Remarkable Run of Arctic Outbreaks along the Front Range

[BLI snowman]

I agree with you on all of those. Nov 2014 was probably more anomalous than any other single event, but Feb 1962 was close.

 

But I also just realized I overlooked one more remarkable event for 2008-14: the very beginning of May 2013.

 

Cheyenne: low of 9 on 5/2 is the coldest temp on record this late in the spring

 

Denver: low of 19, also by far the latest for a temp in the teens

 

Sure, that was a remarkable event, but then January 1962 and January 1963 both had multiple top tier airmasses so it's still about even.

[Front Ranger]

Sure, that was a remarkable event, but then January 1962 and January 1963 both had multiple top tier airmasses so it's still about even.

 

Eh, I'd say no on the second Jan 1963 event. Maybe on the second Jan 1962 event, but then you have to consider the fact that events like Feb 2011, Feb 2014 and Dec 2008 were more anomalous than that. Like I mentioned before, there was also a second Feb 2011 air mass that I could throw in there.

 

Overall, might just be best to call it a draw. 1959-65 and 2008-14 were comparable for top-tier Arctic events. Both are definitely more impressive than any other 6 year period for the region, in my opinion.

[wx_statman]

I already agreed with you that there was arguably one other comparable period on record. Using "unprecedented" might have been overstating. However, I would still give the nod to 2008-14 based on the number of top 5 events for when they occurred: Nov 2014, Oct 2009, Dec 2014, Feb 2011, Feb 2014, and April 2013. I don't believe any other comparable period had that many top 5 events.

 

For someone who calls himself "statman", you sure are spending a lot of time analyzing my superlatives! 

 

As far as the rest, I'm not going to argue with you about who is more familiar with this climate or how much time I've spent looking at local data. I'll just say that your assumptions that I have recency bias because it's "easier" are just plain wrong. And I had to point out to you how unlikely that Longmont number you quoted was. Because of my knowledge of local climate, I know Longmont seeing -6 when DEN only sees 7 is highly suspect. I stuck to certain stations when doing my analysis because I know which ones tend to be the most reliable. I didn't just throw random ones in there that would support a certain conclusion.

 

Again, let's focus on the stats.

 

Thank you.

[BLI snowman]

Eh, I'd say no on the second Jan 1963 event. Maybe on the second Jan 1962 event, but then you have to consider the fact that events like Feb 2011, Feb 2014 and Dec 2008 were more anomalous than that.

 

Overall, might just be best to call it a draw. 1959-65 and 2008-14 were comparable for top-tier Arctic events. Both are definitely more impressive than any other 6 year period for the region, in my opinion.

 

That is only true back to about 1940. Prior to that it's a whole new ballgame. Like the rest of the country, the Front Range in the early 20th century has some stuff that just isn't comparable to anything we've seen recently.

[Front Ranger]

Thank you.

 

You'll note that several times in this thread I already made concessions to valid points.

 

It's nice when that works both ways.

[Front Ranger]

That is only true back to about 1940. Prior to that it's a whole new ballgame. Like the rest of the country, the Front Range in the early 20th century has some stuff that just isn't comparable to anything we've seen recently.

 

Yeah, I specified in the first post I was looking primarily at the airport era for comparisons.

[wx_statman]

You'll note that several times in this thread I already made concessions to valid points.

 

It's nice when that works both ways.

 

Need a hug?

[Front Ranger]

The interesting thing is that wxstatman or BLIsnowman both failed to point out the couple of top-tier spring events I initially missed in 2008-14. Strange, since they are such thorough researchers and knowledgeable about this climate, not to mention completely unbiased.

[wx_statman]

The interesting thing is that wxstatman or BLIsnowman both failed to point out the couple of top-tier spring events I initially missed in 2008-14. Strange, since they are such thorough researchers and knowledgeable about this climate, not to mention completely unbiased.

 

Now you're just moping. No need for that.

[Front Ranger]

Need a hug?

 

It's more fun to have a discussion on here that focuses on the facts/stats, and has reasonable give/take between the participants.

