Fall/Winter 2025-2026 Discussion

[OttumwaSnomow]

18 hours ago, Grizzcoat said:

again- not denying CO2 (human caused) climate change. But is that ALL that is causing it?  That's all I'am trying to show. 

It's not politics coming from me. 30 years professionally in the weather field. Forecaster/ CWO / climate guy at KDSM for the NWS. 

I can show you volumes of data (as seems another member on this forum can) that have been altered to show warming- (or at least make the 1930's not as warm)  Data I measured myself has been changed. 

I will give you an example. Dec 2000 - two official data sources. One shows 26.9" (which I measured).  The other shows 30.3" which is -- for lack of better words "falsified". 

It was always 26.9" for the record snowfall for DEC for KDSM until--- wait for it-- 2010- when they altered the data and made 2000 DEC into 30.3" (of which I and my co-workers measured  26.9")  So - 2009 should be the all time record if the records were not altered in 2010. 

Why was it altered? And why was it altered when it was? I have no clue. But I - and my co-workers  measured BOTH DEC's!!! 2000 and 2009!!!!

I brought this up to  DMX in 2011.

They brushed me off like changing of climate sites (with no measurements of the what old one was, of course)---

Never again have they (DMX) changed snow measurements from us at KDSM. Cuz they know someone is watching. 

How much other stuff  has been going on (is going) that people don't notice?  It's my job to do this-- so I notice-- others , wool over the eyes .

If you want more examples-- fire away.  

 

 

@Grizzcoat

Good info.

I like you have lost confidence.  As you know the OTM rain gage was grossly off for several yrs!!! Maybe as bad as 40%. I beat the doors down. And eventually it was quiety  replaced. But the data?  

Here in impoverished SE Iowa, I feel like I live in the 3rd world of weather/climate data.  

Im am not political whatsover! In fact  Im religously (bible based) politically neutral. I have not once in my 62 yrs voted in usa! 

But appears to me some things are agenda driven. Like the Illinois new record all time low that was thrown out around 2021.

To me temps are highly likely incorrect.  Urban heat island is most likely grossly under estimated!  Think of all the gages around the planet that were once rural settings that are now concrete jungles. The climate data does NOT COME FROM SMALL TOWN RURAL COOP OBSERVERS!

The des nws was to put my location as a key coop observer location with both  temps and precip. Upon visiting me they mysteriously decided not to put a thermometer here? Why?  The OTM site is 6 or 7 miles from where the old data site was along the des river in downtown Ottumwa. Im 2 miles from the river but just off edge of city. A theremometer would be extremely accurate reflection of Ottumwa City better than OTM.

Another huge complaint I have in SE Iowa is the gross inaccuracy of the Drought monitor! My company farms on 5000 acres! We mow 200 acre from lake rathbun to Ottumwa. We own 3 farms and 4 ponds. We have accurate coop and cocorahs obs. They seemingly blow off my reports!!! In Iowa if farmers dont make many reports (few reports are made) THEN THERE IS NO DROUGHT? LOOK AT THE STUPID REPORTS AND RAW DATA!!!!  EXTREME DROUGHT HERE OFTEN! 

In 2017 local farmers and my landscaping division could not get federal aid!!! Why? Because powers to be in Desmiones blew us off!  They barely look at our data down here. Pathetic!!! 

[chescowxman]

Over 0.50" of rain has already fallen here in East Nantmeal with as much as another 0.50" possible for some areas. We have already reached out high for the day of 56.6 just before 6am. Temperatures have fallen over 6 degrees since then and will continue to fall into the 30's by 4pm and freezing by 6pm. Lows tonight will fall to near 20 degrees and highs tomorrow only in the mid-30's. Temperatures will be near normal in the low 40's pm Sunday before falling back to below normal levels through Christmas Eve day. There is a chance of some snow by Tuesday morning that could be mixed with rain further south across the area.

