Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A) Los Angeles, California getting ZERO rain, not even a trace, for an entire winter season (November through April- the season where they get 90 percent of their rain anyway so it means almost zero rain for an entire year).
or
B) New York City, New York getting ZERO snowfall for an entire winter season (not even a trace of accumulation; flurries are acceptable if they don't stick) for the an entire winter season.
On another note, there is a possibility of an El Nino developing later this year that could impact the NEXT rainy season for the West Coast. Stay tuned...
72-73 had 2.7" and only a Trace not too far away in Philadelphia. I think there is a chance one winter in the next 100 years NYC will only have a Trace, but don't see how it can have zero. The no rain in LA would also be a very rare event if not impossible, but I think that has a better chance of happening.
Interesting question, both are very possible, but I really don't know which scenario is more likely.
LA's (Downtown) driest winter (1963-64) had 1.43" of rain.
NYC's (JFK) least snowiest winter (1972-73) had 1.60" of snow.
Being that snow isn't nearly as "wet" as rain, I'm leaning towards NYC, that 1.60" of snow had a much greater chance of being nothing compared to 1.43" of rain.
72-73 had 2.7" and only a Trace not too far away in Philadelphia. I think there is a chance one winter in the next 100 years NYC will only have a Trace, but don't see how it can have zero. The no rain in LA would also be a very rare event if not impossible, but I think that has a better chance of happening.
I remember there being a post by the Capital Weather Gang analysing snow at DCA, PHL, LGA, and BOS and their conclusion being that in recent years, small-accumulation events are decreasing in frequency but 10" (?) storms are becoming somewhat more common at New York and Boston.
Interesting question, both are very possible, but I really don't know which scenario is more likely.
LA's (Downtown) driest winter (1963-64) had 1.43" of rain.
NYC's (JFK) least snowiest winter (1972-73) had 1.60" of snow.
Being that snow isn't nearly as "wet" as rain, I'm leaning towards NYC, that 1.60" of snow had a much greater chance of being nothing compared to 1.43" of rain.
L.A has HAD rainless Januaries, Februaries, and Marches (although they were not consecutive) and if things continue the way they have been, we could have a January through March of 2014 with zero rainfall (L.A. had some light rainfall (but still well below average) in November and December so having a totally rainless winter is out of the question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