 

Sure, a big ol' bear hug would be nice. I need something to warm me up, it's still COLD here!

[Front Ranger]

Now you're just moping. No need for that.

 

And you're avoiding valid points left and right. 

 

Stick to the stats, my man.

[wx_statman]

And you're avoiding valid points left and right. 

 

Stick to the stats, my man.

 

No offense, but I don't want to spend Sunday afternoon debating "points" which aren't that relevant to anything.

 

You have already addressed my primary beef with you in this thread, and I thanked you for it. I'm good to go!

[snow_wizard]

Amazing how January is glaringly missing from that list of outbreaks.

[Front Ranger]

No offense, but I don't want to spend Sunday afternoon debating "points" which aren't that relevant to anything.

 

You have already addressed my primary beef with you in this thread, and I thanked you for it. I'm good to go!

 

In other words, you only want to discuss the points you want to make. Nothing new, and you're apparently not going to change. A shame, because to a certain point you're fun to discuss stats with. But it always becomes a one-way street.

 

Kudos to BLIsnowman, though. Overall, he's much easier to have a reasonable discussion with than he used to be.

[Front Ranger]

Amazing how January is glaringly missing from that list of outbreaks.

 

Yeah, same old story here as there.

 

The big difference is that a lot of the events that have been just east for you guys have been ideal for cold here. Some small differences in the pattern, and the PNW would have been looking at a lot more impressive events recently.

[BLI snowman]

The interesting thing is that wxstatman or BLIsnowman both failed to point out the couple of top-tier spring events I initially missed in 2008-14. Strange, since they are such thorough researchers and knowledgeable about this climate, not to mention completely unbiased.

 

Someone's testy.

 

I also failed to mention the September 1961 or September 1989 events. Oh well.

[Front Ranger]

I also failed to mention the September 1961 or September 1989 events. Oh well.

 

Those events were definitely not Arctic, or as anomalous as the April/May 2013 events.

 

Lows in the low 30s for this area? C'mon. May 2013 hit 19 at DEN.

[Front Ranger]

Someone's testy.

 

Nah, just making a legit point. If you really are aiming for a fair comparison, you'd look thoroughly at both periods, not just look for big events in older periods.

 

Otherwise, it just comes across that you're just trying to prove me wrong, not actually do a fair comparison. You know...biased.

[BLI snowman]

Those events were definitely not Arctic, or as anomalous as the April/May 2013 events. Highs in the low 40s for this area?

 

Yes, in late summer. They were anomalous troughs that were historic for when they occurred. Similar to September 2014, but I did notice that 1989 was a bit more impressive. You also have September 1965 (earliest subfreezing high at Cheyenne), which was definitely a historic large scale arctic airmass that I failed to mention from the period.

 

Point being, there were oddball events in many other years that are impressive and you seem to overlook. 

 

I'm with statman on this aspect of your research. You're capable of thoroughly analyzing the aspects of your local climatology that really suit your conclusion (that 2008-14 is a historic standout), but you do seem to look past many other events from older time periods, be it purposely or not. I'm not sure if it's bias or if it's just that you're not challenging your own conclusions enough.

 

I think if you're going to be making sweeping statements about the last six years, you have to really objectively scrutinize what's come before it and try to come up with a system that can legitimately differentiate one year from another.

 

The standard deviation angle is a good one for that. Trying to somehow objectively analyze how many truly standout, "rare" events have taken place in each year. Otherwise this is a lot of subjective hand-wringing, and we could endlessly go in circles with it. 

[wx_statman]

In other words, you only want to discuss the points you want to make. Nothing new, and you're apparently not going to change. A shame, because to a certain point you're fun to discuss stats with. But it always becomes a one-way street.

 

Kudos to BLIsnowman, though. Overall, he's much easier to have a reasonable discussion with than he used to be.

 

You can get off your high horse any time you like!

