose to respond, then complain about the discussion?  Maybe it’s just frustration manifesting?  

Listen I wasn't trying to be snarky, man. Not really complaining about the discussion either...just trying to understand your why, that's all. And you said "I don't get it" (as you've expressed bewilderment with all the excuses and such before)...and so I offered up an explanation.

I mean, an unpleasant reality IS a part of the conversation, is it not? So I thought my point about how uncomfortable it is was relevant (or so I thought).

[psuhoffman]

1 minute ago, Maestrobjwa said:

Listen I wasn't trying to be snarky, man. Not really complaining about the discussion either...just trying to understand your why, that's all. And you said "I don't get it"...and so I offered up an explanation.

Because I analyze every snow threat. I did this same exorcise with every Baltimore snowstorm from 1948 to now!  When they are good I analyze why. When they are bad I analyze why. And it’s hard for me to do that and ignore something I’m noticing which is things that used to work don’t seem to anymore as often!  But when we get a snowstorm I’ll be all over analyzing the reasons why it is snowing.  Think back. I was all over digging into looking at VV plots and moisture transport and instability and pinning down a deform when we got snow. The reason this is all I’m talking about lately is it’s not snowing at all dammit.  I’d much rather be analyzing some mid level VV plot to pin down a 3”/hr death band. 
 

Have I been wrong about anything?  Have we got some snowstorm when I was being a massive Deb about it?   I will be wrong. I’ve been wrong before. I will again. But recently have I been a deb or have I just been correctly assessing the situation and giving accurate analysis?   
 

Do you want BS everything’s fine or the truth? 
 

 

[stormy]

18 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

@stormy for the record it’s not personal. I don’t know you. I don’t have any issue with you.
 

But sometimes man…like last week when you know everyone else in the storm thread is upset and you decide that’s a good time to say how awesome it is we’re getting rain because of the drought. Yea you’re right. You also know no one gives a F and that’s just going to upset people. 
 

Or a few days ago when you decided what the thread needed was a grammar cop!  
 

Or the other day, hell I don’t even know what you were on about.  You made like 5 posts that didn’t even make any sense at all. I’m serious people kept quoting you and I had no idea what it meant. That’s why I said just ignore it. 
 

I didn’t say to ignore you because of our vehement but scientific disagreement over climate change. I said that because you often are off on a tangent from what the current discussion is. 

Psu:

I hear you, believe me.  Most of those comments were provoked by a person directing a snarky post toward me. In the future if snarky comments come my way, I will do my best to simply ignore them. Sometimes I believe we all take this board too seriously. Many feel compelled to clash with others when everything is not going their way.

 Yesterday, you said that the D.C. mean from 17 - 24 has been 6 inches.  My mean during this 7 year period has been 14". My mean for the previous 7 years was 31".

During the past several years I have noticed an often repeating weakness in the Lakes region that systems turn into. Lake runners and Miller B's seem to dominate which we hardly ever do well with. Miller "A's" seem to be rare. Others have commented about this.  Do you believe this is related to our snowdrought?