[Black Hole]

On 11/18/2025 at 3:01 AM, Black Hole said:

By the way EPS weeklies are very cold the back half of December into early January. I think this is when sustained winter will develop with the best snow chances. 

This forecast was total garbage! Current forecasts mostly do not look good through January, but how will they look when we actually arrive? I guess we will see.

The main thing that worries me is that at no point this winter have we had favorable patterns that just haven't worked out. We've been about as far as you can get from a pattern that might produce snow. Will that start to happen in January? It could, but it would mean that the forcing would have to look pretty different in the observed outcome. That doesn't always happen. 

[cmillz]

5 hours ago, Black Hole said:

This forecast was total garbage! Current forecasts mostly do not look good through January, but how will they look when we actually arrive? I guess we will see.

The main thing that worries me is that at no point this winter have we had favorable patterns that just haven't worked out. We've been about as far as you can get from a pattern that might produce snow. Will that start to happen in January? It could, but it would mean that the forcing would have to look pretty different in the observed outcome. That doesn't always happen. 

Yeah, 9 times out of 10 they’re severely cold biased.

[Stacsh]

On 12/18/2025 at 2:06 PM, Grizzcoat said:

again- not denying CO2 (human caused) climate change. But is that ALL that is causing it?  That's all I'am trying to show. 

It's not politics coming from me. 30 years professionally in the weather field. Forecaster/ CWO / climate guy at KDSM for the NWS. 

I can show you volumes of data (as seems another member on this forum can) that have been altered to show warming- (or at least make the 1930's not as warm)  Data I measured myself has been changed. 

I will give you an example. Dec 2000 - two official data sources. One shows 26.9" (which I measured).  The other shows 30.3" which is -- for lack of better words "falsified". 

It was always 26.9" for the record snowfall for DEC for KDSM until--- wait for it-- 2010- when they altered the data and made 2000 DEC into 30.3" (of which I and my co-workers measured  26.9")  So - 2009 should be the all time record if the records were not altered in 2010. 

Why was it altered? And why was it altered when it was? I have no clue. But I - and my co-workers  measured BOTH DEC's!!! 2000 and 2009!!!!

I brought this up to  DMX in 2011.

They brushed me off like changing of climate sites (with no measurements of the what old one was, of course)---

Never again have they (DMX) changed snow measurements from us at KDSM. Cuz they know someone is watching. 

How much other stuff  has been going on (is going) that people don't notice?  It's my job to do this-- so I notice-- others , wool over the eyes .

If you want more examples-- fire away.  

 

 

Again I’m not going to debate.   You have an agenda and it’s blinding you.   Do with it what you wish.    There is no agenda.   Plenty of cold records in the 30’s that still hold today.  The 30’s was weather not climate. Big difference and you know that.    As someone who claims to know weather and climate you would realize that dry air heats up quicker than humid air.   We are in a more humid climate.   This ain’t the dust bowl.   1 degree of ocean temp rise exponentially increase moisture in the air.   Humidity matters.   Probably won’t see actual temps that high again.   It’s too D**n humid.   Our warmth comes from the trapping of heat.   Whether it be from planting crops humidity or cloud cover or loss of ice in the poles.     The #1 factor by a mile is human emissions.   I know it.   You know it.  The rest can factor in but it doesn’t really matter.   
 

the conspiracies need to stop.    It’s happening.   Let’s solve it and stop pretending it doesn’t exist.   
Or keep pretending a few adjustments from bad weather keeping in the 30’s is some huge conspiracy

[Hoosier]

I think it's possible we could approach the Dust Bowl temps again one day, but the way I envision it would be if we get a big drought early on in the season that just rolls through summer and wipes out a lot of the crops before they have a chance to grow/mature.  I think the key would be to lose that source of evapotranspiration.  

In the meantime, we've exchanged lower max temps in summer for higher humidity.  If you look at dewpoint trends in the Midwest, there is a clear upward trend in recent decades.  