[Front Ranger]

Yes, in late summer. They were anomalous troughs that were historic for when they occurred. Similar to September 2014, but I did notice that 1989 was a bit more impressive. You also have September 1965 (earliest subfreezing high at Cheyenne), which was definitely a historic large scale arctic airmass that I failed to mention from the period.

 

Point being, there were oddball events in many other years that are impressive and you seem to overlook. 

 

I'm with statman on this aspect of your research. You're capable of thoroughly analyzing the aspects of your local climatology that really suit your conclusion (that 2008-14 is a historic standout), but you do seem to look past many other events from older time periods, be it purposely or not. I'm not sure if it's bias or if it's just that you're not challenging your own conclusions enough.

 

I think if you're going to be making sweeping statements about the last six years, you have to really objectively scrutinize what's come before it and try to come up with a system that can legitimately differentiate one year from another.

 

The standard deviation angle is a good one for that. Trying to somehow objectively analyze how many truly standout, "rare" events have taken place in each year. Otherwise this is a lot of subjective hand-wringing, and we could endlessly go in circles with it. 

 

I was originally looking at Oct-Mar. I only expanded that to April/May when you guys decided to include events that late for older years. But September is more of a stretch...like you said, it's still late summer and you're not going to get what could be considered true Arctic air masses. As in, temps well below freezing, cold season stuff.

 

I have more basis for saying you overlooked recent events than you have for saying I overlooked older ones. Because you both did, either purposefully or not. Look, I agreed that 1959-65 was comparable, though historic for different reasons than 2008-14.

 

I gave the main reasons that each air mass was top-tier in my original post. It relates directly to standard deviations - how often had similar events happened close to that one in the past.

[Front Ranger]

You can get off your high horse any time you like!

 

If you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute to the conversation, you know, about the stats and stuff, why keep posting here? All you've done today is make petty comments. 

[wx_statman]

If you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute to the conversation, you know, about the stats and stuff, why keep posting here? All you've done today is make petty comments. 

 

That's all you've inspired me to do, my man.

[Front Ranger]

That's all you've inspired me to do, my man.

 

Because you've ignored a lot of what I've wrote.

[wx_statman]

Because you've ignored a lot of what I've wrote.

 

Because I'm not interested in dissecting details that take away from the main point.

 

Would you like to keep this conversation going? We can both stop, you know.

[wx_statman]

Speaking of petty, you've mentioned that I should stick to stats more than once in this thread. I'm the statman so I should stick to stats. Don't you think that's kind of petty?

 

So like I said, you can get off your high horse any time you like.

[Front Ranger]

Because I'm not interested in dissecting details that take away from the main point.

 

As the person who started this thread, I can tell you the main point of it was not me using one superlative you didn't like. You derailing things because you only want to talk about that is pretty lame.

[Front Ranger]

Speaking of petty, you've mentioned that I should stick to stats more than once in this thread. I'm the statman so I should stick to stats. Don't you think that's kind of petty?

 

No. Stats are what this thread was supposed to be about.

[wx_statman]

No. Stats are what this thread was supposed to be about.

 

"For someone who calls himself "statman", you sure are spending a lot of time analyzing my superlatives!"

 

"Strange, since they are such thorough researchers and knowledgeable about this climate, not to mention completely unbiased."

 

"Nothing new, and you're apparently not going to change. A shame, because to a certain point you're fun to discuss stats with."

 

"Kudos to BLIsnowman, though. Overall, he's much easier to have a reasonable discussion with than he used to be."

 

-Front Ranger, who only sticks to stats and is never petty

[BLI snowman]

I was originally looking at Oct-Mar. I only expanded that to April/May when you guys decided to include events that late for older years. But September is more of a stretch...like you said, it's still late summer and you're not going to get what could be considered true Arctic air masses. As in, temps well below freezing, cold season stuff.

 

I have more basis for saying you overlooked recent events than you have for saying I overlooked older ones. Because you both did, either purposefully or not. Look, I agreed that 1959-65 was comparable, though historic for different reasons than 2008-14.

 

I gave the main reasons that each air mass was top-tier in my original post. It relates directly to standard deviations - how often had similar events happened close to that one in the past.

