psuhoffman

I like where we are right now. All of the major factors that contribute to our winter pattern are either in a favorable phase or ambiguous. There aren't any big red flags where I see it and think "uh oh". That wasn't true the last couple years. Even heading into 2015-16 we knew with a basin wide super nino temps were going to be a problem. This year has some of the ingredients we need to hope for a good outcome. I'm cautiously optimistic at this point.

He was hilarious and left us much too soon.

Yea... global warming. But that's the reality of where we are NOW. Expecting something that is no longer normal will just frustrate people. I am talking about what our climo is NOW not what it used to be.

I will disagree. 1. The blockbuster years can be WAY more over then the duds are under. So they do not offset numerically as you imply. 2. People often misapply MEAN or AVERAGE to mean what is typical or what should we expect. If we are trying to create an expectation of what is typical or (what happens most of the time) around here the median is a much more accurate indicator. At DCA the official mean has only been reached 7 times in the last 30 years. That means only 23% of the time did DCA attain its mean. Now only you can set your expectations and you can set them however you want. But I would not EXPECT something or define it as TYPICAL if it only happens 23% of the time. The median or what happens 50% seems more logical to me.

I understand your point... and I get that "feeling" sometimes... but to counter that, if we get miserable every time we have a truly bad winter...and when we have decent ones but where New England did better... we are going to be miserable A LOT. lol Plus in 2004/5 we did have a couple a pretty decent hits. I get why some were "let down" with the January event but it was still a 3-7" event area wide so its not like the numerous examples where New England got 2 feet and we got scraps...it still was a decent event. And then we had 2 flush hits for our area in late February. Both were 4-6" events. So in the end our area had 3 SECS level events that winter. For our standards thats better then most of our winters. Nothing you said is wrong...I am not trying to be contentious...these are all just preference. But MOST winters here we will not have multiple MECS level events and 20+" of snow and for me it gets frustrating when an army of frustrated snow weenies who have out of touch with reality expectations flood our discussion threads with constant complaints EVERY winter that doesn't end up being those 96 or 2010 fluke years.

I am not trying to be all preachy, but at times I worry that our perception isn't in line with reality...and that leads to even more whining and complaining when winter cannot live up to the expectation most of the time. Of course I dream of those dream years like 96, 2003, 2010, 2014... but I try to keep my expectations in check so I don't spend most of the winter season driving everyone crazy with constant complaints.

As analogs start popping up, all this talk of what years people find acceptable and what years earn a "pass" I wanted to post some reality of what climo actually is. I preface this by saying I have no right to tell anyone what their opinion of a "good winter" should be. That is subjective. But I do think it is valuable to know what the numbers say is typical for our area because if someone wants to consider only years where we get 30" good that is totally their right...but if they then act like that is what should happen every year and subject the board to constant whining when 90% of our winter's fall short of that is not cool IMO. First of all people should stop using the mean as their judge of "typical". Our means are skewed by the handful of blockbuster winters in the last 30 years. Just about every site (even up here) has a median that is significantly lower then the mean. The median (kind of like the 50/50 over under) is a better judge of what typical is. Even that isnt perfect as we have a LOT of varience in this area but its closer to what you can expect as a 50/50 over under year to year. About half the time you will beat that number. And half you will not. For up here my Mean is close to 40" but my median is only 31". So my goal each year is to get close to 30". As long as I don't finish significantly under that I don't feel like it was a "bad" year. Yea my mean is 40 but a year somewhere in the 25-35" range is actually typical and only 30% or so of winters actually are better then that. Those years with 60"+ skew the mean. Also we should probably look at what the 30 year numbers tell us using the last 30 years...not the climo numbers from 1980 to 2010 because we are close to the end of this decade and the new "normals" are going to change and reflect this decade. So I used the 30 years going back to the 1989 season to compile the numbers below. DCA Mean: 13.9" Median: 10.1" BWI Mean: 19.6" Median: 15.3" IAD mean: 21.4" Median: 14.7" So recently there seems to be a consensus that 2004/5 sucked. But at all 3 airports it was above the median. IAD: 17.3 DCA: 12.5 BWI: 18 So for each station it was a decent amount over our median and looking at the last 30 years if we count seasons that ended up within an inch of that year...only about 30% of our winters will be better then that. So if people want to consider 2005 a crappy year that is totally fine, as long as they realize that 70% of years will be only that good OR WORSE!!!

I didn't say it was special but definitely not bad. DCA had 12.5" of snow which is above their median. In the last 30 years only 10 had more snow at DCA. Only 1/3 do we get more snow then that year. And a few of those were only more by an inch or two!!! So in reality only about 20% of the time can we expect a winter that's snowier then that. Now those are all facts. But people have every right to feel however they want. JI can complain during a year he gets 70". (See 2010 no joke). And no one can tell you how to feel. But I do want to make sure we know what reality is and that a winter like 2004-05 is snowier then most here and if that is something that is disappointing then you are setting yourself up to be let down a lot. And that's fine but then we don't need to hear from some of the usual suspects who seem to think we should get 20"+ every year and complain incessantly all winter when we don't. It's bad enough having the listen to them all winter in a legit bad year but we don't need them acting that way even when we get a decent year because they don't know climo.

