Third Warmest Autumn At PHL - How Do Torch Autumns End Up Doing For Winter?

[BeerandWXTogether]

PHL autumn 2016 was third warmest on record at 61.3. I've taken a run out on autumn/winter correlation to see how things fare...and it's not surprising that we trend mild the following winter in a torch autumn.

Data shows autumn temp, winter temp, and the winter snowfall for the top 10 plus this winter. Except for 1900-1, any top 10 warmest autumn in Philly was followed by an above average temperature winter. 

As an aside, 2016 knocked 2001 out of the top 10 (another torch winter). This is also the first autumn we've had a back-to-back top ten torch of this magnitude since the early 70's...1970 is "tied" with 2001 at 60.1 with rounding but 2001 is a few hundredths warmer and earned the ranking.  Winter of 70-71 was colder than average but not that snowy. Also, snowfall is not recorded prior to 1884 (that's why there's -- in the first row).

[Rainshadow]

53 minutes ago, phlwx said:

PHL autumn 2016 was third warmest on record at 61.3. I've taken a run out on autumn/winter correlation to see how things fare...and it's not surprising that we trend mild the following winter in a torch autumn.

Data shows autumn temp, winter temp, and the winter snowfall for the top 10 plus this winter. Except for 1900-1, any top 10 warmest autumn in Philly was followed by an above average temperature winter. 

As an aside, 2016 knocked 2001 out of the top 10 (another torch winter). This is also the first autumn we've had a back-to-back top ten torch of this magnitude since the early 70's...1970 is "tied" with 2001 at 60.1 with rounding but 2001 is a few hundredths warmer and earned the ranking.  Winter of 70-71 was colder than average but not that snowy. Also, snowfall is not recorded prior to 1884 (that's why there's -- in the first row).

70-71 made my analog cut (as did 2000-01).  I can't duplicate Mark's regression equation; I know he uses a direct correlation with Oct & Nov temps and his result would be above normal.  More so if the first half of this month doesnt have a cold snap of three or more successive days of 35 degrees or less.  Running with the theme that +1/+2 is the new normal that makes 5 of them "near normal".  

[BeerandWXTogether]

1 hour ago, Rainshadow said:

70-71 made my analog cut (as did 2000-01).  I can't duplicate Mark's regression equation; I know he uses a direct correlation with Oct & Nov temps and his result would be above normal.  More so if the first half of this month doesnt have a cold snap of three or more successive days of 35 degrees or less.  Running with the theme that +1/+2 is the new normal that makes 5 of them "near normal".  

I'm going to assume we skate through the 15th before we go below 35 for three straight at the airport. We might not even get one out of the upcoming "arctic" shot...

(I went +1 to +2 for the winter...I guess "new normal" then?)

[Rainshadow]

59 minutes ago, phlwx said:

I'm going to assume we skate through the 15th before we go below 35 for three straight at the airport. We might not even get one out of the upcoming "arctic" shot...

(I went +1 to +2 for the winter...I guess "new normal" then?)

Better than me, I was below (0 to 1 above).  Mark used an old stat program to come with his temps.  I cant even think of the name.  Unfortunately they changed the links for research projects at PHI & I cant access his info any longer. I suspect his info is gone.

[chescowx]

Here in NW Chesco today will mark the 35th straight December day with above normal temps....last below was 12/31/14. If December finishes above normal that will be 9 of the 12 months in 2016 finished above the 34 year norm for NW Chesco. Only months with below normal temps were April, May and June.

[Rainshadow]

1 hour ago, chescopawxman said:

Here in NW Chesco today will mark the 35th straight December day with above normal temps....last below was 12/31/14. If December finishes above normal that will be 9 of the 12 months in 2016 finished above the 34 year norm for NW Chesco. Only months with below normal temps were April, May and June.

Dating back to January 2012, Philadelphia has had 42 above the current normal months and 17 below the current normal months.

[Parsley]

Some ugly numbers on that list. Take out last year's blizzard (which we obviously can't) and it's even uglier. 

Fun times ahead.  

[chescowx]

3 hours ago, Rainshadow said:

Dating back to January 2012, Philadelphia has had 42 above the current normal months and 17 below the current normal months.

Tony - What a difference location makes...I think we need an official recording station here in NW Chester County (although my readings are always mighty close to KMQS - is that considered an official site?)

During that same 59 month stretch I have recorded 31 months BELOW normal and 28 months ABOVE....nothing unusual at all. I am basing climate normal to KMQS from 1983-2007 and my observations from 2008 to Present (34 years)

Paul

 

 

[Rainshadow]

12 minutes ago, chescopawxman said:

Tony - What a difference location makes...I think we need an official recording station here in NW Chester County (although my readings are always mighty close to KMQS - is that considered an official site?)

