https://www.ksl.com/?nid=978

All that really means is that normal is about zero this time of year, but there is still some snow down there this spring. Still, looks impressive.

I am impressed!

I thought we, in California, were doing superbly well on snowpack, but your number dwarfs ours.

According to Google: to date, the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains is 113 inches deep, and 153% of normal.

That’s great news for the Colorado River lakes. They’re way low.

Not a typo. It was 800ish percent yesterday. This sort of thing happens when the divisor in the percent calculation is very small, nearly zero

Most of the other state totals are also climbing, because “normal “ is now quite small



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2019 09:31PM by Brother Of Jerry.

They left off the asterisk in the SNOTEL report that informs that certain measurements are not accurate. Usually based on the time of year. It also happens if too many measurement sites are not available within a certain drainage basin.

in b 4 ~ the math is strong with this one OPie ~

The children!! Think of the children!!

Lake Mead is going to overflow and flood the Vegas Valley!!!

Who will save the children!!

Looks like a decimal point is missing.

Could it be 1983 all over again when State Street became a river? I hope not. I remember a previous big winter and then temperatures hitting 90 degrees in May. Big Cottonwood Creek caused havoc in our neighborhood.

Yeah, and in 1983 the mudslides down onto the Provo foothills were amazing and destructive.

OK, but is that amount based on gross or net?

Today the reported percentage is 8000%, which is essentially meaningless. They report a comparison of current snow cover to the amount of historically average snow cover.

If the historical average is very near zero, which it is in SE Utah in mid May, then the formula divides by a number very near zero to calculate the percentage. You all remember in grade school when the teacher said you can't divide by zero because the answer is infinite? You probably rolled your eyes and thought "WHAT-ever". Here is a situation that illustrates the problem.

The closer the historical average comes to zero, the higher the percentage is going to be. If the historical average snow cover becomes exactly zero (and we should be extremely close to that point) the formula blows up because of what your fifth grade teacher told you. It is in the process of blowing up right now. That's what 8000% means.

A comparative percentage of snow cover is useful information in the middle of winter. In the case of a winter with lots of snow, especially later that normal late season snow, comparing it to normal season snow cover is a problem. This year we are seeing that problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2019 03:25PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Wow. This is like doing limits in that elementary calculus class!

That is exactly what it is. This should trigger flashbacks for all those who climbed the hill of differential calculus. It's a practical application of what probably felt like pretty abstract theory.

And while "you can't divide by zero" is covered somewhere in late grade school, it rears its ugly head again in algebra and again in calculus, where it is often not obvious that a "divide by zero" situation is buried in a formula.

BTW, the figure went up to 8,500% during the day today. I'm curious as to how high it can go. Yeah, I'm easily entertained!

8000 percent ? Does that mean 8000 per hundred ? I cringe whenever I hear "110 percent".

SE Utah Snowpack is Two thousand nine hundred and thirty-three percent of normal?

Uh...

https://www.standard.net/news/environment/utah-s-snowpack-in-great-shape-for/article_086b4436-10fd-5040-b638-2f8bd79be6d6.html

>>By the end of March the amount of water contained in Utah’s snowpack — called the snow water equivalent (SWE) — was 40% higher than normal. In 2018 the snowpack was 36% below normal.

There's more snow than normal, which is nice, but it isn't all that much higher.

Right now in SE Utah, "normal" is no snow at all, so if there is any snow, it is approaching "infinite percentage above normal"

(current snow amount) / (normal snow amount) = infinity if normal snow amount is zero.

The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes statistics can be grossly misleading, and here's an excellent example happening right before our eyes.

We've all heard the aphorism: there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

"So what exactly do we need the statistics to say"?

“Damn it Jim, I’m a statistician not a magician.”