 

That's all well and good, but can you see why people would think your research had more value if you contextualized it a bit more? The whole system of cherry-picking and choosing a handful of events from a handful of different years at a handful of different locations is pretty rudimentary, broad, and subjective. 

 

I'm not sure how seriously this type of research would be taken in the scientific community, when you don't preface your initial conclusions with any hard data or context. Too much anecdotal stuff and not a thorough system of grading. It would have have more credence if you had looked at specific locales and done a year-by-year run through to present the conclusion that the last few years were truly anomalous. 

 

I can appreciate the fact that your original post was mostly just about the highlights of the last few winters, but the problem with these debates is that you rarely leave it at that and it's when you start trying to tackle bigger conclusions that you run into trouble.

[Deweydog]

As the person who started this thread, I can tell you the main point of it was not me using one superlative you didn't like. You derailing things because you only want to talk about that is pretty lame.

Lighten up, big guy.

[Front Ranger]

That's all well and good, but can you see why people would think your research had more value if you contextualized it a bit more? The whole system of cherry-picking and choosing a handful of events from a handful of different years at a handful of different locations is pretty rudimentary, broad, and subjective. 

 

I'm not sure how seriously this type of research would be taken in the scientific community, when you don't preface your initial conclusions with any hard data or context. Too much anecdotal stuff and not a thorough system of grading. It would have have more credence if you had looked at specific locales and done a year-by-year run through to present the conclusion that the last few years were truly anomalous. 

 

I can appreciate the fact that your original post was mostly just about the highlights of the last few winters, but the problem with these debates is that you rarely leave it at that and it's when you start trying to tackle bigger conclusions that you run into trouble.

 

 

Have you read other posts on here about events? I'm not going to write a scientific paper here, and neither are you. 

 

That being said, my analysis was more scientific than your and wxstatman's rebuttals (let's face it, that's what you were doing, nothing objective about it), as I actually had a set of specific locations I looked at and chose to look at ahead of time. I wasn't cherry-picking locations to fit conclusions.

[BLI snowman]

 

Have you read other posts on here about events? I'm not going to write a scientific paper here, and neither are you. 

 

That being said, my analysis was more scientific than your and wxstatman's rebuttals (let's face it, that's what you were doing, nothing objective about it), as I actually had a set of specific locations I looked at and chose to look at ahead of time. I wasn't cherry-picking locations to fit conclusions.

 

You're the one who was presenting the conclusion here so it's not really anyone else's job to do the research. I'm not trying to get into a pissing match over it, simply pointing out that you can't present something as fact while failing to give a complete picture. My "rebuttal"  was simply rapid fire, off-the-cuff stuff that hopefully forced you to dig a little deeper on these lofty judgments that you're always making.

 

If I were the one presenting an actual argument (i.e. 2008-14 was an historically unprecedented period for Front Range cold spells), I would try to objectively prove it and would of course try to contextualize it as much as possible.  

[Front Ranger]

You're the one who was presenting the conclusion here so it's not really anyone else's job to do the research. I'm not trying to get into a pissing match over it, simply pointing out that you can't present something as fact while failing to give a complete picture. My "rebuttal"  was simply rapid fire, off-the-cuff stuff that hopefully forced you to dig a little deeper on these lofty judgments that you're always making.

 

If I were the one presenting an actual argument (i.e. 2008-14 was an historically unprecedented period for Front Range cold spells), I would try to objectively prove it and would of course try to contextualize it as much as possible.  

 

You're taking this way too seriously.

 

Whether it was unprecedented in the modern era or not is debatable, but it's been a remarkable stretch for Arctic outbreaks around here. That was the point, and a conclusion I reached after scientific research. I don't need to offer a thesis.

 

No need to go into histrionics about my "lofty judgements". It's just not that big of a deal.

[BLI snowman]

You're taking this way too seriously.

 

Whether it was unprecedented in the modern era or not is debatable, but it's been a remarkable stretch for Arctic outbreaks around here. That was the point, and a conclusion I reached after scientific research. I don't need to offer a thesis.