[OttumwaSnomow]

1 hour ago, Stacsh said:

Again I’m not going to debate.   You have an agenda and it’s blinding you.   Do with it what you wish.    There is no agenda.   Plenty of cold records in the 30’s that still hold today.  The 30’s was weather not climate. Big difference and you know that.    As someone who claims to know weather and climate you would realize that dry air heats up quicker than humid air.   We are in a more humid climate.   This ain’t the dust bowl.   1 degree of ocean temp rise exponentially increase moisture in the air.   Humidity matters.   Probably won’t see actual temps that high again.   It’s too D**n humid.   Our warmth comes from the trapping of heat.   Whether it be from planting crops humidity or cloud cover or loss of ice in the poles.     The #1 factor by a mile is human emissions.   I know it.   You know it.  The rest can factor in but it doesn’t really matter.   
 

the conspiracies need to stop.    It’s happening.   Let’s solve it and stop pretending it doesn’t exist.   
Or keep pretending a few adjustments from bad weather keeping in the 30’s is some huge conspiracy

I keep hearing this over and over:

A warmer earth is more humid, leading to more and more extreme flash flood events. Indeed it has been very humid!!  80 to 85 dewpoints are getting common in SE Iowa!!!

But why and the crap isnt it wetter!!!!  Our yearly precip is plummeting here!!! The next 60 yr period will prove it.  My county has a 6 to 12 inch precip yearly deficit starting in 2012!!!! 

If warmer leads to wetter IT SURE ISNT HERE!!!! NO DARN LIFT HERE. I HAVENT HAD A .50" RAIN SINCE JULY!!!

2017 TO 2018 I HAD A 18 MONTH PERIOD WITH JUST ONE 1" EVENT!!!!

NO LIFT!!!!

[gosaints]

On 12/19/2025 at 9:40 PM, OttumwaSnomow said:

I keep hearing this over and over:

A warmer earth is more humid, leading to more and more extreme flash flood events. Indeed it has been very humid!!  80 to 85 dewpoints are getting common in SE Iowa!!!

But why and the crap isnt it wetter!!!!  Our yearly precip is plummeting here!!! The next 60 yr period will prove it.  My county has a 6 to 12 inch precip yearly deficit starting in 2012!!!! 

If warmer leads to wetter IT SURE ISNT HERE!!!! NO DARN LIFT HERE. I HAVENT HAD A .50" RAIN SINCE JULY!!!

2017 TO 2018 I HAD A 18 MONTH PERIOD WITH JUST ONE 1" EVENT!!!!

NO LIFT!!!!

Catch a flight to the southern Sierra's this afternoon.  You should experience some humidity combined with some lift.

[ChiTownSnow]

Interesting comparison of 67 ,78, 2011 chicago blizzard 

 

Comparing the 1967, 1978, and 2011 storms is a masterclass in how different "ingredients" can create legendary Chicago winters. While they all brought the city to a standstill, their atmospheric "personalities" were quite different.

 

| Total Snow | 23.0 inches (Rank: #1) | 12.4 inches (at O'Hare) | 21.2 inches (Rank: #3) |

| Atmospheric Hook | Severe Temperature Shock | Explosive Pressure Drop | Thundersnow & Wind |

| Wind Gusts | ~53 mph | ~54 mph | 70 mph (Lakefront) |

| The "Vibe" | Total Surprise / Sudden | Brutal Arctic Cold | Modern Tech / High Drama |

1. The 1967 Blizzard: "The Sudden Shock"

The 1967 storm is famous for how it "blinded" the city. Just 48 hours before the snow, Chicago was basking in record 65°F weather.

 * Atmospheric Setup: A deep trough pulled moisture from the Gulf into a rapidly cooling atmosphere. Because the ground was so warm, the initial snow was heavy and wet.

 * The Surprise: Forecasting in 1967 lacked satellite imagery. People went to work and school as usual, only to have 23 inches fall in 29 hours. This led to the iconic image of 20,000+ cars and 800 buses abandoned on city streets.

