Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,509
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

Winter 2014-2015 Pattern Discussion Thread III


BIG FROSTY

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm beginning to put a decent amount of trust into JB's medium and long-range forecasts. It seems like he knows what he's talking about, and if I'm not mistaken he has good credit for being right about general trends.

yeah he is really good with long range patterns. He gets way too weenie with individual storms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is no bueno. Seems like most upgrades are a taking a step back. Sure it struggled this year, but all models did. It is still the king so why mess with it.

The stopping of the insane , overdoing it,clown maps, that get passed around social media, will be well worth an upgrade! All models sucked hard this winter, at some point, but UKMet lead the way, with CMC as well, then the RAP! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mack, that map says that NW SC receives 50 to 70 mm greater rainfall than normal from March through May in an El Nino year, on average. In inches, that's around 2.5-3.25" in excess rainfall over the three month period.

That's an avg of an inch above normal for each month! I'll take that heading into summer!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to say we do badly in second year niños

 

 I don't agree at all. 1987-8, the last 2nd year Nino, gave much of the SE a fantastic winter wintrywise with the great 1/1988 IP/SN storm (ATL 4.2" IP; CLT: 12.1" SN). 1905-6 was really big at ATL (5.2") though a little below avg. at CLT (3.0"). 1900-1 had a major snow in Feb. in ATL (4.4") though not in CLT (1.0"). 1914-5 (7.4") and 1919-20 (4.9") gave Charlotte above avg. SN. 1940-1 gave them near avg. SN of 4.1". 1885-6 gave CLT barely below avg. (3.5").

I don't know if 1953-4 counts as a 2nd year, but it gave Charlotte 3.5" or barely below avg.

For 2nd year Nino's that had a short break in between: 1969-70 (4.5") and 1977-8 (5.5") were very cold and gave Charlotte above avg SN and 1958-9 gave just above avg. SN (4.3") there and at ATL (2.4"). 1896-7 were tremendous wintrywise in both ATL (6.3")  and CLT (12.1").

So, out of these 12, CLT had above avg. SN 7 times and below only 4 times. They had only one that had less than 3"! ATL had above avg. 5 times and below 7 times.

 At CLT: Avg. SN/IP for these 12: 65.9"/12= 5.5" or ~135-40% of normal! Median:  4.45", which has to be well above their median.

 At ATL: Avg SN/IP for these 12: 26.3"/12=2.2" or near normal. Median: 1.04", which is actually right at overall median of ~1.0".

Tempwise ATL: Very cold: 1977-8, 1969-70, 1885-6; Cold 1914-5; Cool: 1941-2, 1919-20, 1905-6, 1900-1, 1896-7 Normal: 1987-8; 1958-9; warm: 1953-4..so ATL and the SE overall easily averaged cooler than normal.

 

 By the way, folks, does this mean the hate from some (like Mack) for analyzing analogs is already over? Analogs are clearly a good tool though not a crystal ball!

 

Edited

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 By the way, folks, does this mean the hate from some (like Mack) for analyzing analogs is already over? Aanlogs are clearly a good tool though not a crystal ball!

 

No hate here.  I just don't put any stock in them as far as snowfall in this area.  Besides the low number of samples problem, our yearly totals are so low that a one degree difference, for 6 hours one night in Jan., can make the difference between a shutout, below normal, or above for the entire winter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...