Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,600
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

February 2024


wdrag
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, LibertyBell said:

I mean it's an aberration because a strong el nino is expected to do better than what 97-98 did and there two other very strong ones did that a lot better, so that makes 1997-98 the aberration.

 

Lol there were 4 events. 2 bad 2 ok. That's 50%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EastonSN+ said:

Lol there were 4 events. 2 bad 2 ok. That's 50%

This winter? There was one moderate event and one minor event.  The moderate event dropped 4.2 here and the minor event dropped 2.0 here.  I don't know where the other two events came from.... I don't consider anything less than an inch as an event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

There were 4 events and 2 were putrid, please explain why 97/98 is an aberration?

Also, I don't believe 97/98 is the proper analog for this winter, because that ENSO phase was "super" this will end up just being "strong" in all likelihood.  It puts it in a completely different category.

And even if it's "super" (which it likely won't be classified as that way), there are two other "supers" that were colder and snowier, which is what makes 1997-98 the anomaly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

This winter? There was one moderate event and one minor event.  The moderate event dropped 4.2 here and the minor event dropped 2.0 here.  I don't know where the other two events came from.... I don't consider anything less than an inch as an event.

Correct 4 strong El ninos. 

Bad = 97/98 and 23/24

Ok = 82/83 and 15/16 

Difference? The ok years had KUs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said:

Many have done better than that winter which totally screwed the interior and new England. It's not just about nyc

But then I go back to my point about it being silly to set 1997-98 to compare this winter to.  That winter was a failure and so is this one and yes we can say it's a failure on a national level.  It's not just about inland areas either.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

Also, I don't believe 97/98 is the proper analog for this winter, because that ENSO phase was "super" this will end up just being "strong" in all likelihood.  It puts it in a completely different category.

And even if it's "super" (which it likely won't be classified as that way), there are two other "supers" that were colder and snowier, which is what makes 1997-98 the anomaly.

Ok, let's say that this year does not become super, how is 33.33% an anomaly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EastonSN+ said:

Correct 4 strong El ninos. 

Bad = 97/98 and 23/24

Ok = 82/83 and 15/16 

Difference? The ok years had KUs.

Those were far colder especially in the back half of winter.  April 1983 had the latest significant snowfall in the history of Long Island and we had some moderate events in February 2016 as well as going below 0 on this date.  There were several things to like about both of those.

I dont get the glee about this winter, it's historically awful not just here but on a national level.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

But then I go back to my point about it being silly to set 1997-98 to compare this winter to.  That winter was a failure and so is this one and yes we can say it's a failure on a national level.  It's not just about inland areas either.

 

But you can never expect a KU event just because 2 analog winters happened to have one. If the sample were larger and say 9 out of 10 strong ninos had one I'd say maybe

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

Those were far colder especially in the back half of winter.  April 1983 had the latest significant snowfall in the history of Long Island and we had some moderate events in February 2016 as well as going below 0 on this date.  There were several things to like about both of those.

I dont get the glee about this winter, it's historically awful not just here but on a national level.

 

No glee just happy most of us cashed in at least once. Even if cashing in means 1 plowable event

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stormlover74 said:

No glee just happy most of us cashed in at least once

Just dont say that 1982-83 and 2015-16 were "luck" there is no such thing as "luck" there are specific scientific reasons why these events happened and we had much better blocking in those winters.  With the changing climate, those kinds of block have become far less frequent.

That's the real reason why they happened.  After 2015-16 we saw a complete change to the Pacific ocean that we still have not recovered from.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said:

But you can never expect a KU event just because 2 analog winters happened to have one. If the sample were larger and say 9 out of 10 strong ninos had one I'd say maybe

Correct the sample size is extremely small. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EastonSN+ said:

I never said 15/16 or 82/83 was an anomaly.

See above post, we had much better blocking in those winters, with the changing climate, those blocks are not happening as frequently, specifically after 2015-16 we saw a complete change to the Pacific Ocean that we still haven't recovered from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LibertyBell said:

Just dont say that 1982-83 and 2015-16 were "luck" there is no such thing as "luck" there are specific scientific reasons why these events happened and we had much better blocking in those winters.  With the changing climate, those kinds of block have become far less frequent.

That's the real reason why they happened.  After 2015-16 we saw a complete change to the Pacific ocean that we still have not recovered from.

 

Sure but you just proved why we shouldn't expect an 82-83 repeat. That was the old climate

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said:

But you can never expect a KU event just because 2 analog winters happened to have one. If the sample were larger and say 9 out of 10 strong ninos had one I'd say maybe

You'll never get an analog size that high and it's important to note that the changes 2015-16 brought to the Pacific Ocean is something we still haven't recovered from.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stormlover74 said:

Sure but you just proved why we shouldn't expect an 82-83 repeat. That was the old climate

Yeah, but it also proves to expect many more winters of this type, it really has nothing to do with enso state and much more to do with the evolving climate.

That's the real reason to be upset.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

See above post, we had much better blocking in those winters, with the changing climate, those blocks are not happening as frequently, specifically after 2015-16 we saw a complete change to the Pacific Ocean that we still haven't recovered from.

Again that's 50%. You left out 97/98. 

Also are you certain we can't get another 15/16 or 82/83? The IO temps are rising fast and that correlates to phases 1 and 2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

dont worry we wont get either, we will likely have a warm dry March and a hot and dry April leading into a hot and dry summer.

the scientific evidence you included in this post supports that idea.........

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

4 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

Again that's 50%. You left out 97/98. 

Also are you certain we can't get another 15/16 or 82/83? The IO temps are rising fast and that correlates to phases 1 and 2. 

Sure, there's still a chance, but so far how would you grade this winter?

I'd say D-.  Last winter was an F (I don't think there is an F-).  If we get a storm of 6"+ (doesn't even have to be 10"+ because we already have had a 4" storm), I would raise it to C-.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

You'll never get an analog size that high and it's important to note that the changes 2015-16 brought to the Pacific Ocean is something we still haven't recovered from.

 

5 top 10 warmest winters since that +13.3 December 2015.
 

Time Series Summary for NY CITY CENTRAL PARK, NY - Dec through Feb
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.
Rank
Season
Mean Avg Temperature 
Missing Count
1 2001-2002 41.6 0
2 2023-2024 41.1 16
3 2022-2023 41.0 0
- 2015-2016 41.0 0
4 2011-2012 40.5 0
5 1931-1932 40.2 0
6 1997-1998 39.6 0
7 2016-2017 39.3 0
8 2019-2020 39.2 0
9 1990-1991 39.1 0
10 1998-1999 38.6 0
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
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...