 

No need to go into histrionics about my "lofty judgements". It's just not that big of a deal.

 

No histrionics, just trying to articulate my opinion to you so as to placate you away from the martyr complex tendencies you occasionally display with posts such as these:

 

The interesting thing is that wxstatman or BLIsnowman both failed to point out the couple of top-tier spring events I initially missed in 2008-14. Strange, since they are such thorough researchers and knowledgeable about this climate, not to mention completely unbiased.

 

[Front Ranger]

No histrionics, just trying to articulate my opinion to you so as to placate you away from the martyr complex tendencies you occasionally display with posts such as these:

 

 

 

It was a valid point. You both came to this thread with rather obvious intentions. I was accused of bias and not being scientific and thorough enough, so I pointed out that was rather odd that both of you grabbed random locations to support your points (not scientific), and you failed to note other recent events I had missed (not a thorough comparison, as you were only looking for older events).

 

Smells like bias.

 

Regardless, I agreed that the 1959-65 period certainly rivaled 2008-14, and it's debatable about which one is more impressive. Would have been nice to see a little more discussion on the recent events I went into detail about, but hey, some men just like to watch the thread burn

[BLI snowman]

It was a valid point. You both came to this thread with rather obvious intentions. I was accused of bias and not being scientific and thorough enough, so I pointed out that was rather odd that both of you grabbed random locations to support your points (not scientific), and you failed to note other recent events I had missed (not a thorough comparison, as you were only looking for older events).

 

Smells like bias.

 

Regardless, I agreed that the 1959-65 period certainly rivaled 2008-14, and it's debatable about which one is more impressive. Would have been nice to see a little more discussion on the recent events I went into detail about, but hey, some men just like to watch the thread burn

 

Like I said, it isn't my thread and I'm not the one proposing the hypothesis. The extent of my responses were quick and based around my armchair climo knowledge. I'm not taking the time to do a thorough analysis since I'm not the one with the argument to support. If you're going to initially claim something, then back it up. Science 101. 

[Front Ranger]

Like I said, it isn't my thread and I'm not the one proposing the hypothesis. The extent of my responses were quick and based around my armchair climo knowledge. I'm not taking the time to do a thorough analysis since I'm not the one with the argument to support. If you're going to initially claim something, then back it up. Science 101. 

 

My primary claim was that it's been a remarkable stretch for Arctic outbreaks around here. That was backed up by the lengthy post with details of the events, all stats taken from reliable stations I chose before embarking on the research.

 

In other threads like this, you and wxstatman have contributed with additional stats about the period/events being discussed. Not a bit of that in this one...all of your focus was on other periods. Odd, and disappointing given your collective knowledge and love of climate research.

[Front Ranger]

Also, it appears the context of how I used "unprecedented" was lost on both wxstatman and BLIsnowman. I said the number of top-tier Arctic outbreaks in 2014 was "pretty much unprecedented". Referring to last year, and the Feb, Nov, and Dec outbreaks.

 

I didn't say it was definitely unprecedented, and I wasn't referring to the whole 2008-14 period, anyway. That's pretty clear if you re-read the opening paragraph. I should of double checked when wxstatman said that, but I naively assumed he was quoting me accurately.

[Deweydog]

Also, it appears the context of how I used "unprecedented" was lost on both wxstatman and BLIsnowman. I said the number of top-tier Arctic outbreaks in 2014 was "pretty much unprecedented". Referring to last year, and the Feb, Nov, and Dec outbreaks.

 

I didn't say it was definitely unprecedented, and I wasn't referring to the whole 2008-14 period, anyway. That's pretty clear if you re-read the opening paragraph. I should of double checked when wxstatman said that, but I naively assumed he was quoting me accurately.

 

"Pretty much" unprecedented is like saying "kind of" Olympic champion.

 

Do you ever consider past performance and reread some of these posts before you post them and think "am I going to sound like myself here?"  I knew after the first paragraph that you had oversold things by at least a measurable amount.