2. The 1978 Storm: "The Pressure Bomb"

As we discussed, this wasn't just about snow; it was about the intensity of the low-pressure system.

 * Atmospheric Setup: This storm achieved bombogenesis (40\text{ mb} drop in 24 hours). While the center of the "Superbomb" was over Ohio, it created a massive "vacuum" that pulled Arctic air into Chicago.

 * The Impact: The snow was lighter and drier than in 1967, but because of the extreme pressure gradient, the wind didn't just move the snow—it carved it. Drifts reached the tops of ranch-style houses. It was the "coldest" of the three big events.

3. The 2011 Blizzard: "The Modern Powerhouse"

This storm is often remembered for the Lake Shore Drive disaster, where hundreds of motorists were stranded in near-hurricane-force winds.

 * Atmospheric Setup: Similar to 1978, it involved a "phasing" of the polar and subtropical jet streams. It was uniquely powerful due to Thundersnow—vigorous updrafts that caused lightning and snowfall rates of 2–3 inches per hour.

 * The Wind: This storm had the most violent winds of the three. A strong high-pressure system over Canada acted as a "brick wall" against the moving low, squeezing the air between them and creating 70 mph gusts along the lakefront.

Summary: Which was "Worst"?

 * 1967 remains the "King" for pure snowfall volume and the chaos of being caught off guard.

 * 1978 was the most meteorologically violent in terms of the "Superbomb" pressure drop.

 * 2011 was the most intense for wind and visibility, aided by modern media that captured the "Snowmageddon" in real-time.

[Niko]

[SE Nebraska wx]

11 minutes ago, Niko said:

Whats that 

[Niko]

14 minutes ago, SE Nebraska wx said:

Whats that 

Map of the United States w beautiful colors.

[jaster220]

On 12/24/2025 at 11:01 AM, ChiTownSnow said:

Interesting comparison of 67 ,78, 2011 chicago blizzard 

 

Comparing the 1967, 1978, and 2011 storms is a masterclass in how different "ingredients" can create legendary Chicago winters. While they all brought the city to a standstill, their atmospheric "personalities" were quite different.

 

| Total Snow | 23.0 inches (Rank: #1) | 12.4 inches (at O'Hare) | 21.2 inches (Rank: #3) |

| Atmospheric Hook | Severe Temperature Shock | Explosive Pressure Drop | Thundersnow & Wind |

| Wind Gusts | ~53 mph | ~54 mph | 70 mph (Lakefront) |

| The "Vibe" | Total Surprise / Sudden | Brutal Arctic Cold | Modern Tech / High Drama |

1. The 1967 Blizzard: "The Sudden Shock"

The 1967 storm is famous for how it "blinded" the city. Just 48 hours before the snow, Chicago was basking in record 65°F weather.

 * Atmospheric Setup: A deep trough pulled moisture from the Gulf into a rapidly cooling atmosphere. Because the ground was so warm, the initial snow was heavy and wet.

 * The Surprise: Forecasting in 1967 lacked satellite imagery. People went to work and school as usual, only to have 23 inches fall in 29 hours. This led to the iconic image of 20,000+ cars and 800 buses abandoned on city streets.

2. The 1978 Storm: "The Pressure Bomb"

As we discussed, this wasn't just about snow; it was about the intensity of the low-pressure system.

 * Atmospheric Setup: This storm achieved bombogenesis (40\text{ mb} drop in 24 hours). While the center of the "Superbomb" was over Ohio, it created a massive "vacuum" that pulled Arctic air into Chicago.

 * The Impact: The snow was lighter and drier than in 1967, but because of the extreme pressure gradient, the wind didn't just move the snow—it carved it. Drifts reached the tops of ranch-style houses. It was the "coldest" of the three big events.