During that same 59 month stretch I have recorded 31 months BELOW normal and 28 months ABOVE....nothing unusual at all. I am basing climate normal to KMQS from 1983-2007 and my observations from 2008 to Present (34 years)

Paul

 

 

Paul,  I am not sure of the status (length of record) of official co-op sites in the county. I suspect West Chester may be one. MQS is too automated I believe.  Jim Bunker would be the point of contact if you'd like to request your site to become a co-op site. I am not sure how the present (forever really) budget status would play into it.

[chescowx]

Thanks Tony! How can I reach Jim?

Paul 

[Rainshadow]

48 minutes ago, chescopawxman said:

Thanks Tony! How can I reach Jim?

Paul 

Paul, let me double check this: James.Bunker@noaa.gov.   

Edit: The e-mail address is correct. 

[Chubbs]

Here is the data for SE PA piedmont from NOAA since 2010 with normal being 1980-2010.  Going back to Jan 2010 - 25 below normal/57 above normal months (if I counted accurately). So above normal has been much more common recently. Phl is inline with the rest of SE Pa.

2010    0.863   -2.657    5.707    4.123    3.030    3.907    3.130    1.620    3.333    1.153   -0.167   -3.697
2011   -3.537    0.743    0.107    2.723    3.430    1.907    4.230    0.020    2.633    0.553    3.433    5.303
2012    4.663    5.143    9.207    0.423    5.130   -0.193    3.530    1.320    0.733    1.653   -3.767    5.203
2013    3.163   -0.757   -2.193    0.423    0.430    1.307    2.730   -1.980   -0.867    2.653   -2.467    0.103
2014   -5.737   -5.057   -5.793   -0.877    1.030    0.707   -0.670   -2.380    1.233    2.553   -3.567    3.503
2015   -2.937  -11.057   -5.193    0.523    5.930    0.907    0.330    0.620    4.433   -0.047    4.433   12.503
2016   -0.037    1.743    6.207   -0.677   -0.770    1.107    2.830    3.920    4.333    2.653  -99.900  -99.900

[chescowx]

16 hours ago, Chubbs said:

Here is the data for SE PA piedmont from NOAA since 2010 with normal being 1980-2010.  Going back to Jan 2010 - 25 below normal/57 above normal months (if I counted accurately). So above normal has been much more common recently. Phl is inline with the rest of SE Pa.

2010    0.863   -2.657    5.707    4.123    3.030    3.907    3.130    1.620    3.333    1.153   -0.167   -3.697
2011   -3.537    0.743    0.107    2.723    3.430    1.907    4.230    0.020    2.633    0.553    3.433    5.303
2012    4.663    5.143    9.207    0.423    5.130   -0.193    3.530    1.320    0.733    1.653   -3.767    5.203
2013    3.163   -0.757   -2.193    0.423    0.430    1.307    2.730   -1.980   -0.867    2.653   -2.467    0.103
2014   -5.737   -5.057   -5.793   -0.877    1.030    0.707   -0.670   -2.380    1.233    2.553   -3.567    3.503
2015   -2.937  -11.057   -5.193    0.523    5.930    0.907    0.330    0.620    4.433   -0.047    4.433   12.503
2016   -0.037    1.743    6.207   -0.677   -0.770    1.107    2.830    3.920    4.333    2.653  -99.900  -99.900

Hi Chubbs - what is the source data for the above? Official stations + Coop? is a conglomerate of stations? How is it weighted? thanks!

Paul

[Chubbs]

1 hour ago, chescopawxman said:

Hi Chubbs - what is the source data for the above? Official stations + Coop? is a conglomerate of stations? How is it weighted? thanks!

Paul

Paul

Here is a presentation that has some info. Looks like all coops are included. Map shows quite a few sites in this area. Presentations says a 5 x 5 km grid is used. So I assume that stations are weighted based on proximity to other stations. In other words a cluster of stations near an edge is not allowed to dominate a climate-division.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjaudSq7N_QAhXGv1QKHclBDg0QFggiMAE&url=ftp%3A%2F%2Fftp.ncdc.noaa.gov%2Fpub%2Fdata%2Fcirs%2Fclimdiv%2FnCLIMDIV-briefing-cirs.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHjI8oFJojHjqgAghcaDLQjU0BQrA&cad=rja

[chescowx]

Thanks! good stuff!!