La Nada snowfall averages for SNE

[ORH_wxman]

Every year I usually post SNE averages for snowfall depending on ENSO state. I thought I would post them this year for La Nada or "neutral" ENSO since this weak Nino won't quite qualify as an El Nino. I should have listed in the charts, but long term climo (since 1950) for the stations over all seasons was 43.7" for BOS, 69.3" for ORH, 49.5" for BDL and 36.7" for PVD.

Here they are (BDL is estimated for 2001-2002)

The site that did best relaitve to average was PVD. BDL did the worst. Though clearly as you can see, all 4 stations were very close to their climo mean of all seasons. I highlighted the best and worst seasons for each stations along with the mean of neutral seasons at the bottom in yellow.

[40/70 Benchmark]

I wonder whether warm-neutral would be a little better....though that would be a bit of a tedious endeavor.

[HoarfrostHubb]

Well we already had our 1979-1980 redux. Can we get a 92-93 redux to make up for it?

[ORH_wxman]

Well we already had our 1979-1980 redux. Can we get a 92-93 redux to make up for it?

Getting a December 1992 storm total would be a start. Also having March (and beyond) deliver this year is pretty much a necessity to get over 100" here. Of the 7 years that broke 100" (regardless of ENSO), here were the following March and beyond totals:

1960-1961: 27.1"

1992-1993: 46.9"

1993-1994: 27.1"

1995-1996: 43.8"

2000-2001: 36.4"

2002-2003: 13.4"

2004-2005: 24.6"

Only 2002-2003 had kind of a dud finish in terms of total snow after March 1st.

[CoastalWx]

Hey Will did you use the newer ONI or MEI? Did it make a difference out of curiosity?

[ORH_wxman]

Hey Will did you use the newer ONI or MEI? Did it make a difference out of curiosity?

I used the newer one. It didn't make much of a difference. We gained 1962-1963 (used to be a La Nina) and 1967-1968, but lost 1953-1954, 1958-1959, and 1983-1984. '53-'54 was a really crappy year to get rid of, but losing '83-'84 was a good year we lost. The overall averages would have been just a hair lower if we kept the old ones. The newer rankings also said we should lose '52-'53, but I kept it in there as I don't consider it a real Nino...it didn't start until January on the new rankings, lol. That is not an El Nino.

So actually if I was very strict on keeping the new rankings, the averages probably don't change much since I would have to throw out another terrible season.

[CoastalWx]

You really had a mix of everything. I would guess the Pacific had a big say as to what years were good or bad. Obviously the NAO would be important too.

[Ginx snewx]

Which of those years was the winter following a Nina?

[Baroclinic Zone]

Nice work Will. Congrats TAN.

[HoarfrostHubb]

Getting a December 1992 storm total would be a start. Also having March (and beyond) deliver this year is pretty much a necessity to get over 100" here. Of the 7 years that broke 100" (regardless of ENSO), here were the following March and beyond totals:

1960-1961: 27.1"

1992-1993: 46.9"

1993-1994: 27.1"

1995-1996: 43.8"

2000-2001: 36.4"

2002-2003: 13.4"

2004-2005: 24.6"

Only 2002-2003 had kind of a dud finish in terms of total snow after March 1st.

After last season, anything close to climo will feel like a winner. I would love a March 2001 repeat, since I can't remember it much.

[ORH_wxman]

Which of those years was the winter following a Nina?

2008-2009, 2001-2002, 1996-1997, 1989-1990, 1985-1986....'67-'68 followed '66-'67 which wasn't a Nina but it was negative neutral. Ditto '62-'63.

[Chicago WX]

2008-2009, 2001-2002, 1996-1997, 1989-1990, 1985-1986....'67-'68 followed '66-'67 which wasn't a Nina but it was negative neutral. Ditto '62-'63.

2008-09 was pretty cold neutral though, or close to being a Nina except falling just short of the 5 consecutive season threshold...right?

Nice chart though. I did something similar for the Midwest/Lakes awhile back. Mixed bag in neutral winters. Really wanted to see a weak Nino this winter...

[ORH_wxman]

2008-09 was pretty cold neutral though, or close to being a Nina except falling just short of the 5 consecutive season threshold...right?

Nice chart though. I did something similar for the Midwest/Lakes awhile back. Mixed bag in neutral winters. Really wanted to see a weak Nino this winter...

Correct. There's multiple years like that. Many of the neutrals are slanted in one direction or the other with very few being within a tenth or two of zero anomaly.