3. The 2011 Blizzard: "The Modern Powerhouse"

This storm is often remembered for the Lake Shore Drive disaster, where hundreds of motorists were stranded in near-hurricane-force winds.

 * Atmospheric Setup: Similar to 1978, it involved a "phasing" of the polar and subtropical jet streams. It was uniquely powerful due to Thundersnow—vigorous updrafts that caused lightning and snowfall rates of 2–3 inches per hour.

 * The Wind: This storm had the most violent winds of the three. A strong high-pressure system over Canada acted as a "brick wall" against the moving low, squeezing the air between them and creating 70 mph gusts along the lakefront.

Summary: Which was "Worst"?

 * 1967 remains the "King" for pure snowfall volume and the chaos of being caught off guard.

 * 1978 was the most meteorologically violent in terms of the "Superbomb" pressure drop.

 * 2011 was the most intense for wind and visibility, aided by modern media that captured the "Snowmageddon" in real-time.

Great write-up/summary. ‘78 ofc had the highest winds just not way over in Chicago. It’s pretty amazing that it was even that intense of a storm that far west. 

[Hoosier]

15 hours ago, jaster220 said:

Great write-up/summary. ‘78 ofc had the highest winds just not way over in Chicago. It’s pretty amazing that it was even that intense of a storm that far west. 

Pretty large pressure field in the 1978 storm.  The type of track was not the most classic one that you'd associate with heavy snow in Chicago.  If you draw a straight line between where it was at 12z on January 25 (central MS) and 12z January 26 (near the southern tip of Lake Huron), you'd think ok, not that bad of a track for Chicago.  But the actual track was more parabolic, going ene for a while from central MS before making a sharp turn more northerly once it got to eastern TN.  For Chicago to get a foot out of that is pretty good.  

I'm sure you've seen this before, but here's the weather map from the morning of January 26, 1978.  You know it's a big deal when they write special notes at the top.

[jaster220]

On 1/1/2026 at 1:59 PM, Hoosier said:

Pretty large pressure field in the 1978 storm.  The type of track was not the most classic one that you'd associate with heavy snow in Chicago.  If you draw a straight line between where it was at 12z on January 25 (central MS) and 12z January 26 (near the southern tip of Lake Huron), you'd think ok, not that bad of a track for Chicago.  But the actual track was more parabolic, going ene for a while from central MS before making a sharp turn more northerly once it got to eastern TN.  For Chicago to get a foot out of that is pretty good.  

I'm sure you've seen this before, but here's the weather map from the morning of January 26, 1978.  You know it's a big deal when they write special notes at the top.

Never be another sadly for us winter storm buffs. GOAT for most if not all of The Mitt minus the portion of SEMI that was buried by '67. I am familiar with the SLP being somewhere towards N GA when it got yanked NNW as the two troughs merged and explosive forces took control. There was a very in-depth research I used to have a link to that discovered there were 2 or 3 shortwaves that started NE but only the 4th (iirc) ended up taking off.  How much fun would it be to have this go down now with wx boards and what we have now. Ofc, you got to experience a direct hit with GHD-1 and I had just barely gotten on these websites back then. Looking at some maps of the time (TWC for one) I thought it was a slam-dunk that Marshall and most of SMI would share in a CAT-5 experience. But, I learned a new way nature and storms can turn out poorly forecast in the end. My 10" of wind-driven snow still technically verified the Bliz Warning but it was a far cry from double that which seemed to be the consensus leading up to the event. Bliz of '99 was bigger at 14-15" around Calhoun Cnty. Dec 2000 may have been even bigger for Marshall as Albion about 10 miles due east recorded 18"

[Hoosier]

16 hours ago, jaster220 said:

Never be another sadly for us winter storm buffs. GOAT for most if not all of The Mitt minus the portion of SEMI that was buried by '67. I am familiar with the SLP being somewhere towards N GA when it got yanked NNW as the two troughs merged and explosive forces took control. There was a very in-depth research I used to have a link to that discovered there were 2 or 3 shortwaves that started NE but only the 4th (iirc) ended up taking off.  How much fun would it be to have this go down now with wx boards and what we have now. Ofc, you got to experience a direct hit with GHD-1 and I had just barely gotten on these websites back then. Looking at some maps of the time (TWC for one) I thought it was a slam-dunk that Marshall and most of SMI would share in a CAT-5 experience. But, I learned a new way nature and storms can turn out poorly forecast in the end. My 10" of wind-driven snow still technically verified the Bliz Warning but it was a far cry from double that which seemed to be the consensus leading up to the event. Bliz of '99 was bigger at 14-15" around Calhoun Cnty. Dec 2000 may have been even bigger for Marshall as Albion about 10 miles due east recorded 18"

I also used to have a detailed paper about the 1978 storm.  Maybe it was the same one?  I believe it gave the surface low position/strength at 3 hour intervals.  Was really remarkable to watch it bomb like crazy.  

I was not where I am now for GHD.  It was mostly an epic wind driven sleet fest where I was, which was kind of interesting but not as good as a big snow would've been. 

[jaster220]

9 hours ago, Hoosier said:

I also used to have a detailed paper about the 1978 storm.  Maybe it was the same one?  I believe it gave the surface low position/strength at 3 hour intervals.  Was really remarkable to watch it bomb like crazy.  

I was not where I am now for GHD.  It was mostly an epic wind driven sleet fest where I was, which was kind of interesting but not as good as a big snow would've been. 

That's right I remember now, but you scored VD of '07 at that address right??

Oh how I really really miss the dynamic storms for our Lwr Lakes region.

Wouldn't you and @Tom luv to be reading an AFD like this??

 

[Hoosier]

1 hour ago, jaster220 said:

That's right I remember now, but you scored VD of '07 at that address right??

Oh how I really really miss the dynamic storms for our Lwr Lakes region.

Wouldn't you and @Tom luv to be reading an AFD like this??

 

Correct... was pretty much in the jackpot area in the 2007 storm.

Wow, that's a great find from the 1987 storm!  

[jaster220]

9 hours ago, Hoosier said:

Correct... was pretty much in the jackpot area in the 2007 storm.

Wow, that's a great find from the 1987 storm!  

We ofc read these online since the www came to be public, but who/where was the intended audience way back then? I had my NOAA Wx radio from ‘82 and never heard an AFD in the roughly 20 years it was my go-to source for the latest forecast.

[Hoosier]

2 hours ago, jaster220 said:

We ofc read these online since the www came to be public, but who/where was the intended audience way back then? I had my NOAA Wx radio from ‘82 and never heard an AFD in the roughly 20 years it was my go-to source for the latest forecast.

Something like what you posted would've appeared on an outlet like TWC.  I remember when the tv screen would switch to showing those kind of statements, or watches/warnings/advisories.  Later on it was just a scroll at the bottom of the screen.  

[jaster220]

4 hours ago, Hoosier said:

Something like what you posted would've appeared on an outlet like TWC.  I remember when the tv screen would switch to showing those kind of statements, or watches/warnings/advisories.  Later on it was just a scroll at the bottom of the screen.  

Yeah - my bad. Not sure why I called it an AFD when it was a SWS - duh. So, did the NWS always do the AFD's or is that a fairly recent development during the www era?

[Hoosier]

1 hour ago, jaster220 said:

Yeah - my bad. Not sure why I called it an AFD when it was a SWS - duh. So, did the NWS always do the AFD's or is that a fairly recent development during the www era?

Not sure when the AFD started.  I know they were originally intended to be read by other meteorologists, but obviously there's a wider swath of folks that read them now.

[Clinton]

The MJO is going to cause a problem after we get past the mid month cold shot. Moves into Phases 6 and 7 very warm for the Sub. It does move into 8 in early February, so a return to winter could happen for week 2.