2004-05 wasn't that bad. After a bad start mid January on had several 3"+ snowfall events across the region with a few healthy clippers mixed in. We just missed a bigger storm a couple times too. But it certainly wasn't a dud. If anything it was the rare example of a median "average" snowfall winter. I wouldn't cry if we get a somewhat similar year.

Yep...it was an attempt to corral all the dumb into this one thread. ETA: just so a debate doesn't start up I know when this thread started it was dry...and it was worth noting it...but it was fairly typical variance that happens a couple times a decade and not the emergency situation worth derailing EVERY discussion in every thread one person was making it out to be.

it seemed like such a dire thing .. its not like typical cyclical climate variance could have solved such an emergency situation

When will we get a drought update?

I wasn't complaining about snow I was complaining about his constant BS.

I have had enough of him already and we haven't even had our first frost yet!!!

Ohhhh...it was anomalous...like EVERY snow event. So what you're saying is it wont snow...except when it snows. Got it, thank you SOOOOO much for that earth shaking revelation!!! What would we do without you.

You said the same crap last year and then many in here got a significant snowfall in March. You don't know how anything is going to end. No one does. So stop acting like you have some answer. Take your soap box somewhere else.

People are stubborn. Your background signal of stupid hasn't seemed to slow you down at all.

We just need the ggem and ukmet and we can fill in all the gaps.

Plus this means there won't be ANY downtime anymore. By the time the 12z euro and ens come out the 18z nam is running. There used to be a dead time though after the 18z and 6z gfs. Now there will always be a data point about to come out 24 hours a day during a threat. I'm pretty sure that will screw some people up lol.

And 07/08 was equally god awful here too!!! But 90% of ninas are awful here. That's a simple reality. I did a lot of data digging last year and found that the only exceptions here are when we get an anomalous -nao during a nina. That from every Nina back to 1950 we have only had a significant (5"+) snowfall during a Nina with a significant -nao event. There wasn't a single fluke major snow event at D.C. without a -nao. While the nao does strongly correlate with snow here it's not that strong during neutral and nino years. During a Nina however it appears our only chance is a -nao. The last 2 winters hold true to that. While several storms found a way to affect other areas we only cashed in both years in March after the nao tanked the only time each winter. So perhaps the fact that 09 sucked here is more a function of the Nina combined with a +nao being too much to overcome regardless of the solar minimum.

I've yet to see any definitive answer to the solar minimum/snowfall correlation issue. Clearly there is a prevalence of high anomaly snowfall and cold years in the northeast/mid atl sometime around the solar minimums. But if that tends to come at a specific interval after the minimum or rather its tied in to lining up with other factors I don't think anyone really knows. 08/09 sucked for snowfall here but it was colder then many ninas and given how awful the other factors like enso were that year it's legit to wonder if the problems weren't related to the solar cycle but rather just other hostile factors overcoming the favorable solar. You can play that same game around the other minimums also. It does seem the big year has more often been the year aftera minimum but it's too small a sample to say if that is due solely to a correlation with the timing of the minimum or its the effect of the years where other factors lined up to allow a big year just randomly happened after solar minimums more often then during or just before. My 2 cents, with no research and only educated guesses to back it up, is that there is some lag effect making it more likely after the minimum to get a boost to blocking and snowfall. There is some lag to most everything that impacts the atmosphere so that makes some sense. But there also is no logical reason that right before or during the minimum would be unfavorable to snowfall either. So just because next winter might be even more favorable to getting a solar related blockbuster winter doesn't mean this year can't also be good if the other factors line up the right way.

Next little ice age coming!!!

Safer yes, but most of what they are doing now goes way too far. I am fine with taking head hunting out of the game. I played tackle football a lot in high school and college with no pads and we managed to tackle without leading with our heads. That is very possible and should be made the normal given what we know about CTE. And the NFL was wrong to hide the realities of CTE from players. BUT...there is an inherent risk in EVERYTHING. When I do expert terrain while skiing I know the risks...and I accept them. Football has some violence inherent in the game. It cannot be removed. It has to just be accepted and so long as we are honest about the risks I have no problem with that. But bastardizing the sport in an attempt to make it innocuous is just going to destroy it completely. These QB rules are just insane. Its impossible to tackle the QB and not have your weight come down on him. I am not talking about pile driving, but the normal hits that are being called. And the BS calls where someone is reaching for the ball and incidentally swats the helmet are equally disgusting. I turned last nights game off after that call. Its one thing if you intentionally club the qb in the head vs incidental light contact. If the NFL continues to officiate this way I will no longer watch. I used to watch several games a week and now I find myself more and more only able to make it through Eagles games when I have a vested interest in my team, and even then its often painful and difficult. Hopefully enough fans will stop watching and write the league to complain (as I have) and they will respond and fix this before its too late.

then it wouldn't be banter