This year is going to be close to an El Nino but officially it will go as a neutral. Weak El ninos have historically been very good here...esp if we use the old climo baseline....the new climo baseline introduces some bizarre weak Nino events that I believe are a product of how they tweaked the climo. Events that start basically in winter or extremely late autumn...which is totally against typical ENSO progression.

[Damage In Tolland]

Just curious.. Were a lot of those years southern and central New Eng. winters, where NNE tended to get less compared to avg?

[Chicago WX]

Correct. There's multiple years like that. Many of the neutrals are slanted in one direction or the other with very few being within a tenth or two of zero anomaly.

This year is going to be close to an El Nino but officially it will go as a neutral. Weak El ninos have historically been very good here...esp if we use the old climo baseline....the new climo baseline introduces some bizarre weak Nino events that I believe are a product of how they tweaked the climo. Events that start basically in winter or extremely late autumn...which is totally against typical ENSO progression.

Thanks.

And yeah, weak Nino's are preferred here as well...even moreso than warm neutral. "Small sample size", but season snowfall for Chicago and Indy using the CPC 1971-00 ONI, centered on DJF.

Chicago first. Numbers in parenthesis are for ORD, when MDW was the official site. Blue highlighted for both are normal or above seasons.

DJF ONI 0.5 to 0.9

1963-64: 35.2" (36.2")

2006-07: 35.6"

1977-78: 82.3" (52.4")

1987-88: 42.6"

2004-05: 39.4"

1976-77: 54.1" (24.7")

1953-54: 43.2"

1969-70: 77.0" (56.1")

1979-80: 42.4"

DJF ONI 0.0 to 0.4

1958-59: 41.0" (32.4")

1990-91: 36.7"

2003-04: 24.8"

1951-52: 66.4"

1992-93: 46.9"

1952-53: 23.4"

1993-94: 41.8"

1989-90: 33.8"

1981-82: 59.3"

Indianapolis.

DJF ONI 0.5 to 0.9

1963-64: 34.3"

2006-07: 25.8"

1977-78: 57.9"

1987-88: 11.3"

2004-05: 27.6"

1976-77: 30.0"

1953-54: 16.8"

1969-70: 38.2"

1979-80: 24.8"

DJF ONI 0.0 to 0.4

1958-59: 22.3"

1990-91: 17.5"

2003-04: 20.9"

1951-52: 15.7"

1992-93: 28.5"

1952-53: 23.6"

1993-94: 31.5"

1989-90: 26.0"

1981-82: 58.2"

[GaWx]

Correct. There's multiple years like that. Many of the neutrals are slanted in one direction or the other with very few being within a tenth or two of zero anomaly.

This year is going to be close to an El Nino but officially it will go as a neutral. Weak El ninos have historically been very good here...esp if we use the old climo baseline....the new climo baseline introduces some bizarre weak Nino events that I believe are a product of how they tweaked the climo. Events that start basically in winter or extremely late autumn...which is totally against typical ENSO progression.

I still continue to stick to the old ONI chart for 1950+ because I don't see a reason to suddenly change the classifications just because NOAA arbitrarily decided to change the baselines back to 1950 and even make the baseline determinations more complex. I've been analyzing ENSO for a good 10 years or so and have writeups of analyses based on the older table. I plan to stick with these analyses as they have been useful and don't see the point of changing everything.

[ORH_wxman]

I still continue to stick to the old ONI chart for 1950+ because I don't see a reason to suddenly change the classifications just because NOAA arbitrarily decided to change the baselines back to 1950 and even make the baseline determinations more complex. I've been analyzing ENSO for a good 10 years or so and have writeups of analyses based on the older table. I plan to stick with these analyses as they have been useful and don't see the point of changing everything.

One of the issues I think is they use pre-1950 data as baselines for their 1950s ENSO...which for anyone who reads up on ENSO knows how dangerous that is. The data in the tropical pacific is pretty bad prior to 1950. The error bars are large.

At any rate, no matter which data set I use, the numbers for Southern New England don't change much...we swap out a good year or two for other good years and swap out some horrendous seasons for other bad seasons.

[tamarack]

Just curious.. Were a lot of those years southern and central New Eng. winters, where NNE tended to get less compared to avg?

Don't have my Farmington data handy, but I'm guessing those years' snowfall would avg a bit below the long-term mean of 89", despite some very good winters like 1961-62, 92-93, and 08-09. However, 1979-80 and 80-81 were the two least snowy winters in Farmington's 120-yr records. I also think that the table's winters would average out pretty cold, despite clunkers like 2001-02. Winters of 1960-61, 62-63, 67-68, 78-79, 80-81, 81-82, 92-93, 93-94, 03-04, 08-09 all were cold, and maybe some others as well that I don't recall.