[gimmesnow]

Ok, so while the snow was a burst, conditions up here are awesome. Snow River and Black River are excellent. The stuff in the trees is still somewhat soft, it's not powder but it's still soft, not icy underneath.

Things actually look good next week for Cascade and granite if this storm materializes. 

but I do have a question. how was it 18 and raining up here in bessemer? is it because lake Superior, or was it really warm in the higher atmosphere? or something else

[jaster220]

On 1/5/2026 at 3:53 PM, Clinton said:

The MJO is going to cause a problem after we get past the mid month cold shot. Moves into Phases 6 and 7 very warm for the Sub. It does move into 8 in early February, so a return to winter could happen for week 2.

So this was a FAIL by the models, eh?

[jaster220]

On 1/5/2026 at 6:10 PM, gimmesnow said:

Ok, so while the snow was a burst, conditions up here are awesome. Snow River and Black River are excellent. The stuff in the trees is still somewhat soft, it's not powder but it's still soft, not icy underneath.

Things actually look good next week for Cascade and granite if this storm materializes. 

but I do have a question. how was it 18 and raining up here in bessemer? is it because lake Superior, or was it really warm in the higher atmosphere? or something else

Yes - I didn't know anything about various temps throughout the layered atmosphere back in HS and in Jan '82 it was 19F and raining in SEMI. Made zero sense to me back then - now I know ofc it can and does happen at times. (I still don't like it tho)

[Clinton]

20 hours ago, jaster220 said:

So this was a FAIL by the models, eh?

No it actually verified.  Luckily other teleconnections ran the show or the plains wouldn't have had any winter. 

[Hoosier]

On 11/12/2025 at 11:04 PM, Hoosier said:

Ok here's my winter guess for Chicago.  More for fun than anything as long range winter forecasting is difficult to say the least and I just don't have the level of interest in it that some folks do.

Temps (DJF):  -1 to -3

Snowfall (first flake to last flake):  28-38"

 

Winter 2024-25 (DJF) was about -1 in Chicago, so I am calling for a similar or more likely colder winter this time.  Part of my reasoning is that I expect considerably more snowcover, enough to make a difference.  There was a serious dearth of snowcover for much of last winter not only in Chicago but also upstream farther north.  Out of the 90 days that make up DJF, Chicago had 1"+ snowcover on only 22 days and the peak depth was 3"... about as bad as it can get snowcover-wise for Chicago. 

I'm kind of torn about whether December or January will be coldest relative to average.  I don't think it will be February as I would expect the fairly common Nina progression of more southeast ridging/warmth in Feb.  

For snowfall, my call is purposely not snowier than average with my upper bound just at average.  Chicago averages 38", and the last 4 consecutive winters and 8 out of the last 10 have had below average snowfall.  Obviously there will be another above average snowfall winter at some point (with any luck, it will be 2025-26!) but it's hard for me to actually pull the trigger on that given the recent stretch.  If my snowfall range works out, it would be a rebound from the past few winters but obviously not anything huge.  Hopefully the snowfall can overperform.    

I'm going to assume that there will be no additional measurable snowfall in Chicago this season, or at least not enough to matter, so will grade this now.

DJF temp anomalies:

Prediction:  -1 to -3  ;  Actual:  -0.8

 

Snowfall first to last flake:

Prediction:  28-38"  ;  Actual:  34.1"

 

The temperature anomaly prediction seemed like it was going to be on track with the expectation of a warmer February after December and January were each more than 3 degrees colder than average, but the magnitude of the warmth in February was enough to put the DJF anomaly just outside of my range, with DJF finishing at -0.8.  The snowfall prediction ended up being right in range... almost right in the middle of the range.  The idea of a bounceback from the last several years -- but not a huge winter -- panned out fairly well, helped out by some early snowfall.  

Overall, I regard this as a pretty good call, especially given the lead time for things like this.  I would give it an A-/B+.  Worked out well enough to feed my ego into making a call next winter.